For Women: Thoughts on Late-Term Abortion?

[Shadow Wolf]

What do you think should be done if a woman wants to go ahead with a late-term abortion when it is not deemed medically necessary by her doctors? That is, where does one draw the line between that and killing a newborn child?

Then let her proceed. Some women don't know they are pregnant until late term. Some don't even know until they are delivering their baby. Sometimes things outside of her control happens. It's not our place to judge or make assumptions.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Thanks. This is quite informative; I didn't know about the case you mentioned.

What do you believe should be done if the woman doesn't want to go through forced labor or a C-section but her life also wouldn't be in danger in case of no abortion?

Nothing. I'm against legal requirements in such situations and even though I have moral qualms with it, it's between her and her doctor.

 

[SomeRandom]

Can I just point out that this is probably the first time someone has cottoned on to the idea that abortion affects women specifically. It’s all been debates with cis men weighing in on a medical decision that, let’s be real here, they never will fully experience. Only by proxy. That’s a bit messed up, no?

Anyway I’m staunchly pro choice, including late term abortions. Even if they’re elected, though I personally balk at such a circumstance.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

it's between her and her doctor.

That is all any of us need concern ourselves with.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Can I just point out that this is probably the first time someone has cottoned on to the idea that abortion affects women specifically. It’s all been debates with cis men weighing in on a medical decision that, let’s be real here, they never will fully experience. Only by proxy. That’s a bit messed up, no?

Anyway I’m staunchly pro choice, including late term abortions. Even if they’re elected, though I personally balk at such a circumstance.

In this situation, woman wants an abortion, the man doesn't, I have a hard time envisioning such a relationship being healthy and the environment being good for the child, especially if the man is insistent he gets his way even though it's not his body. If he desires children that much he should find a partner who shares this desire. It's not his place to force a woman through a pregnancy she doesn't want. Women aren't men's baby factories to control.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Then let her proceed. Some women don't know they are pregnant until late term. Some don't even know until they are delivering their baby. Sometimes things outside of her control happens. It's not our place to judge or make assumptions.

If the fetus would be viable outside of the womb and the abortion weren't medically necessary, how would an abortion in such case be different from killing a newborn, in your opinion?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Nothing. I'm against legal requirements in such situations and even though I have moral qualms with it, it's between her and her doctor.

Given that you have a moral issue with late-term abortion when it's not medically necessary, what do you think would be the downsides to legally treating it as a murder? And conversely, what would be the upsides to not treating it as such?

 

[SomeRandom]

In this situation, woman wants an abortion, the man doesn't, I have a hard time envisioning such a relationship being healthy and the environment being good for the child, especially if the man is insistent he gets his way even though it's not his body. If he desires children that much he should find a partner who shares this desire. It's not his place to force a woman through a pregnancy she doesn't want. Women aren't men's baby factories to control.

I agree, wholeheartedly. And yet look who legislates it. More often than not it’s cis men. Cis men use abortion to control and punish women. The same men who scream about wanting smaller government. And do they do anything other than try to legislate it? Safety nets for the child and mother? Sex Ed? Contraception access?
I’m lucky in that as far as I’m aware, abortion is fully legal I think even late term where I live

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I agree, wholeheartedly. And yet look who legislates it. More often than not it’s cis men. Cis men use abortion to control and punish women. The same men who scream about wanting smaller government. And do they do anything other than try to legislate it? Safety nets for the child and mother? Sex Ed? Contraception access?
I’m lucky in that as far as I’m aware, abortion is fully legal I think even late term where I live

Men making all the legislative decisions about it is a problem. In America the Republicans especially are known for sending all men to discuss women's health issues. That just should not be, even if they rule favorably.

 

[SomeRandom]

Men making all the legislative decisions about it is a problem. In America the Republicans especially are known for sending all men to discuss women's health issues. That just should not be, even if they rule favorably.

Amen to that, sister.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If the fetus would be viable outside of the womb and the abortion weren't medically necessary, how would an abortion in such case be different from killing a newborn, in your opinion?

I want to dismiss this as libertarian choice and the fine points of legalities (the pesky technicalities), but I also want to give a better and more fleshed out response. That's rather difficult, especially when we consider premature births.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Given that you have a moral issue with late-term abortion when it's not medically necessary, what do you think would be the downsides to legally treating it as a murder? And conversely, what would be the upsides to not treating it as such?

Downside, like I said earlier, would be doctors second guessing medical cases out of fear of reprimand and causing suffering to patients. It also takes the determination of medical risk out of doctor's hands and puts it in the hands of non-professionals. What if someone is having pre-eclapsia and is not at risk *yet* but looks like they are one complication away from a fatal bleed? What if someone's life isn't in danger but the consequence of the birth is severe enough where it will cause lifelong complications, prevent the mother from working or properly caring for her family? Who should make those decisions other than the patient and doctor?

The only upside I can see is that it would be consistent with my beliefs in bodily autonomy. Once the fetus can survive outside the womb then measures should be taken, in my opinion, to allow it to do so where possible. But, imo, there's lots of situations where I don't think the moral situation can be translated into legal compulsion without a lot of damage. I think this is one such situation.

 

[Quintessence]

Would you mind elabroating on the highlighted part? I'm interested to know more. How should such regulation be enforced, in your opinion?

That's really complicated, and probably better suited for an entirely different thread. A few things I'll mention about that though since it relates rather directly to how I feel about the thread topic.

First, regulation of population by itself is insufficient to deal with the I=PAT equation. Policies regulating population (P) would also need to be coupled with policies regulating the resource-intensiveness of technology (T) and the resource-intensiveness of consumption (A) to get the human impact (I) on the environment to more sustainable levels.

Second, none of that is necessarily easy and the means of implementation would necessarily depend on the country's form of governance. In a country like the United States, the way to do it is with various regulatory oversight and laws. Just looking at the P (population) part of the equation, an essential first step is a combination of treating women as equal citizens under the law and providing equal access to necessary health care. In the United States the major factor isn't so much the population part of the I=PAT equation, it's the other two factors.

It is a very big, very messy, very complicated issue.

Also, my conflicting feelings on this issue primarily result from the idea of aborting a fetus when it would be viable outside the womb. Barring cases where doing so is deemed medically necessary to save the mother's life, what, if anything, do you think makes it different from killing a newborn?

I'm not a medical doctor, so I have no idea on the specific medical needs for such things.

As for the rest, I look at the big picture, for which the I=PAT equation (a concept from environmental ethics) is very relevant. To keep a long story short, overwhelming majority of human history has been characterized by a relatively "balanced" human-nature relationship that the past couple centuries have upended into something monstrously dysfunctional. The result has been impoverishment of the biosphere including a sixth mass extinction event and climate change. In addition to being mindful of the I=PAT equation, I'm also not anthropocentric. In this context that means I don't put human life on a pedestal over all other considerations (aka, human life is not sacrosanct). Neither abortion or infanticide are problematic under these assumptions and that's being as kind as possible about it.

I look forward to the day when holding human life as sacrosanct is no longer analogous to saving the tree while damning the forest. Between now and then, I'll advocate for free birth control in any form for all humans as well as women's rights because it empowers women to be able to say "no" to being a breeder. And there are other things to advocate for the other bits of the I=PAT equation.

 

[InChrist]

Best to leave them legal to free them up for women who do need them so care is not delayed over worry of legalities.
And, ultimately, healthcare is between a patient and her (or his) doctor. It's no one else's business. Everyone else with their opinions, their morality, and their objections can bugger off. It's not their business, it's not their place, it's not their body, it's not their life.

But it’s NOT only their body or their life . The baby has a body and a life that is being killed. Would you stand by and watch someone kill their two week old baby and say, “It’s their business “? But you are saying that about someone who would kill their child two weeks before their baby’s due date.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But you are saying that about someone who would kill their child two weeks before their baby’s due date.

It is strictly between her and her doctor. As it is a medical procedure, we are not entitled to this legally protected and tightly sealed information.
An infant that has been born cannot pose a risk to the mother's health and life as could a fetus two weeks from birth.

But it’s NOT only their body or their life . The baby has a body and a life that is being killed.

And a great number of them have killed their mothers as they come into this world. Sometimes neither survives. But we can today at least save the mother in many circumstances. Because of this even late term abortion should be legal, because if there are any legal questions then help to spare an easily preventable death may come too late. Certain requirements may create unreasonable barriers and restrictions during an emergency. These things happen, there needs to be full clearance for necessary abortions, even late term. And, late term abortions are rare and very often because either there is danger to the mother or there were delays in care and obstacles to clear that prevented an abortion sooner. One of those two issues is very easily addressed and reduced. There other is why we need clearance for abortions, everyone and their opinions and morality can butt out between a patient and her doctor.

 

[syo]

As a woman, do you believe abortion should have a specific limit after which it becomes restricted to specific circumstances or banned altogether? And if not, what do you think is the best approach to abortion from a legal standpoint?

My only comment about abortion is that, if a woman becomes pregnant by force and against her own will (rape, sex slave, etc), the law and society in general shouldn't force her to keep the child. If society wants abortions to stop, then they should target rapists and everyone who forces women to have sex against the women's will.

As for one-night-stands, etc., the lawmakers can do whatever they want. Here, money talks. But I pity the unborn kid that will be killed because their parents were too drunk.