Abortion at 38 Weeks: A Thought Experiment?

[RosyDaisy]

I just can't wrap my head around the fact that a woman would want to abort a fetus that is viable unless there is a problem with the fetus or the mother's health. But, I do agree messing with Roe v Wade is not something that should not be done.

[Soldier of the One]

I wish with all my heart and uterus that, in the U.S., we were fighting over the legality/morality of 38 week elective abortions instead of restricting abortions after a heartbeat can be detacted, allowing doctors to legally lie to pregnant women about the health of their fetus, and passing laws specifically to try and make abortion all-but-inaccessible to an entire region of the U.S.

This.

That's why I felt a certain reticence posting the article in the first place. The example is so extreme out unlikely to happen on any regular basis. But that's often how a thought experiment works. I wonder why the author of the article chose the 38-week mark anyway to illustrate the case. Perhaps because of the fact that it is such a polarizing question.

Am learning a lot from all of the responses.

[Mama Mia]

I think it is a very polarizing question, personally, as someone who is somewhat middle of the road on abortion - these kind of discussions push me farther towards the anti-abortion side.

I think it's a good conversation and I like to explore just about any topic and am very interested in how people think about things - but I don't think these kind of extreme examples always lead to people thinking more along the lines of the person who holds the view ( the person in the article )... sometimes it has the opposite effect.

The extreme examples in the other direction do the same thing though - hearing about people objecting to plan b, or treatment for tubal pregnancy (for example ) also pushes people away from their views, I think.

[valsa]

Wouldn't trying to expand rights, at least at this time, mean you would need the court to re-examine Roe v Wade, that seems like it would be a seriously risky move -and probably political suicide.

As others have mentioned, you don't need to address Roe v. Wade when fighting against restrictions on the state level.

I know there are lots of people here saying that it should be entirely up to the woman until birth - but that is an incredibly extreme view I think. Even if you live in a liberal area with easy access - I don't think most people, even those who consider themselves very pro-choice are going to argue for elective abortion past viability. And in areas where people are arguing about the availability of very early abortion in the case of rape -- or to save the life of the mother with a tubal pregnancy - I can't imagine that there would be more than a handful of people who would agree with extending it past viability for non medical reasons.

If you ask people "should women be able to get elective abortions at 38 weeks?", you'd probably be correct that most would say they're not comfortable with that. However, that question is a red herring. The real question is "should a fetus have rights?" Because that's what we're actually talking about here and it's just as valid a question, with just as many negative consequences for women, if the fetus is 12 weeks, 24 weeks, or 38 weeks.

[Mama Mia]

If you ask people "should women be able to get elective abortions at 38 weeks?", you'd probably be correct that most would say they're not comfortable with that. However, that question is a red herring. The real question is "should a fetus have rights?" Because that's what we're actually talking about here and it's just as valid a question, with just as many negative consequences for women, if the fetus is 12 weeks, 24 weeks, or 38 weeks.

This is where you lose me. I don't think that fetal rights are the same argument at past the point of viability. Because the main argument for women having complete control over what happens to their bodies is that the fetus is dependent on them . After viability, I don't see how that argument holds up. You could maybe argue that women should have the right at 25 weeks to decide to have an induction and deliver, but you can't say the woman is still required for the fetus to have a life independent of the mother.

I picked 25 weeks as that is currently the point where half of infants will survive, and half of those will have no or minor permanent impairment ( this is from the March of Dimes ). And if you argue that extreme measures are needed for the 25 weeker to survive - what about the full-term infant sited at 38 weeks ?

I don't think this is the same in the cases of medical necessity - if the fetus isn't going to survive anyway than viability wouldn't apply in any case.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

I don't agree with aborting at that point. When a fetus reaches the point of being able to sustain life (even with medical intervention), I feel it's too late to abort the fetus. If it ends up being a health concern for the mother or child, they can have an emergency c-section. And, if she decides she doesnt want the baby, she can always surrender parental rights. I don't think it's anything about the fetus having rights or whatever, I just feel that you should have decided long before that point to terminate the pregnancy. If you didnt, the fetus is now at an age where a loving and hopeful family can welcome it into their lives. Infant adoptions are in high demand, so it's not like you're setting a child up for an uncertain future in the foster care system.

That said, if an emergency c-section results in the death of the fetus/baby, that's completely different. I don't view that as an abortion since it's really only ever done when absolutely necessary. I'd rather lose the fetus/baby than the mother any day.

[valsa]

This is where you lose me. I don't think that fetal rights are the same argument at past the point of viability. Because the main argument for women having complete control over what happens to their bodies is that the fetus is dependent on them.

Incorrect. The main argument for women having complete control over what happens to their bodies is that IT'S THEIR BODIES. Period. Full stop. Do not pass "Go". Do not collection $200.

Women have the right to make medical decisions about what happens to their body whether they're pregnant or not. Women have the right to make medical decisions about what happens to their body whether the fetus they're carrying is 12 weeks or 20 weeks or 38 weeks.

That's it. You don't get to tell a mentally competent woman "Sorry, you were allowed to make medical choices about your body last week but this week you're not allowed to anymore".

Also, this shit is still just a bunch of red herrings.

[Mama Mia]

Well, we are going to disagree on that.

And I don't even know where people get the bizarre idea that anyone can make any decision they want about their body regarding medical issues in any case - whether they are pregnant or not. You can't just walk into a hospital and demand to have your left leg removed and expect it to happen. Should you legally be allowed to demand that ? You can't demand any particular drug you want and expect it to be prescribed without a medical reason - and if you buy some drugs without a prescription it's illegal. Why is there this assumption of complete and total legal control over your body in this one area - but not in any other ?

[meda]

I don't agree with aborting at that point. When a fetus reaches the point of being able to sustain life (even with medical intervention), I feel it's too late to abort the fetus. If it ends up being a health concern for the mother or child, they can have an emergency c-section. And, if she decides she doesnt want the baby, she can always surrender parental rights. I don't think it's anything about the fetus having rights or whatever, I just feel that you should have decided long before that point to terminate the pregnancy. If you didnt, the fetus is now at an age where a loving and hopeful family can welcome it into their lives. Infant adoptions are in high demand, so it's not like you're setting a child up for an uncertain future in the foster care system.

That said, if an emergency c-section results in the death of the fetus/baby, that's completely different. I don't view that as an abortion since it's really only ever done when absolutely necessary. I'd rather lose the fetus/baby than the mother any day.

Just want to point out that delivery is not always an option for women in the later stages of pregnancy. With HELLP syndrome for example, a c section could cause fatal blood loss, so a late stage abortion is sometimes performed to save the mothers life.

[valsa]

Well, we are going to disagree on that.

And I don't even know where people get the bizarre idea that anyone can make any decision they want about their body regarding medical issues in any case - whether they are pregnant or not. You can't just walk into a hospital and demand to have your left leg removed and expect it to happen. Should you legally be allowed to demand that ? You can't demand any particular drug you want and expect it to be prescribed without a medical reason - and if you buy some drugs without a prescription it's illegal. Why is there this assumption of complete and total legal control over your body in this one area - but not in any other ?

First of all, you can actually do both the things I bolded. Whether or not a doctor's standard of practice will allow them to give you what you want, it's not illegal for you to ask nor would it be illegal for you to do if you could find a willing doctor.

Secondly, if you had, say, a gangrenous leg, you would indeed be allowed to decide what medical treatment you did or did not want for it. Likewise, when it comes to medication, if you need something like an antibiotic or (if we want to be ironic) birth control, you are allowed to choose which antibiotics or which birth control you want to use without a bunch of politicians bumping their asses into it.

If you give a fetus rights just because it's past the 25 week mark, you open the door to a bunch of dangerous consequences for women. The same fetal rights that keep a woman from aborting her pregnancy could potentially be used by doctors to force her to stay pregnant, if it's in the best interest of the fetus, even if she wanted to induce or was in medical danger from continuing the pregnancy. It could also be used to force women to undergo medical procedures during childbirth she doesn't want, because it's better for the fetus. It can also be used to bring charges against women who do things that risk the health of the fetus (smoking, drinking, drugs, medication, skydiving, horseback riding) And before you try to say that won't happen- it already does.

[Boogalou]

Just an aside about abortion in Canada. Although we have very few laws regarding abortion you just can't go and get an abortion whenever you feel like it. Ontario won't do one past 24 weeks. The further east/west/north you go from Ontario the shorter the time frame for abortions. I'm not sure if these are provincial laws or what they are. http://www.prochoice.org/canada/regional.html

Also, I think my feelings on when abortion is moral/immoral are totally irrelevant. It's not my job to force my morality on everybody else. I personally live my life pretty conservatively so if I had to start legislating my morality no one would be allowed to do pretty much anything.

[Minerva]

I don't agree with aborting at that point. When a fetus reaches the point of being able to sustain life (even with medical intervention), I feel it's too late to abort the fetus. If it ends up being a health concern for the mother or child, they can have an emergency c-section. And, if she decides she doesnt want the baby, she can always surrender parental rights. I don't think it's anything about the fetus having rights or whatever, I just feel that you should have decided long before that point to terminate the pregnancy. If you didnt, the fetus is now at an age where a loving and hopeful family can welcome it into their lives. Infant adoptions are in high demand, so it's not like you're setting a child up for an uncertain future in the foster care system.

That said, if an emergency c-section results in the death of the fetus/baby, that's completely different. I don't view that as an abortion since it's really only ever done when absolutely necessary. I'd rather lose the fetus/baby than the mother any day.

You realize that a c-section will be a lot harder on the pregnant person's body than having an abortion, right? And that if the health concern is the fetus', delivering early will probably make it suffer more, defeating the point of ending the pregnancy? And that post-viability abortions are almost always performed on people who want the baby? And let me get this straight, you think fetuses' lives trump people's bodily autonomy, not because of fetal rights, but because you think said people should have decided sooner that they wanted to abort a pregnancy that they had no idea existed, would become dangerous, or lead to a fetus with health problems? Or because they happened to not have hundreds of dollars sitting around? It's not like people knowingly keep a pregnancy for six months and then change their minds. And do you really think there is that high of a demand among potential adoptive parents for preemies, especially ones born at viability who have a roughly [link=http://preemiehelp.com/about-preemies/preemie-facts-a-figures/preemie-outcomes]1 in 3[/link] chance of having a severe disability? No offense, but a lot of the things you're suggesting would either worsen the pregnant person and the fetus' situation or flat out don't make sense.

[Minerva]

Just an aside about abortion in Canada. Although we have very few laws regarding abortion you just can't go and get an abortion whenever you feel like it. Ontario won't do one past 24 weeks. The further east/west/north you go from Ontario the shorter the time frame for abortions. I'm not sure if these are provincial laws or what they are. http://www.prochoice.org/canada/regional.html

Also, I think my feelings on when abortion is moral/immoral are totally irrelevant. It's not my job to force my morality on everybody else. I personally live my life pretty conservatively so if I had to start legislating my morality no one would be allowed to do pretty much anything.

[link=http://canadiansforchoice.ca/Access%20at%20a%20Glance%20-%20Abortion%20Services%20in%20Canada.pdf]This[/link] came out just last year. Somewhere in Ontario will do 23 weeks and 6 days, and somewhere in Québec will do 24 weeks. That's the latest elective abortions go in Canada. Even if you need one for medical reasons, you often have to go to the States. Imagine being in Saskatchewan and having to fly a province over when you're just 14 weeks along.

[Mama Mia]

I think the medications are a perfect example. There are many medications that are perfectly legal if prescribed for a medical reason - they are illegal if there is no medical reason, and not just for the person taking them, but for the doctor prescribing them.

Suicide is illegal. There are legal limits on age of consent for sex. Driving without a seat belt is illegal. Smoking and drinking are illegal for minors.

Those are all instances that don't even have the complicating factor of the rights ( or lack of ) of a potentially completely separate viable human being.

My point is that people do not have complete legal autonomy over their bodies in any other case - so why would there be an absolute assumption of complete legal autonomy in this one case ?

And remember we aren't talking about medical necessity / considerations as the original point of this discussion. The op was based on an article advocating for purely elective abortion at full-term.

[Guest Anonymous]

I think the medications are a perfect example. There are many medications that are perfectly legal if prescribed for a medical reason - they are illegal if there is no medical reason, and not just for the person taking them, but for the doctor prescribing them.

Suicide is illegal. There are legal limits on age of consent for sex. Driving without a seat belt is illegal. Smoking and drinking are illegal for minors.

Those are all instances that don't even have the complicating factor of the rights ( or lack of ) of a potentially completely separate viable human being.

My point is that people do not have complete legal autonomy over their bodies in any other case - so why would there be an absolute assumption of complete legal autonomy in this one case ?

And remember we aren't talking about medical necessity / considerations as the original point of this discussion. The op was based on an article advocating for purely elective abortion at full-term.

Is suicide illegal where you live? Wow! I don't think it is here. That's weird.

[formergothardite]

Is an abortion at 38 weeks safer than a delivery? Anyone know?

[valsa]

My point is that people do not have complete legal autonomy over their bodies in any other case - so why would there be an absolute assumption of complete legal autonomy in this one case?

Where did I say anything about complete autonomy in everything? I said autonomy in medical decisions, which we do have. Even when it comes to medication- if you have a perscription for a medication, you can choose whether or not to take it. If you have a perscription from your doctor even something otherwise illegal like methadone can be taken legally. And you can also choose not to take a medication, even if it could harm you.

And remember we aren't talking about medical necessity / considerations as the original point of this discussion. The op was based on an article advocating for purely elective abortion at full-term.

Except we are talking about medical necessity as well. As I said before, if you start giving rights to fetuses, it has unintended consequences. The high profile case in Ireland where a woman died because they wouldn't induce her is only the most recent in a long, long line of women who've died due to abortion restrictions, even when their lives were in danger.

[J'ean Skirt]

And remember we aren't talking about medical necessity / considerations as the original point of this discussion. The op was based on an article advocating for purely elective abortion at full-term.

But that doesn't happen. I mean, it's conceivable that somewhere in the age of history some doctor gave a woman an elective abortion at 38 weeks because she just decided she didn't want to be pregnant anymore.

But the reality is that late stage abortions are incredibly rare and the medical standard of care does not support this. The reality is that late stage abortions are almost always done to protect the life or health of the mother.

There are some "late" abortions (post 20 weeks) that are done because of access issues, cost issues or other problems that are elective. But even those are not because the woman SUDDENLY decided she didn't want to be pregnant. She's never really wanted to be pregnant, but the law and anti-woman people have made it difficult for her to get earlier treatment.

It's a thought experiment, but it's not realistic. Some of us deal in reality rather than theory.

[Boogalou]

[link=http://canadiansforchoice.ca/Access%20at%20a%20Glance%20-%20Abortion%20Services%20in%20Canada.pdf]This[/link] came out just last year. Somewhere in Ontario will do 23 weeks and 6 days, and somewhere in Québec will do 24 weeks. That's the latest elective abortions go in Canada. Even if you need one for medical reasons, you often have to go to the States. Imagine being in Saskatchewan and having to fly a province over when you're just 14 weeks along.

Thanks for the link, it is interesting reading. I wonder what they are counting as a crisis pregnancy centre. I know of a church that has a sign outside saying "Pregnant? We can help." When they really have nothing set up. I wonder if they count that as a crisis pregnancy centre or not?

[valsa]

Is an abortion at 38 weeks safer than a delivery? Anyone know?

I'm not sure if it's mechanically safer but there is the consideration that, in a birth, a doctor has to juggle both the wellbeing of the mother and the fetus whereas in an abortion the only consideration is the health of the mother.

As a nursing student, I got to observe a C-section. The doctor basically made a small incision in the uterus with his scalpel, stuck a finger into each side of the opening, and basically ripped the women open like you might a T-shirt that has a hole in it. They needed to get the baby out as quickly as they could. I imagine, in an abortion, it would be less physically traumatic on the mother without the time factor of the baby to worry about.

[Mama Mia]

Where did I say anything about complete autonomy in everything? I said autonomy in medical decisions, which we do have. Even when it comes to medication- if you have a perscription for a medication, you can choose whether or not to take it. If you have a perscription from your doctor even something otherwise illegal like methadone can be taken legally. And you can also choose not to take a medication, even if it could harm you.

But my point is that you do NOT have complete medical autonomy to decide on which prescriptions to take, because if you do not have a medical reason for the prescription, or the Doctor prescribes without a valid medical reason you both can face legal consequences. Look at all of the cases of people who end up forging prescriptions and going to jail. Or doctors losing their license and facing charges due to prescribing inappropriately.

ETA - sorry messed up the quote feature on that one.

[valsa]

But my point is that you do NOT have complete medical autonomy to decide on which prescriptions to take

You're not getting my point. Once you have a perscription, you have full medical autonomy to choose whether or not to take it. Once you're pregnant, you should have full medical autonomy with choosing whether or not to terminate or continue.

Plus, drug use that happens to use medication as the drug of choice is not medical autonomy, it's a regular old drug-use-related-autonomy issue.

[Mama Mia]

It's a thought experiment, but it's not realistic. Some of us deal in reality rather than theory.

But the thought experiment is based on a particular premises. There are all sorts of different opinions/ arguments/ views people might have regarding medical necessity, which is entirely different than the idea of making late-term abortion available for elective reasons.

It doesn't seem realistic at all that there would be more than a handful of people who would do this, but it is the view that many here are advocating for.

[Mama Mia]

You're not getting my point. Once you have a perscription, you have full medical autonomy to choose whether or not to take it. Once you're pregnant, you should have full medical autonomy with choosing whether or not to terminate or.

I am seeing obtaining the abortion more akin to obtaining the prescription or not.

[treemom]

Well, we are going to disagree on that.

And I don't even know where people get the bizarre idea that anyone can make any decision they want about their body regarding medical issues in any case - whether they are pregnant or not. You can't just walk into a hospital and demand to have your left leg removed and expect it to happen. Should you legally be allowed to demand that ? You can't demand any particular drug you want and expect it to be prescribed without a medical reason - and if you buy some drugs without a prescription it's illegal. Why is there this assumption of complete and total legal control over your body in this one area - but not in any other ?

Most medical decisions aren't legislated. Doctors and hospitals have policies, but those are much easier to work around than laws.

I don't think the government should legislate medical decisions.