Abortion at 38 Weeks: A Thought Experiment?

[formergothardite]

It is up to the doctor and mother. But she considers it the same as infanticide or murder. But thinks doctors should be making the decision on something she considers murder.

Which is just boggling to me. I need me some formergothardite n here...she always deals with the whole abortion is murder thing well.I wish we could stop with using the word murder to describe anything that isn't murder. Like abortion. It has a word...we can even discuss these things that make us uncomfortable or even that we consider a moral wrong by using that word. Since murder and infanticide mean something different.

Also, I am so tired of my abortion being the "moral abortion" but the teenager who gets an abortion at 25 weeks just doing something horrible.

I went to bed early. :lol:

[Ramona]

This is an area in which I feel very lost and mixed up.... I was very "prolife" for many years, following the stance of the Christian churches/etc... and then when I first walked away from that lifestyle, I jumped fully onto the "prochoice" platform - from one extreme to the complete other -- I defended anyone and everyone's right to do whatever they wanted with their own body and so forth.....

over time.. i started feeling very guilty for that. i just didn't truly believe what i was saying, what i was defending.. i don't feel like it's "just a fetus" or "clump of cells" or (what's the word - zygote or something?), or any of that (commonly used terms in the arguments between pro-life and pro-choice peeps) .... i *do* feel that it's a baby - a human being.

so.. i'm lost. i just don't know what to think about it anymore. i'm "supposed" to feel like it's the woman's choice, i'm "supposed" to be 100% 'pro-choice', defending woman's rights, etc etc... that's the default position within the 'community' in which i now belong/identify... but i just don't feel that way.

someone in this thread said that feelings don't matter - but they do, because it's the feelings/beliefs/etc of individuals that end up creating the standards and whatever under which we live... know what i mean? it's a group of people who write the laws and all that...

i wouldn't be able to sign my support to or agreement of a law that said "yes, any abortions for any woman at any time" ...

i could support "in the event of severe medical complications" ~ meaning a baby who could not be carried to term, a mother who could not physically survive the pregnancy, those sorts of things..... but then you get the grey fuzzy stuff... people want "severe" and "medical" defined --- and who defines it, who decides it, etc etc etc... so that gets complicated.... and what about the whole "right to her own body" stuff...

i can't support "NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES" because that kills people. (medical complications, self induced abortions, etc etc etc) ...

so i don't know....

anyone else ever found themselves in this messy uncertain area? how do you choose your position? and what do you do if you feel like you "should" choose a certain position, but yet it goes against your conscience? everytime i try to push myself back over to the 100% pro-choice camp, i get awful feelings of guilt and just... like i'm doing something wrong.

/chatter

[formergothardite]

If it is murder, then why would you allow it unless you also think parents should be able to take their babies to the doctor and get to choose to euthanize them?

If it is murder, then do you think women who have abortions after 24 weeks should be put in jail for murdering their baby?

It seems like you are okay with people murdering what you consider babies. I don't know if that is how you are meaning to present your argument, but that is how it is coming off as, at least to me.

If we are going to go with totally wouldn't happen in real life situations, like with the idea a woman just gets bored with being pregant and goes and has an abortion at 38 weeks, here is my situation:

A fundie wife who has been wanting to escape finally does. She already has five children. She is pregnant. By the time she gets enough money and support to leave she is in the third trimester. She knows she can't support another child, she knows that if she gives birth to it her fundie husband will not allow her to have it adopted by another family, he will take full custody and this child will be raised with Pearl methods and indoctrinated with harmful religious beliefs. So she decides to abort because she would rather have an abortion than bring a child into that situation.

Should she be allowed to do that?

[2xx1xy1JD]

I draw a sharp distinction between the question of "what is moral for a pregnant woman to do?" and the question of "should the state interfere with the right of a pregnant woman to control her own body?".

I don't think that the state should have jurisdiction over the body of a mentally competent pregnant woman. Period.

That doesn't mean that any choice made by a pregnant woman is a moral choice. Some aren't.

It also doesn't mean that others should be compelled to assist in something that they consider to be immoral or dangerous. Doctors are autonomous beings too.

[treemom]

I don't see how having an abortion when the fetus has conditions that are incompatible with life, as in your case, would be considered murder regardless of people's opinions regarding the abortion of a viable fetus. It seems like two entirely different things. Along the same lines if the issue was the life of the mother over a potentially viable fetus, and the only option was abortion ( as opposed to early delivery ) - that would seem to be along the lines of self-defense.

I am just talking about once the fetus is at a viable stage to live outside the mother, for the sake of this discussion. Not about when life begins or any of that.

i

And that is your opinion. But I think saying well it is murder when I don't like your reasons is lame. Yes, the opinions are about two different circumstances. But when you say abortion after 24 weeks is murder, it doesn't make mine less murder...it makes it acceptable murder.

And the poster who used that phrase did not distinguish between early delivery and abortion. Interestingly enough I could have early delivered in my own state, without jumping through hoops at all. And yet, same result. And an early delivery and 24, 25 and 26 weeks is likely to result in a baby who dies. (24 weeks isn't really viability, and 25 and 26 rates have really high death rates). Same result.

But regardless, you said it was nice we moved above this and said I called in for a dog pile. I don't think saying another poster is much better at refuting that is dog piling. And just for the record, I did not pm FG. She is pretty good at finding abortion threads herself.

[JesusFightClub]

JFC. I worked with this group in the 90's. My experience may have been very different to what you describe, possibly because of this woman.

http://www.nhsggc.org.uk/content/defaul ... s1061_37_4

That is so cool! I was really happy to hear about that :) I wish more people knew about it.

I was thinking about US system more than UK, but I think what we are not good at across the world may be sharing best practice - what do you reckon?

[kittengrrl]

While it may not be the choice I would make, like hell would I not allow someone the right to make that choice for themselves. Obviously they have a reason for wanting the procedure done and perhaps that is a mercy to the cells/fetus/baby whatever name you want to put on it instead of the hell that awaits them if they delivered the baby. In my experience with abortion it was early on but I had 11 X-rays of my hips right at the same time and was on a ton of medication. I was also 17 and an idiot. When I was told that there were high chances for issues after birth because of the medication and radiation there was no question. (I also was part of the final drug trial for RU-486 which I am still proud of participating in to this day).

I think that the state needs to stay out of it and that it is a choice a woman has the right to make. It may not be your choice or my choice but who are we to say that woman doesn't deserve the right to make her choice that is right for her?

[eohiken]

I draw a sharp distinction between the question of "what is moral for a pregnant woman to do?" and the question of "should the state interfere with the right of a pregnant woman to control her own body?".

I don't think that the state should have jurisdiction over the body of a mentally competent pregnant woman. Period.

That doesn't mean that any choice made by a pregnant woman is a moral choice. Some aren't.

It also doesn't mean that others should be compelled to assist in something that they consider to be immoral or dangerous. Doctors are autonomous beings too.

This is how I see the issue. Also, I see a distinction between an abortion at viability (24-35 weeks) and an abortion at term (technically 37 weeks, but some infants born as early as 35 weeks do fine without any interventions). I haven't a lick of moral issue with abortions post viability, term, though, that's much trickier.

[StacyW]

I draw a sharp distinction between the question of "what is moral for a pregnant woman to do?" and the question of "should the state interfere with the right of a pregnant woman to control her own body?".

I don't think that the state should have jurisdiction over the body of a mentally competent pregnant woman. Period.

That doesn't mean that any choice made by a pregnant woman is a moral choice. Some aren't.

It also doesn't mean that others should be compelled to assist in something that they consider to be immoral or dangerous. Doctors are autonomous beings too.

Ths is exactly how I feel. I think it has to be up to the mother and the doctor, and there are theoretically cases when I would consider it immoral.

[OkToBeTakei]

That is so cool! I was really happy to hear about that :) I wish more people knew about it.

I was thinking about US system more than UK, but I think what we are not good at across the world may be sharing best practice - what do you reckon?

She works and publishes world wide. I think we are as good as anybody else at sharing best practice. But for many other countries that sadly would not be seen as best practice. Her areas of expertise are safe delivery preventing transmission of HIV. Supporting drug users through pregnancy wether chaotic drug use or stabilised substitute prescribing. She did not advocate detox in pregnancy. Safe pain free detox for baby. Amongst many things. Dependent upon policy I would imagine some countries just don't care?

Also. Check this out. :shock:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/ ... alcoholics

[Dangerous Pony]

[OK, this got long and involved and potentially triggering to anyone who has been a parent to a severely disabled child - it's a very personal issue to me for reasons that will be apparent.]

This is an obviously inflammatory statement but I'm going to go there anyway. The process of bringing life into the world is complicated and messy and dangerous and it's not just a matter of defining viability or awareness or figuring out what is or isn't infanticide. Legally speaking, I am strongly in favor of 100% full choice for any woman at any time to end or continue a pregnancy, because there's no way the law can address the philosophical and moral stew that carrying a developing human life involves. The decision should always be up to the one who will bear the weight of it, whatever that weight might be. We carry a deep responsibility for our ability to procreate, and the law has no place there.

By feministing's logic, I'm a murderer already because I had a 28-week abortion. My baby (I call him a baby because in my mind, he was that) had a rare chromosomal syndrome that led to life-threatening birth defects. He would have had life-long medical and cognitive challenges and his chances of surviving to his first birthday were slight but not impossible. This was a very wanted pregnancy after many years of trying to conceive, and as it turned out, it was my only shot at motherhood. I knew earlier in the pregnancy that there were challenges, but I was prepared to deal with a disabled child - that was before we knew how bad things really were, or else I would have ended it sooner. I made the decision I did in order to spare him what would have been an unimaginably difficult and short life.

I don't believe I made the wrong decision, but in my mind I feel like what I did was to make the decision to kill my severely disabled child. If he had been healthy or less life-threateningly disabled, I would have had a son. What if I had carried to term? The doctors let me know that a DNR order was an option - I could have refused treatment and allowed him to die on his own within a few mintues of birth. That would have made me not a murderer according to feministing's logic. Would it have been right? Would it have been less wrong than the abortion was? Would going the full medical/surgical route have been right? It might have led to survival but it would undoubtedly have led to immense suffering along the way. What if I had decided, a few weeks after he was born, to shut off the machines that would have breathed for him? Would that have been akin to throwing him in the dumpster? Is a chance at life worth it at any cost? These are serious questions; I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything.

I chose what I thought was best, I've come to my own peace there and I don't carry any guilt with me, but at the same time I don't feel comfortable with talking about it as though it was morally simple. When people who know this story tell me that "you did the right thing" it makes me uncomfortable. I don't think anyone knows if I did the right thing; I think I did the best possible thing, but does that make it right? I don't think anyone sits in a place to judge me right or wrong. It's why I don't believe this should be a legal question, because that gives the law the power to judge that.

As a thought experiment, I'm not prepared to say if a 38-week abortion is right or wrong. I'm not there, I'm not that mother in that place and in whatever situation brought her there, so how can I judge? How can anyone? There is no universal experience of pregnancy and birth. It's possible that I might look at a particular situation and say "yes, that thing she did was wrong" (I'm thinking of cases of negligence here, like deciding to have a baby all alone out in the woods when real medical care is an option) but without any other details there is no way to tell.

[Bloo]

That's scary. I struggle with addiction, though the substance I've had trouble with is completely legal and necessary for survival. I'm a food addict and while eating itself obviously doesn't harm a fetus, the obesity that has resulted could complicate pregnancy. Also, looking at my own story and that of other food addicts, our addictions can cause other life issues. Still, this woman has no right to say that I can't have children because I happen to have an addiction.

As to abortions....I don't know a lot about the procedures involved for post-viability abortions. I don't think I would have an abortion at any time, but thankfully I've never had to make that choice. It's not up to me whether anyone else has an abortion. I have enough on my own plate.

[Soldier of the One]

Am still reading the thread.

I just wanted to express my respect and sympathy for all of you who have had to make such gruelling choices to terminate a pregnancy. I applaud you for your honesty to sharing a perspective that will broaden my horizon.

I'm also learning a lot from this thread. About different philosophical and legal angles into the issue, about the medical reality of pregnancy and terminating it and about the depth of human experiences that inform your narratives.

I didn't expect this thread to be an easy thread and I didn't expect easy answers. I didn't expect to come to any immediate conclusions myself. But I did expect to have my mind opened as well as my heart.

Thank you all.

[J'ean Skirt]

JFC: I don't see why criminal charges would result ... they don't result if a baby is born and tests positive for drugs at birth, or has obvious disabilities/ withdrawals resulting from substance abuse while the mother was pregnant. In many cases Child Welfare will get involved, but I've never seen the mother face criminal charges, and it's a field I've worked in. I suppose that could vary by area of course.

Back when I worked in a lab studying FAS the state legislature was attempting to convince the PI in charge of the research to support a bill allowing the state to put women who drank during pregnancy into prison for child endangerment.

Now, I will say, the work we were doing, and the work we were following from other FAS labs, turned me (and most of my lab mates, including the PI) really hard into "no woman, anywhere should ever drink during pregnancy ever." Much of the research shows subtle but significant changes even at low levels of alcohol ingestion. And the effects are not restricted to those who show the typical FAS face.

My boss, however, refused to support the legislation. Why? Because women are people. Women are people and we have the right to bodily autonomy.

I am uncomfortable with a 38 week abortion, but I find it a thought experiment so biased as to be useless. I believe that the medical standard of care does not permit non medically necessary abortions at that age. I mourn for the women who have to make the decision for a late term abortion. That cannot be an easy decision, nor one that anyone actually wants to make. It's the type of decision that is only made when things have gone horribly wrong. I also regret that politics decrees that the safest and kindest form of late term abortion is banned in the US.

The anti-abortion contingent really don't believe women are people. That we're too stupid to understand such complex things as "pregnancy" and we don't have the right to decide if we want to be pregnant or not. I find this contemptible.

[2xx1xy1JD]

This is how I see the issue. Also, I see a distinction between an abortion at viability (24-35 weeks) and an abortion at term (technically 37 weeks, but some infants born as early as 35 weeks do fine without any interventions). I haven't a lick of moral issue with abortions post viability, term, though, that's much trickier.

I was posting quickly before, so I'll elaborate.

In Canada, the old abortion law was struck down by the courts, and no new law has ever been passed to replace it. The Supreme Court has made it crystal clear that there simply is no "fetal protection" power here. Theoretically, it is perfectly legal for a woman with a full term pregnancy to stick a pellet gun into her vagina and fire away. Does that mean that this sort of thing is happening? Well, it happened ONCE in 1996, but that was a freak case. Law or no law, it's not something that normal people do.

I don't want laws that deprive women of autonomy over their bodies, and that it was "fetal protection" laws do. That doesn't mean that it is right to go on a drinking binge while pregnant or shoot heroin or be too focused on the perfect natural birth to consent to a c-section when there is fetal distress. If there is a moral responsibility, though, I believe that it belongs to the mother and mother alone. It's like some crime that happens in another country - I don't have to approve of it, but if it's beyond our borders we don't have the power to deal with it. I do think that bad things happen if we try to interfere with a woman's body - the law is a really blunt tool, and it would involve giving strangers the power to literally have police drag a woman to a hospital or treatment center, forcibly strap her down and subject her to medical treatment that could include major surgery.

The other thing is that fetal protection laws are likely to produce worse outcomes overall for babies. Why? Because if you are so addicted and desperate that you will endanger your fetus by drinking or doing drugs, you are likely to be a person who could go off the radar entirely. Same thing for someone who was so paranoid that they would refuse essential surgery. There are plenty of cases of pregnant women who simply disappear from society's view. The other problem is that the most serious problems often develop earlier on, in the first trimester when the embryo has its structures develop. We need a system that encourages women to be aware of pregnancy as early as possible and to be able to seek out help as early as possible, and that can't happen if the law scared women away.

[treemom]

I totally understand the many reasons people are morally uncomfortable with a termination at 38 weeks. And I respect those reasons. I just don't want to be placed on a moral high ground for my termination. Someone choosing to terminate at 38 weeks just doesn't fall into the standard buckets of reasons why people terminate, including health of the woman and fetus. Typically if a woman is terminating for health of herself then at 38 weeks they would do an emergency csection because she probably wants the baby. And I am not familiar with any case that someone has terminated that late for poor fetal diagnosis. I was an outlier and I was months before that.

That leaves women who are electing for non physical health reasons to not continue the pregnancy and birth of a live child. I just don't think the average woman does that because she doesn't want a child. I believe there are other factors in play and those other factors make it just as moral as terminating for a medical reason.

[Rosa]

and here's where I have to say that all the fetal protection laws strike me as blatantly anti-woman:

where's our lead law? Where's the law that says landlords and employers and homeowners have to remediate ALL lead IMMEDIATELY because it is unsafe for fetuses and children? A lot of kids in my neighborhood have elevated lead levels (my son had mildly elevated levels) because the soil is contaminated. It's remediated in spots (though all they do is go dump it elsewhere, so instead of having ours dug up and removed we've opted to cover it to minimize exposure).

Furthermore, what are we doing about mercury from burning coal? All we do is recomment that pregnant women and small children eat less freshwater fish.

We don't have protections against those two very clear dangers, because it's considered too much of a (financial) burden on various people we don't care to burden. If we don't care about fetuses that much, it is certainly not because we care about fetuses that we want to supervise every pregnant woman and tell her what to do.

[grateful1230]

I'd read everything earlier and had no new thoughts to add.. I often find myself thinking the same thoughts others express more eloquently. Unfortunately, I had too much time on my hands this afternoon (it's a snow day YAY) and found this gem on my FB:

"As we grow closer to adopting, I know that somewhere, someone is choosing LIFE so that our family can be blessed! I pray that as you watch this video, you will join us in praying for all of those women making decisions today. Please pray that they choose LIFE! I pray they see themselves as a carrier for the greatest gift they could ever give!" -posted by a woman I grew up with

Yes dear, someone, somewhere, is watching over you and Fievel. That someone has now chosen to be the "carrier" for the greatest gift you think you could ever receive. Don't worry if she dies while carrying the greatest gift though. Lord's will and all.

Sorry. Carry On. :)

[jaynie]

I was posting quickly before, so I'll elaborate.

In Canada, the old abortion law was struck down by the courts, and no new law has ever been passed to replace it. The Supreme Court has made it crystal clear that there simply is no "fetal protection" power here. Theoretically, it is perfectly legal for a woman with a full term pregnancy to stick a pellet gun into her vagina and fire away. Does that mean that this sort of thing is happening? Well, it happened ONCE in 1996, but that was a freak case. Law or no law, it's not something that normal people do.

I was going to mention this too. With absolutely no laws or restrictions, abortions in Canada occur in the same sort of time frame as countries with restrictions -- mostly before 8 weeks, most of the rest before 20 weeks, the rest largely due to medical concerns for mother or child. So if we were to say "third term abortions should be illegal except for these conditions that I am personally comfortable with", what is that law doing? It isn't stopping abortions from occurring because they don't generally occur in that time anyway. All it does is say "we can't trust women with this decision." "See this hypothetical woman here who decided on a whim to abort her 38 year old fetus because it doesn't go with her shoes? She's proof that real women (who are, naturally, equally vacuous) won't make good choices if left to their own devices." It's just rhetoric designed to obscure actual, real life problems.

On a tangent, it slightly reminds me of how they used to try to catch conscientious objectors out by asking whether they would shoot someone who was killing their wife, as if that's totally the same as going to war. It's a distraction from the real issue, which has the aim of "catching out" the person being questioned.

Another thing I'd consider is that people often make life/health of the mother exceptions when they propose restrictions. But what does that cover? Does mental health matter? What if carrying a baby means Pregnant Lady X can't take her schizophrenia meds? What if she has developed serious depression since falling pregnant that she didn't anticipate earlier on in the pregnancy? Some countries do make exceptions for mental health -- but then, what about quality of life? What if carrying this pregnancy to term is the difference between finishing high school and dropping out? What if a poor family has taken a financial hit and even the expenses of pregnancy (assuming an immediate adoption) would mean homelessness, possibly for the fetus's already-living siblings? There are thousands of issues that come up and very few of them are as frivolous as the pro-life crowd make out. So who decides? Who says "this particular set of circumstances make this abortion all right, but not that one"? Only the woman in question has a good enough understanding of all the relevant variables to make that call.

So it's her choice.

Not mine.

[Minerva]

I was going to mention this too. With absolutely no laws or restrictions, abortions in Canada occur in the same sort of time frame as countries with restrictions -- mostly before 8 weeks, most of the rest before 20 weeks, the rest largely due to medical concerns for mother or child. So if we were to say "third term abortions should be illegal except for these conditions that I am personally comfortable with", what is that law doing? It isn't stopping abortions from occurring because they don't generally occur in that time anyway. All it does is say "we can't trust women with this decision." "See this hypothetical woman here who decided on a whim to abort her 38 year old fetus because it doesn't go with her shoes? She's proof that real women (who are, naturally, equally vacuous) won't make good choices if left to their own devices." It's just rhetoric designed to obscure actual, real life problems.

On a tangent, it slightly reminds me of how they used to try to catch conscientious objectors out by asking whether they would shoot someone who was killing their wife, as if that's totally the same as going to war. It's a distraction from the real issue, which has the aim of "catching out" the person being questioned.

Another thing I'd consider is that people often make life/health of the mother exceptions when they propose restrictions. But what does that cover? Does mental health matter? What if carrying a baby means Pregnant Lady X can't take her schizophrenia meds? What if she has developed serious depression since falling pregnant that she didn't anticipate earlier on in the pregnancy? Some countries do make exceptions for mental health -- but then, what about quality of life? What if carrying this pregnancy to term is the difference between finishing high school and dropping out? What if a poor family has taken a financial hit and even the expenses of pregnancy (assuming an immediate adoption) would mean homelessness, possibly for the fetus's already-living siblings? There are thousands of issues that come up and very few of them are as frivolous as the pro-life crowd make out. So who decides? Who says "this particular set of circumstances make this abortion all right, but not that one"? Only the woman in question has a good enough understanding of all the relevant variables to make that call.

So it's her choice.

Not mine.

Adding to those what-ifs. What if she's suicidal? How is giving birth and giving the baby up for adoption supposed to make her safer?

2xx, you made some brilliant points. You don't really love babies if you think prosecuting the one person who's shot their fetus is more important than making sure as many babies as possible are born in safety and having received prenatal care.

[treemom]

I just want women to have every single option available to them so they can choose the one that they think is the option that is best for them.

[J'ean Skirt]

Someone made a comment recently that abortion isn't about not wanting to parent, but it was about not wanting to be pregnant. Certainly if you want to parent then being pregnant is the most common way to become a parent. But that it was a valid choice not to want to be pregnant.

I'd never actually separated pregnancy from parenting in that way before.

And it made me realize that it was OK to not want to be pregnant (even though I was very pro-choice before).

[feministing]

I think you have not really thought out your position. It's fine to abort a fetus whose development has been harmed by alcohol or drugs, but inducing early resulting in a micro preemie facing development delays is preferable to aborting?

Why is it up to the doctor, and not the mother? Surely women can make informed decisions. I'm sure the vast majority of women who abort do so after much soul-searching, and not on some whim. And unlike the doctor, women have to live with their decisions. If a doctor decides that a woman should give birth and put the child up for adoption, that's the end of the story for him/her. But the mother can face wondering what happened to the child or even the situation of an older child seeking her out and attempting to have a relationship with her.

Also, I have a question: if you see aborting after viability as murder, do you believe that after that point all fetuses ought to be brought to term regardless of danger to the mother's health or the health/normalness of the fetus?

I thought about it and sorted out my thoughts and realized that what I really meant was that if a woman decides in her 3rd trimester that she wants an abortion, then a 3rd trimester abortion is basically an early delivery. If the fetus is viable it should be delivered unless doing so would harm the mother, and handed over to the state.

Would you be okay with a 40-week newborn being discarded? How is this that much different than a 32 week baby? Also, 40-week babies are still helpless. They cannot survive on their own until they are at least 2-3, maybe even 4. How is that different than a fetus who has reached viability and did not die soon after birth?

As for 20-28 weeks, I'd call that the fuzzy period. If the mother seems mentally sound and financially stable, then encouraging her to carry the infant to term would be a good idea (if she refuses, she could be induced to deliver the baby and see what happens). If the woman is mentally or physically unstable and unable to care for a child, I'd encourage her to abort it, as the child's life would more likely than not be worse than death and its existence is more likely to wreck havoc on humanity than help it. Has anyone read the part in Freakonomics where it says that the #1 reason for the drop in crime rate in the 1990's was Roe vs. Wade? The effects of abortion are powerful and far-reaching, which is why access should be open.

The problem is, once viability is reach I have a hard time differentiating between abortion and early delivery. If a woman opts for "early delivery" let her know of ALL the risks doing so would have on the newborn should it be viable. Honestly, I doubt any woman in her right mind would agree to having a third trimester abortion, as the baby would be viable outside the womb and in order to "abort" it you'd have to actually just kill it which is ethically problematic.

I agree, however, that no woman should be forced to carry a baby any longer than she wishes. However there are ethical issues involved.

[feministing]

Feministing:

1. Can you link us to the studies that prove that fetuses get their first glimmer of awareness at 24 weeks? Because last I read, 24 weeks was considered the earliest point at which the brain has the wiring necessary for awareness, not the point where awareness is known to begin. There's a grey area in the 3rd trimester where we don't know if/what the fetus can feel.

[link=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-does-consciousness-arise]Here it is.[/link] The studies are cited.

2. Can you link us to the brain wave stuff, too? I read about the fetal brain wave studies, and the fetuses had to be outside of the womb for their brain waves to be measured. They had to already have been aborted, so you couldn't use that technique to decide whether to have an abortion.

See above.

3. Do you think people should be forced to be living organ donors? What about blood, plasma, platelets and bone marrow? Should we be forced to donate those?

Of course I don't think people should be forced to be donors. That completely goes against patient autonomy.

Also, question for all of you: Would you be okay with abandoning a one year-old - i.e. leaving it out to die? How is that much different from a full-term newborn? And how is a full-term newborn much different from a 32 week-old in terms of awareness? I think this is a fuzzy area and something to think about. None of these are fully aware of what they are doing.

4. When you say that your mantra will be "if in doubt, abort it out," do you mean you'll be advising patients with unplanned but otherwise healthy pregnancies to have abortions? I could see a lot of patients being upset and/or hurt that their doctor tried to insert themselves in that decision.

[bekkah]

With this discussion, I have thought about late term abortions before. I cannot have any say on another women's body. I just can't.

Every since I was sexually assaulted, my rights to my body were violated. I just believe that it is a women's choice. You cannot put yourself in that situation until it happens to you.

Late term abortions are a small part of abortions. They are done to save the mother or to end suffering for the fetus. I just don't think that a woman wakes up one day at 38 weeks and decides to get an abortion without a good reason.

Talking about rights, a lot of parental rights are being violated as well. They are mandatory laws in saving premie babies without the consent of the parents. I believe that if you have a 25 weaker, you should be able to choose comfort care for your child. Its no one else's business on what you do and what you see best for your child.