A Mere Mention of Abortion.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

How likely is it that anyone would or could have an abortion to a point where a child would be legally able to survive outwith the womb? Are there any jurisdictions where abortion up to 39+wks are possible in order that such an eventuality should be taken into account?

Well, I did say 39+ weeks was a hypothetical...... (although perhaps not,see below)! The point being that even those of us who support the general right of abortion will often have serious issues with an abortion after a certain period of time (for me, i would have serious problems with a friend who chose to have an abortion post-viability unless there were some fairly extraordinary extenuating circumstances). I think those of us who are of that mindset have to try harder to see the issue from the perspective who genuinely see a 10 week abortion as being as heinous as we might see a 39 week abortion.

As for whether 39+ week abortions are permissable anywhere, Im not entirely sure. Im pretty sure there are no restrictions in certain asian countries (possibly china/laos/vietnam/others?). I think that Canada allows very late abortions (im not sure if it goes beyond 39 weeks though).

I am pro choice and cannot stand the pro life brigade but I wouldn't go out of my way to start an argument about it, as someone already posted, it has been done to death and no matter what I say will change their minds and vice versa.

I have had an abortion many moons ago and legally so in the country I was living in at the time. I did not suffer guilt afterwards nor do I now. For me, it was the right thing to do at the time. So pro choice all the way.

Wibbs wrote: »

If I have an overly vehement reaction to someone's opinions I usually step back and ask myself why, because in me is where I'll usually find the answer.

I don't really get the point you're making here. What do you mean by 'in me is where I'll usually find the answer'? I would think that any response I have about anything is coming from 'in me'.

I think a vehement, strong, angry response is often very appropriate if you are faced with what you see as oppression or unfairness. And I wouldn't like to think that you would dismiss that vehement anger by suggesting someone needs to look at their own issues.

bronte wrote: »

This is something I've noticed recently.
A lot of the time it's about controlling the woman and nothing else.

Is that really the case though? I don't define myself as pro-choice or anything of the sort and I don;t know anyone who would define themselves as much, but I find it hard to accept that the people who do are acting from a misogynistic tendency. Are the many women who are against abortion doing so out of self loathing?

I think that it's easier to dismiss people by painting them as caricatures, and I think that that tends tio happen on both sides of the debate.

Kooli wrote: »

I don't think anyone should have to respect another's views. I'm sure there are a lot of views people could hold that you would feel as strongly about, and wouldn't appreciate if people told you to 'respect' them.

There's a difference I think, between not respecting someone's views and wishing to physically assault that person because of them.

If someone feels strongly enough about something it can be very hard to see someone in the same light that feels the opposite way.

This thread was started because the OP was shocked by how some pro-life people react to those who have had abortions. The general trend has been that such negative reactions on the part of pro-lifers is wrong. The pro-life people who have posted here, including myself, have stated that their opinions of people who have had abortions don't change because of the procedure. Indeed, the only people thus far who have intimated that they would react in a wholly negative way to a contrary opinion on the matter have been pro-choice posters.

It's somewhat ironic and probably a tad hypocritical that, in a thread where there is universal concurrence that women who have had abortions should not be judged, some pro-lifers have no qualms about allowing their judgements negatively affect their relations with those who might hold a contrary view.

If you think it's reasonable for pro-lifers to have extremely negative reactions to those who advocate against abortion, then it's hardly consistent to criticise such reactiosn when they come from the other side?

Einhard wrote: »

Is that really the case though? I don't define myself as pro-choice or anything of the sort and I don;t know anyone who would define themselves as much, but I find it hard to accept that the people who do are acting from a misogynistic tendency. Are the many women who are against abortion doing so out of self loathing?

See, I do think it is mostly about control really. I am pro-choice and by that I mean, I'm in favour of options. It doesn't make me pro-one particular choice though. Choice is the key for me.

For many, many of those who would define themselves as pro-life, it's not just something that they wouldn't do, that they wouldn't choose, it is, quite literally a desire to impose their choice on someone else. That's a control issue.

I don't think it is necessarily misogynistic although I have known some pro-lifers who were clearly misogynists. I also know quite a lot of women who would say they are pro-life because that is the only option they see for them - but they don't object to other women making different choices. In that case, I see them really as pro-choice.

bronte wrote: »

Again, not saying all pro lifers have this stance.
I am curious as to why some people aren't pro life for the entire life of the child.
They seem to lose interest once it's born. Where is the campaigning by these groups for adoption societies/ support for mothers with limited resources? Maybe I'm wrong and it does happen?

Pro-lifers are that way because they believe that the unborn child/foetus has some value beyond that which pro-choicers would ascribe to it. Their aim is to prevent the child being terminated. If the child is born, then their mission is achieved. I think it's unreasonable to then demand that they be persoanlly responsible for the life of that child. I'm against the death penalty. I don't think anyone should be executed by the state. By your logic, I should therefore have some responsibility for any prisoners who are rescued from death through the campaigning of anti-death penalty activists.

As for the women...I am someone who has chosen never to have children simply out of personal preference and you would not believe the amount of abuse a woman gets when she admits such a choice. There's an attitude of "you think that now...just wait" "Oh we all felt that way"
Some people just hate the idea of a woman being free of the responsibilities of motherhood.

Well there's something just wrong about people who have such ideas.

When you see the amount of older mothers who are out on the streets at pro life rallies, you have to consider your source.

I don't know what you mean by this. Is there something wrong with mothers being pro-life?

It's simply an observation.
I totally believe a person can be pro life and not fit into the above categories...but there's more to it than meets the eye.

I read an article in slate.com last year about a New York journalist who made a conscious decision to use abortion as her means of contraception. I found it pretty reprehensible, and indeed so did the pro-choice person reporting on it. Of course, such attitudes are shared by only the tiniest minority of women, but if I were to adopt a similar stance on this incident viz pro-choicers as the one you adopt regarding loony extremists viz pro-lifers, I'd be implying that her attitude is somehow shared by all pro-lifers.

In other words, and to paraphjrase yourself:

Woman in NY sees abortion as contraception

I totally believe that pro-choicers don't necessarily share this woman's POV...but there's more to it than meets the eye...

You're giving with one hand and taking away with the other if you see what I mean.

EMF2010 wrote: »

See, I do think it is mostly about control really. I am pro-choice and by that I mean, I'm in favour of options. It doesn't make me pro-one particular choice though. Choice is the key for me.

For many, many of those who would define themselves as pro-life, it's not just something that they wouldn't do, that they wouldn't choose, it is, quite literally a desire to impose their choice on someone else. That's a control issue.

I don't think it is necessarily misogynistic although I have known some pro-lifers who were clearly misogynists. I also know quite a lot of women who would say they are pro-life because that is the only option they see for them - but they don't object to other women making different choices. In that case, I see them really as pro-choice.

They're valid arguments, but I think many pro-lifers would argue that the pro-choice argument is also one of enforced control and imposition of a personal choice, ie the pregnant woman makes a decision and imposes it on the unborn child.

The fundamental difference between pro-lifers and pro-choicers, I think, is in how each side views the unborn child/foetus. The very fact that I am using two terms for the one entity illustrates this. Pro-lifers believe that the unborn child, as they would term it, has some essence of humanity that pro-choicers would deny it. Now, you might disagree entirely with the notion that the unborn child or foetus is anything more than a clump of cells, and scorn me for believing that, but you cannot reasonably, in light of that, turn around and claim that my attitude stems from a desire to control women. And it's unfair to claim such a thing. It would be akin to me claiming that people who have abortions are infant killers. We all agree that such a statement would be absolutely incorrect and to be condemned, and yet all slanders are permitted against pro-lifers. It's hardly a conistent line to take. It seems to be a common trend though- pro-choicers criticisee some pro-lifers for stances and attitudes which are not altogether different from the ones they happen to hold in the opposite direction.

BTW, I hate using terms such as pro-life and pro-choice because they imply so much that is negative about the respectine sides. I'm using them here not because I believe they are accurate descriptors but because they are at hand so to speak.

histories wrote: »

You took the words out of my mouth. It is like these people cannot see beyond the womb. They do not seem to realise that this child will need someone to look after it and love it and protect it.

I'm sure you don't mean it as such, but that argument could be seen as having something of a eugenics bent to it. The idea that an unborn child/foetus should be aborted because there is a chance it mightn't be loved or have a secure, comfortable family life is somewhat shocking to me. It's akin to saying: this child mightn't have a great life so best to deny it the chance of life altogether. I know that's probably not what you believe but that's where such arguments as above logically lead.

I have no problem with a person being pro-life as long as they realise that their opinion should not stop women from availing of this procedure if they so wish.

What you're rally saying here is that you have no problem with someone being pro-life as long as they STFU, keep their opinions to themselves, and in no way try to act on their convictions.