Please can we talk about what "pro choice" means?

[BertrandRussell]

Some threads on here, and coincidentally, a couple of real life conversations prompted by a recent television programme, have made me think that there is an attempt to erode the meaning of the term. For me, pro choice means that a woman should be able to have an abortion within the law because she wants to. Her reasons are immaterial.

I also think the 'abortion of a late term baby brings closure' argument is madness. Most people are OK with abortion up to a point - the point where the foetus becomes viable and has all the attributes of a baby.

I would be willing to bet that the stats for psychological well being for women aborting after this point reflect how much harder this decision is to make peace with, and the possibility for longer term harm (which cannot be known beforehand) to the woman.

Very late abortions at say 8 months as suggested upthread may seem attractive at the time. But given that most people countenance abortion by reasoning that a foetus isn't a baby and compartmentalising that life form from the life of a baby, isn't there a huge risk that the person's mental health then rests on their ability to continue to convince themselves that the life they carried was not a baby? Isn't there likely to be a strong element of panic-fueled denial of what the child looks like and is? And what happens if and when that shatters with more time to reflect and perhaps more children?

When abortion related trauma is mentioned on mn, women always volunteer the information that they didn't experience it so it can be dismissed as a bit of a myth. It's not possible to take that line with late term abortions because so little is known about the complex psychological and emotional ramifications. I'm not sure that saying 'closure' is an adequate response to the very pertinent and obvious question 'how on earth would your average woman cope with knowing they'd done this? '. And I think there is a danger that trumpeting about women's rights to terminate at any time for any reason could lead other women to believe that this is an easy issue, not a complex one, and there won't be any psychological fall out.

I had an abortion at 18 weeks and 5 days. I had to travel to get it. I still have nightmares. (Fatal abnormality) I've had counselling. It was useless.

*fetal

Although fatal works I suppose.

You didn't have a termination, so your dd is irrelavant to the point the pp made. I think you misunderstood it entirely

I don't think I misunderstood at all. My dd has DS, which means I could have terminated my pregnancy at any point up until the onset of labour, regardless of cardiac/neurological issues or the lack thereof, based purely on her extra chromosome. She was/is perfectly healthy and so pp's point that late terminations are only carried out on babies with 'massive abnormalities' is not necessarily the case.

And no Dr is going to think that aborting a healthy, viable foetus at term, is medically appropriate. So how can we demand it? And why would the medics be unreasonable in refusing? I don't get it

I think you 'd be very hard pushed to find one, yes. Which is another reason why we don't need a law to tell us we are not allowed to do it. Thats my point entirely, we don't need to legally regulate abortion because practicality and common sense will do it for us. And if some poor woman was so desperate as to do what someone did a while back and try and end her pregnancy herself at a late stage, she shouldn't be criminalised for it. It's her body.

The on demand up to term is more a moral problem with arbitrary lines being drawn by politicians than any actual expectation of access to late term abortion on demand. Does that make sense?

Technically all abortions are illegal though.

Bertrand you could pull your weight a bit more.

Cedric and auser- I haven't actually engaged with either of you - despite you poking me with sticks - because I am pretty sure that anything I said would be read as confirmation of your preconceptions. And, frankly, I can't be bothered. I have tried to be thoughtful and measured, but it's just not good enough for you. Sorry about that.

But I d have to say that objecting to me posting on one thread then objecting when I try to have the same discussion on another one is a bit ridiculous. I presume you have reported this thread to MNHQ?

Of course all this talk about a woman's choice and her bodily autonomy could well be absolute bollocks. I would imagine a high percentage would be there because someone else had decided for them. Partner doesn't want to be a dad now, parents think you're too young, partner and/or parents say it's the wrong sex etc......

So no more "autonomy" than we have now really.

It may make you uncomfortable, the idea of abortion on demand to term (I have to admit I wouldn't wish that situation on anyone) but to me, anything else is taking away a woman's autonomy and forcing her to carry and give birth to a child she doesn't want. There might be all sorts of terrible terrible reasons why she couldn't have an abortion and needed one at term, look at the Isis sex slaves for instance, but it doesn't matter the reason. If women are people and are equal, they deserve to be trusted to make decisions about their own bodies.
If you put a limit on it, you take away control, you make decisions about what happens to my body. For me, the cut off point is once the baby is born. Up until birth then I support a woman's right to choose what happens to her body.

But because "some" women might do it for the "wrong" reasons isn't a reason to take away all women's autonomy over their bodies.

So user you are in favour of options around abortion that you don't imagine anyone will ever use? Are you saying late term abortions shouldn't be criminalised or should actually be available? Two very different things. And are you saying that they should be theoretically available in the comfortable knowledge that this matters not a jot because no one would agree to do it so they never will be available?

If so, that seems meaningless, hypocritical and complacent not to mention wholly unfair to the medical profession because they will then be obliged to be their own ethics committee on a case by case basis and have to justify doing /not doing things that they don't have to consider now -and which you seem to think that no one with ' practicality and common sense' would consider.

Have I said that gone? Do please show in my posts where I have said anything like that. Thanks.

Bird the irony is, that if abortion to term, on demand, was made legal, it opens the door for people with a 'vested interest' to exert further pressure, for longer, upon a woman to have an, (late, more complicated than earlier) abortion, when she does not want one. So, potentially, effectively offering women less autonomy that they have now.

Jane gets pregnant.
Tom is happy.
Tom starts having doubts.
Tom tries to persuade Jane to have an abortion.
Jane doesn't want one.
Tom brow beats Jane and issues an ultimatum.
Jane goes ahead with a late term abortion.

Is that bodily autonomy?

Because I actually think that that scenario is a damn sight more likely than Jane just deciding after 30 weeks of pregnancy that she just doesn't want it anymore.

I think I get it. But if it wasn't a legal thing and was purely medical, even fewer abortions would be carried out, at all stages, as there would not be a medical need for them (yes, some for psychiatric and mother's health reasons, but the Drs would take far more notice of the forms if they aren't protected in law, because ending a foetal life goes against medical ethics otherwise). So social reasons would be excluded.

Also, if only vanishingly few women would access late term abortions, why is it such a big focus? Surely, as a previous poster said, it would help more women to put the focus on being able to access abortion where it is currently unavailable.

Also, of course we need laws. Not all women CAN be trusted to make the right decision - mental capacity would be a huge grey area here in terms of learning difficulties and mental health issues (which tend to ramp up in the third trimester as medication is titrated down to avoid it affecting the baby during labour). So if someone was mentally unwell and they wanted an abortion suddenly and there was no law to stop them, how will they feel when they are well again and might have made a different choice? It worries me for women.

I realize that late term abortion is an essential part of the discussion. But just for information, late term means anything after 20 weeks. And that constitutes 1% of abortions in the U.K. And the circumstances in which medics would agree and a woman would want a late abortion would be pretty tragic.

I don't trust all women not to kill their babies. Which side of the placenta they're on doesn't affect that - it's still exactly the same viable child who is able to feel pain etc and with a life that has value.

I care more that the child (who has to be born whether dead or alive) is treated well and respected than that a woman in late pregnancy has full bodily autonomy.

I care more that said child has an opportunity to grow up in one of the many available loving families than that a woman is able to 'forget'-if she really does.

I'm fully supportive of all contraception, counselling and every other form of support being available to women. I just think it's wrong to kill babies and ludicrous to suggest a viable unborn child isn't a baby.

Also, if only vanishingly few women would access late term abortions, why is it such a big focus? Surely, as a previous poster said, it would help more women to put the focus on being able to access abortion where it is currently unavailable

It's the pro-life lobby that make it a focus, in a "look what they'd be up to if they weren't stopped" kind of way. Those of us who work in abortion rights very rarely talk about it. It's a theoretical thing, its not a focus.

Not you Auser user 147

I don't trust all women not to kill their babies

It's this kind of misogyny that I'm talking about.

It seems to be overwhelmingly a focus actually. You're prepared to tell everyone who doesn't agree with you that they are not pro choice!

It seems to be overwhelmingly a focus actually. You're prepared to tell everyone who doesn't agree with you that they are not pro choice!

Not at all. I'm merely saying that its difficult to accept that pro-choice actually means pro choice up to a point and then no choice.
You can't just say a term means whatever you want it to, you have to be able to justify the terminology.

Women do occasionally kill their children. Therefore we have legal protection for children and safety nets for children in danger of being harmed by a parent. If you think it doesn't happen you're naive. Women aren't incapable of wrongdoing.

A lot of people equally seem to think 'pro-choice' means if I don't agree with the circumstances of your pregnancy, your lifestyle, your financial position, the number of you children you have, then I will look down on you/berate you/belittle you for choosing not to have an abortion. I've seen those types of views spouted on here plenty of times.
That's just as bad in my book.