Abortion

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

Maybe I was wrong about the context, but there's no need for that kind of vitriol on this thread.

If asking if you actually read a post before replying to it is "vitriol" in your word then you really need to grow a thicker skin.

IzzyWizzy

PrincessLola wrote: »

Okay, I think I get you now. You are mad that abortions cost tax payer money (except, Irish women don't get free NHS abortions, but never mind)
Thats a pretty flimsy excuse to hate something And I absolutely do not buy it, lots of health procedures cost tax payer money in the UK, many are less essential than abortions.

I couldn't give a flying fig about Irish women. I live in the UK and pay my taxes here and most abortions here are done for free on the NHS. And so what if other things aren't essential? It doesn't mean my concerns about the cost of abortion are irrelevant.

You're argument also pivots on the point that abortions are preventable, sure they are. So are lots of cancers, obesity, heart disease, many cases of broken bones.
I bet if you told people they would not receive medical care if they ever hurt themselves, they'd be much more careful for the rest of their lives, in fact I bet if you made littering punishable by life imprisonment no-one would ever litter again. No more stupid safety net! Happy days! See the logic?

Oh my God. You're AGAIN missing the point that I AM NOT SAYING ABORTIONS SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED. Do you get it yet? I'm saying it would be great if people took more responsibility for their actions so fewer were needed. Just as it would be great (from a cost perspective) if people didn't smoke, drink excessively or take crazy risks doing extreme sports. Never once said such people don't deserve treatment.

Psychologically scarring for some women, yes. But those are usually the women for whom the decision is hardest and so shouldn't concern you and your "abortion as a contraception" problem.

I've known quite a few people who took abortion lightly when they had one and deeply regretted it later.

I guess you're right that *some* may take it extremely lightly, I admit I initially did not think it possible of other women because abortion is not something I've ever had done or would take lightly myself.
However I still think that only a small minority would use it as contraception. And considering I do not believe a fetus to be a baby than I don't really mind, the only cause for my concern would be possible health complications from repeat abortions, which is not good.

So that's my whole point. You said no woman takes abortion lightly and that's just not true. Do the majority of women use it as contraception? No, most likely not, but there was a centre page article on abortion in one of the papers here about a week ago and the figures for repeat abortions were shockingly high. Look at this article from today. Sure, it's the Daily Mail and they have an agenda, but the figures are the same. And this woman's attitude, in my experience, is far from unusual.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2156163/Mother-Michelle-THREE-abortions-So-right-trying-baby.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Her bold decision to speak out about her abortions comes after it was revealed that the NHS spends more than £50  million a year on repeat terminations.

One third of the 189,000 abortions carried out in England and Wales in 2010 involved women who’d had at least one before.

Yeah, and what I'm saying is that no contraception is 100% (even the pill) and telling adults to only have sex if they are sure they want a kid is not going to work.

And the contraception failure rates are many, many times lower than the abortion rates. I'm not advocating telling people to have sex only if they want a kid. I'm advocating telling people to use one or more methods of reliable contraception because not getting pregnant is really not that difficult.

You didn't make that clear in your post. That was a mistake not taking the morning-after-pill alright, probably because she was in denial/lying to herself rather than laziness.
Think about it, abortions can be quite uncomfortable and painful, of course she'd rather take the pill than go through with an abortion.

Fairly sure it's the good old 'it won't happen to me attitude'. Fair enough for a 13 year old, but sad for a 29 year old woman who really should know better. And to clarify, I mean having this attitude about anything is ridiculous at that age, whether it's getting pregnant, getting into debt, having a car crash while driving drunk, whatever. At some stage you need to grow up and take responsibility for your actions.

Keept think you're taking an absolutist stance on abortion and contraception.

To be honest, I think we're pretty much on the same page at this point and now it's just nitpicking.

IzzyWizzy

Fizzlesque wrote: »

Now, I know some people might argue that not all birth mothers regret their decision as deeply and as heartbreakingly as I do, but neither do all women who make the decision to abort suffer psychological trauma afterwards. I know more women who aborted and are still at peace with their decision than women who regret making that choice. Each person is different, what works for one woman won't necessarily work for the next woman: and that's why I'm pro choice. No woman should be forced to birth or to abort an unplanned baby. Unplanned doesn't always equate to unwanted. I wanted my baby very much by time she was ready to be born (even more so after she was born) but my circumstances at the time weren't conducive to my being able to give her a happy home and a happy life. Sometimes too many vital ingredients are missing.

With all due respect, that's why I said abortion can be psychologically scarring for some women. Just as adoption can be, just as having the child can be. Which is why I'm also pro-choice. And why I'm all for better education on contraception to greatly reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies and STI's, which are far, far higher than they need to be. I'd certainly never put myself in the position of telling someone else what to do with an existing pregnancy. As you said, that's for only the woman to decide.

Pushtrak

IzzyWizzy wrote: »

Oh my God. You're AGAIN missing the point that I AM NOT SAYING ABORTIONS SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED.

You aren't, but it is quite likely that there are people reading the thread who would have similar arguments and use them as grounding for why abortion shouldn't be allowed. Any rebuttal to a position is best when it does more than just deal directly with what one says, but any possible arguments that can be associated/are linked in some way.

I've known quite a few people who took abortion lightly when they had one and deeply regretted it later.

See? Pro-lifers will cling to this type of argumentation, and when you make it for them it has to be addressed. No need to be replying reiterating your stance, the purpose of the forum is to respond to posts illuminating reasons for a particular view.

As for this particular point, lack of freedom of choice is not conducive to ones happiness.

So that's my whole point. You said no woman takes abortion lightly and that's just not true. Do the majority of women use it as contraception? No, most likely not, but there was a centre page article on abortion in one of the papers here about a week ago and the figures for repeat abortions were shockingly high. Look at this article from today. Sure, it's the Daily Mail and they have an agenda, but the figures are the same. And this woman's attitude, in my experience, is far from unusual.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2156163/Mother-Michelle-THREE-abortions-So-right-trying-baby.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

She is a mother of three. Indeed, it is more often the case statistically that the mother has already given birth before.

8. The majority of women who choose abortions have already given birth. Mothers who have had one or more children comprise over 60% of all abortions.

Source.
But the more important thing to me is that I think women should have freedom of choice. They ought not become incubators for 9 months against their will.

IzzyWizzy

Pushtrak wrote: »

You aren't, but it is quite likely that there are people reading the thread who would have similar arguments and use them as grounding for why abortion shouldn't be allowed. Any rebuttal to a position is best when it does more than just deal directly with what one says, but any possible arguments that can be associated/are linked in some way.

See? Pro-lifers will cling to this type of argumentation, and when you make it for them it has to be addressed. No need to be replying reiterating your stance, the purpose of the forum is to respond to posts illuminating reasons for a particular view.

And pro-lifers are entitled to their opinions too. There is a strong argument against abortion - I have no problem accepting that because I'm a person who naturally finds it easy to see all sides of an argument. I understand a lot of the pro-lifer points. I don't think it's controversial at all not to like abortion or to think people are too lax with it. I just don't think these reasons should be used to tell other people they can't have one.

You have to remember that I'm living in a country where abortion has been legal for years, not one where the government and half the population think it's fine to force a woman to carry and give birth to a child. I've posted my views on English forums and nobody has ever batted an eyelid.

As for this particular point, lack of freedom of choice is not conducive to ones happiness.

I agree.

She is a mother of three. Indeed, it is more often the case statistically that the mother has already given birth before.

Source.
But the more important thing to me is that I think women should have freedom of choice. They ought not become incubators for 9 months against their will.

I agree. Doesn't mean I don't think the woman in that article is incredibly irresponsible and wasting NHS funds that could be spent on illnesses that aren't self inflicted. She admits as much herself. Would I rather she'd had all those kids? Certainly not. But I'm not happy about it.

Pushtrak

IzzyWizzy wrote: »

And pro-lifers are entitled to their opinions too. There is a strong argument against abortion -

No, not really. Well, not if you don't put in qualifiers like duration in to pregnancy.

You have to remember that I'm living in a country where abortion has been legal for years, not one where the government and half the population think it's fine to force a woman to carry and give birth to a child. I've posted my views on English forums and nobody has ever batted an eyelid.

This is boards.ie so the perspective is going to be very different from the frame in which you will view the discussion. You'll have to get your head around that. Talking in an Irish forum about the differences in daily life for people where you are is interesting in terms of comparison, but the attitudes on both the pro-life and pro-choice sides will be coming from far different frames than the one you view the discussion.

I agree. Doesn't mean I don't think the woman in that article is incredibly irresponsible and wasting NHS funds that could be spent on illnesses that aren't self inflicted. She admits as much herself. Would I rather she'd had all those kids? Certainly not. But I'm not happy about it.

Honestly, the issue of what the health service/taxation and so on isn't something that is of relevance to me one way or the other. I'm not going to defend one position or argue against something. Economics isn't my bag and can't really think of much to contribute to the topic. I don't have a clue, for instance how much the procedure would cost.

BIG BAD JOHN

Fizzlesque wrote: »

Thanks for reading - to all who've read to the end of this long and emotional post.

Very courageous for you to post this, Fizzlesque.
We have two grandchildren who are adopted. They are a huge joy to us and to our daughter and her husband. So far (they are respectively 8 and 4), they are happy and content with their lot. I've no doubt that as time goes on, they will have some issues to deal with.
But I do think quite often about their natural parents, particularly their mothers and think of the great loss to them of not being able to raise their (in both instances) beautiful children.
The circumstances were perhaps a little different than yours in that their babies were in an orphanage at the time they were adopted. So this begs the question as to whether their parents were realistically in a position to bring them up.
But, still, what a very real gap in their lives and I suppose that they may (and I can only surmise here) get some comfort from the notion that someone else is giving their natural children a better life than they might have managed.
I hope that you will be able to have an increasing and fulfilling part in the life of your child and that this will, in some small way, help to make up for the deep sadness of too many years.

Fizzlesque

IzzyWizzy wrote: »

With all due respect, that's why I said abortion can be psychologically scarring for some women. Just as adoption can be, just as having the child can be. Which is why I'm also pro-choice. And why I'm all for better education on contraception to greatly reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies and STI's, which are far, far higher than they need to be. I'd certainly never put myself in the position of telling someone else what to do with an existing pregnancy. As you said, that's for only the woman to decide.

Fair enough, Izzy. I've read some more of your posts since and see you're pro choice too, so we're actually in agreement on the subject.

I guess I've seen the psychological trauma argument against allowing women to make their own choice too many times over the years, and it touches a nerve with me.

As do the many armchair moralists' comments regarding adoption that I've read over the years. It's often thrown out as an idea as glibly as if it was no different to giving a bag of your old clothes to a charity shop. Ah yeah, sure just let someone else have your unwanted old clothes/baby. I've read something along the lines of "if you don't want the baby you're carrying you'll have no problem 'dumping' it on someone who actually cares and would love to be a parent once its born". Yeah, right, 'cause it's really that simple :rolleyes:

Nature is a powerful mistress and she knows exactly what she's doing with regard to bonding mothers and their babies (though admittedly sometimes it doesn't go according to plan and can take time for some new mothers); managing to walk away from your five day old baby and go home from the hospital without her is a complete freak of nature - chopping off your own arm with a blunt instrument would be a less alien thing to try do.

This isn't really addressed to you - well, it is addressed to you - but it isn't really in response to anything you've posted, it's just something that this subject brings out a need for me to mention.

People who say 'sure there's always adoption, no need for abortion' both offend and distress me. I'm aware I'm super sensitive about it all, so these feelings might not be terribly rational but that lack of understanding and empathy comes across as callous and cold to me.

Anyway, I'd better stop typing for fear of producing another tome . Thanks for your reply. All the best

the_eman

Twins born younger than UK abortion limit, great news?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2752256/Premature-twin-boys-born-ONE-WEEK-abortion-limit-survive-despite-heart-condition-doctors-warning-parents-fear-worst.html

seamus

Sure. Great news for the parents, fantastic outcome for the medical professionals and technology who saved them, a great illustration of how far we've come and what we can do in the future.

I'm not sure what's the point of the constant references to abortion in the article though. She had no intention of aborting.

Tiddlypeeps

seamus wrote: »

I'm not sure what's the point of the constant references to abortion in the article though. She had no intention of aborting.

I think the idea is to question weather the 24 week limit on abortion is perhaps too late. If they can potentially survive on their own prior to 24 weeks is it right to kill them?

I think it's a reasonable question.

I'm pro choice, I think if a woman wants to end a pregnancy at any stage she should have that choice. But if the child can be saved in the process then why not? Assuming it's likely to result in a reasonable quality of life, which is probably not the case that young, but it's certainly worth discussing.

seamus

It's absolutely a reasonable question, and it's my belief that the abortion limit should be periodically revised downwards in light of medical technology and statistics.

But a single instance does not a statistic make. As best I understand it, medicine is making inroads, but it's a lot slower than one would expect. There's a specific turning point that occurs at 24/25 weeks of development where likelihood of survival suddenly skyrockets in the following weeks, but remains continually poor before 24/25 weeks. These twin boys are part of a statistically tiny number of 23-week babies that survived and will be able to live a functional life without long-term care.

As it is, it is not automatically assumed that a child born before 24 weeks will be treated/resus'd unless the staff think they have a good chance of pulling through. Babies before 22 weeks are basically never treated and in most cases are considered miscarriages rather than stillbirths.

In the first 5 months of pregnancy, even 7 days can mean the difference between life and death.

Paddy Cow

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

I think the idea is to question weather the 24 week limit on abortion is perhaps too late. If they can potentially survive on their own prior to 24 weeks is it right to kill them?

I think it's a reasonable question.

I'm pro choice, I think if a woman wants to end a pregnancy at any stage she should have that choice. But if the child can be saved in the process then why not? Assuming it's likely to result in a reasonable quality of life, which is probably not the case that young, but it's certainly worth discussing.

I thought the 24 week limit was for babies who have medical issues that weren't picked up on in earlier scans?

Morag

The UK has a range of limits for different reasons, less then 1% of all abortions carried out by BPAS are 20+ weeks
the majority 87% are before 9 weeks with the abortion pills.

LizT

Mod
Please don't bump old threads.