I think perhaps people confuse exactly what being pro-choice entails.
It dictates that a woman has the right to terminate a *pregnancy*, yes? To evict a foetus from her body, because it's her body and she should be able to choose what she does with it.
It does not necessarily follow that she should be allowed to choose the fate of that foetus. So... If a woman is 30 weeks pregnant, a pro-choice stance could allow her to induce labour, but not to kill the foetus or to deny it medical assistance after birth.
As for how this logic applies to the OP, a 19 week old foetus cannot live outside the womb, therefore if I'm to be pro-choice I have to respect that not all choices will sit well with me :/
Last edited by lambjam; 29-04-2013 at 20:08.
Last edited by RobinSparkles; 29-04-2013 at 21:05.
I have an issue with pro-choice being defined as being able to choose an abortion at any stage of a pregnancy. I get that we are talking miniscule numbers (if any) but in theory this means that a woman who is due to give birth (so the baby is full term) can opt for an abortion for no medical reason, she could abort purely because she has now changed her mind. I can't agree with this. I don't know where that line should be drawn but I think it's ok to want to draw a line somewhere. That might be something like after 24 weeks an abortion can only be obtained if it meets certain criteria.
Sassymummy has explained being pro choce Very well and it's exactly my feelings on the subject. I will never feel comfortable with everyone's reason for terminating at any stage in pregnancy and sometimes a story pops up like this whole gender thing that makes me go huh say what! But in the end it her body her choice it's not my body or my baby therefore my feeliñgs on the matter count for nothing IYKWIM
And yes being pro choice (though I myself would never and I want to make that VERY clear) If a woman wanted to evict that baby from her body for any which reason at 30+ weeks then that should be here decision to do so. (My personal choice would be not to but that's MY choice for ME) and this would be hers.
This might make others uncomfortable and please don't shoo me down in flames. Tbh for myself I would not abort ever unless medically necessary but why should my choice be Made to be other woman's choices.
Sent from a magical mobile bubhub device in a galaxy far far away
Last edited by MonsterMoosMum; 29-04-2013 at 20:28.
You know what happens when that isn't the case? Women are imprisoned for their birth choices if someone else deems that those choices MAY be detrimental to the baby (and this is all a matter of opinion - nobody can foresee the future, so whether or not it's harmful or not can only be seen after it's already happened).
A woman is not an incubator, and she should never ever be treated like one.
Because a baby is INSIDE a woman, because it relies on her to continue living, then there is no way that BOTH can have equal rights. So... one has to lose some rights in order for the other to be given rights. If we take away the rights of a pregnant mother in preference of her baby, what we're saying is that women are lesser if they fall pregnant... because we are stripping them of rights they otherwise had to their own body, just because they have a baby in there. We're saying pregnant women do not deserve the same rights as anyone else has to their own bodies. That, to me, is revolting.
It would be nice if we could grant rights to the unborn, but the only way to do that is to decide that a grown, existing woman is worth less than it is... and that's never going to be okay. It makes women little more than incubators.
The MOMENT that baby takes its first breath, it gets all the rights in the world... but until that point, it is inside another's body, and the owner of that body deserves to decide what happens with it.
Don't think for a second that this means I am happy when I hear of late-term abortions, "just because." I don't understand it. I don't understand why anyone would just go, "yeah, I'd rather not after all actually..." and abort at that stage. There are instances where it makes sense - medical issues with either mother or baby, severe circumstances, etc. But mostly, to me, if you're having a late term abortion, you're still having to have that baby removed from your body... so you still need to give birth to it, so why not just give birth to it and give it away to someone who wants it? If it can survive outside of the uterus and you're going to have to give birth to it anyway, I don't understand why people wouldn't do that instead... but I'm NOT someone who has ever considered a late-term abortion. I haven't experienced the things others have. I don't have their ethics and morals and values. Therefore, I acknowledge that while it makes no sense to me, and I believe there's a better alternative, not everyone is me, with my way of thinking... and expecting everyone to live according to what I deem acceptable is just as stupid as everyone living according to the way the Westborough Baptist Church deems acceptable, the way Sharia Law deems acceptable, the way oppressive China deems acceptable.
It's not really my place to tell everyone how they should live, and what they should do with their bodies, regardless of how I feel on the matter... and likewise I don't want anyone else thinking they have the right to decide what I do with my own uterus or its contents either.
And it is so very hard to talk about when life "begins," especially when you're talking with women who have lost babies. There's no way you can say, "life before birth doesn't matter," when you've seen women's hearts break for going through a miscarriage, or having a stillbirth. To me it's not about that... when or not life actually begins. It's about the fact that for the unborn to have all these rights, then the pregnant woman has to lose rights that she would otherwise have (the right to make decisions regarding her own body and its contents) at any other stage in her life.
It's just never going to be something I think is right or fair or just... so instead, I acknowledge that women are going to use the pro-choice sentiment to do horrific things to their bodies, to the contents of their bodies... but that this stance is still important regardless, because without it, we have condemned many women who WOULDN'T do things even staunch pro-choicers would feel sick at the thought of... there are so many more women who use abortions "properly," (for want of a better word) than there are who abuse the right by doing things most others would call heinous.
I'm just confused as to if you can even 'abort' a healthy baby that is old enough to live outside your body? Once you reach a certain gestation your only choice is to be induced or a c-section, so if the baby is healthy enough and old enough to live outside the mothers body then it would survive the birth and be born alive... And then if the mother didn't want it she would sign over her rights??? How can you abort a baby that is old enough and healthy enough to live outside you? I am sure a dr has a responsibility to protect the baby's life at that point? Am I being naive?
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!
Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!