Abortions

[ILikeyourHairyHands]

I'm not sure MN is the place for women to come for advice about abortions as so many forced-birthers or even 'I could never have an abortion" people/shills come on to every thread where a woman's in a terrible situation and is wavering.

I would advocate abortion in every circumstance a woman will be tied to an abusive man, I really hate the rhetoric that abortions are to be regretted or will cause pain. I think that the idea that abortions are or should be regretful or morally bound is very harmful to women.

Morally I agree with termination up until birth. I know that's an inflammatory position, but I think it's an humane one. And one that would be chosen by few desperate women.

But I think until the point of birth a woman must have volition in law.

I keep saying until birth because I've had five abortions from 8 to 18 weeks. I understand why women have abortions.

It should never be vilified.

I'm a very confident woman. I'm very sure about my choices. I also know that not everyone is as advantaged as me. I can see that women find themselves in
circumstances that are less than ideal. I advocate for women who find themselves in difficult circumstances.

I am not making mad statements in order to vilifie women or make their choices seem unsteady.

I agree with termination and it being a womans choice for whatever reason. No contraception is 100% accidents happen, rape happens etc.

Since having my daughter and her being in special care amongst 23 weekers that were alive and fighting every step of the way I would say that the age at which a pregnancy can be terminated needs to be reduced ie 20 weeks gestation.

It is wrong that in uk a termination in uk needs to be signed off by 2 doctors the whole process is pretty humiliating.

After having my daughter and a miscarriage personally I could not ever have another termination although it was the right decision.at the time.

It is something I have thought about over the years and i'm more at peace with it now than 10 years ago.

But it should be free and accessible to every woman. The backstreet abortions of years ago cost lives and thats not something we should go back to in a civilised world.

I advocate until birth abortions because I believe in female autonomy and I don't believe that a child has autonomy until the mother expels that child.

Juli and any other woman that has had a premature child, I do hope the best for you, but you can't equate a wanted child at 20 weeks with a woman who is 20 weeks pregnant and does not want that child.

They are different women and different babies.

There's nothing wrong with not wanting a baby that is viable.

Playing devils advocate slightly here.... but I have always understood the pro choice argument to be about what a woman does with her own body, that she should not be forced to carry on being a life support system to a child if she no longer wanted her body used in that way.

Obviously, at early gestations stopping that use of her body would mean that the foetus dies too, no way round it.

When you get to TOPs over 22 weeks, the best practice requires foeticide to be performed first. So let’s say the TOP performed for social reasons as 39 weeks, this would require a doctor to perform fetocide first, on a perfectly healthy baby, and then induce labour. Why not just induce labour, which removes the burden upon the woman’s body and restores her autonomy? Leaving the baby to be adopted and grasp life as best it can? Why abortion, when induction would achieve the same effect?

Caveat: I arrange TOPFAs for a living and consider myself pro choice.

But why should the baby be adopted? Why should the woman be seen as not having volition?

What do you mean not having volition?

Choice

That's what volition is. Surely.

Ok

I’m really sorry I’m not getting it. What choice is she not getting?

She wants autonomy over her body. She is 39 weeks pregnant and no longer wants to be, which I agree to be her choice as a moral position. Why demand fetocide when induction would achieve the same?

I think what you are arguing for is the right if the woman to demand the death of the baby inside her when she no longer wishes for that baby to be alive. Which is not the same as demanding that the baby inside of her be removed from inside of her when she no longer wishes it to be there. And the first statement I have yet to hear an argument for that convinces me it is a reasonable moral position.

Interesting point Fast. I guess there's something about that adoption that those women don't want, as they always have the adoption option but choose not to have a child at all. So if we accept it's their right and choice, and highly personal, I guess we must accept that their choice trumps the ever-present option of adoption. It's their business and theirs alone. I haven't had a late abortion so I don't know why people choose it. I imagine there is something hugely significant about birthing a child and giving it up, but being it's lifelong birth mother, or having a secerely-disabled child, that some women would decide they didn't want. Particularly if the child was conceived through rape or abuse.

Gosh your point of view helps me with a situation I found myself inadvertently supporting. She needed accommodation out of area after late term procedure that o was able to arrange and did so as an oustsider to her, made more difficult after as i found out the grandad was a close friend of mine. A secret I will take to the grave

Like the violinist argument, where a woman wakes up to find herself the life support system for a world famous violinist and is told she is keeping the violinist alive, which is often used as an allegory for TOP. We can all understand it and get it.

Near term abortions are a bit like the woman deciding she wants to disconnect from the violinist and the doctors saying “ok, well you’ve almost done the full time connected up to bring the violinist back to full health.... it’s not 100% ideal but it’s 98% ideal and actually we will disconnect you now and the violinist will be fine” and the woman saying “no, disconnect me and also kill the violinist”.

I’m not saying it can’t be justified and I’m open minded to it.... but I’d like to hear people’s thoughts as I can’t get there myself.

I think the choice bit you're not getting is that the woman doesn't want to be a mother to that child at that time. If forced to have it and give it up, she has been forced to be a mother to that child. Which denies her choice.

I had an abortion at 18 and I was relieved when it was over, I was only about 7 weeks gone but I felt sick constantly so it was a relief to not be pregnant anymore!

I don’t get why some people think abortions will effect you for life, obviously if the pregnancy and/or situation surrounding it was traumatic then it would be hard, but I’d say that if you don’t want a child then abortion is a choice, having kids isn’t for every women.

Fast I guess if we don't think people should be forced to be shackled to the violinist (slavery), they should be able to unshackle at any point. How would anyone ethically decide how near the violinists recovery (or baby's birth) is the cut-off where suddenly ethically it's okay to enslave that person? It kind of just isn't okay ever. Do you would surely struggle to say 'yeah but it's okay for a week/a month' wouldn't you?

Sorry, You would surely, not Do you...

Agree completely. But induction achieves it. Once the baby is out of you you can get up and walk out the hospital without looking back (in our hypothetical example of a woman wanting an abortion at 39 weeks). Does one also have the right to demand the death of that baby?

Hence in the violinist example, being unshackled from the violinist and them being totally fine, but demanding their death anyway.

C'mon.

I get your thinking but where the violinist-baby analogy maybe fails is the impact on that woman of birthing that baby and forever being the mother of a living being somewhere out there. The fact that people do choose this over your (apparently logical and reasonable) induction option suggests it is intolerable for them to consider birthing and walking away. With adoption you can't really fully walk away free, as stories of women who've given up babies and lived with the emotional consequences suggest. Plus society judges women harshly who don't want or don't feel it's ethical to birth a severely disabled child, so birthing that baby and giving it away is presumably an intolerable option otherwise more women would choose induction. None of this has happened to me so I don't know how people might feel, but it must be the most painful decision for those women and I would want them to be supported in that choice, given they alone know their circumstances and wishes.

I am pro choice, however I do believe there has to be a cut off, except for medical reasons.

I think the current cut off at 24 weeks is reasonable. I do understand that a woman giving birth is never completely free from the baby, even after adoption, but aborting a fetus which could potentially live outside the womb seems very wrong to me.

As early as possible, as late as necessary.
I've had two abortions, at 23 and 35. First one 16 weeks due to a hospital cock up in getting me the date, ended up going private. Second one 8 weeks, went straight to private clinic.
I have no issue in talking to women about my experiences, and no shame. I have never wanted children.

I support the right of women to have complete autonomy over their bodies throughout the entirety of their pregnancy.

I support women.