delicate subject - abortion

kitschkitty

Torry_Quine wrote: »

The woman herself can often use phrases like 'I was wrong to kill my baby' who she now feels is an innocent victim and so yes she feels that repentence and help with the guilt are needed. All women are different and may not feel guilt or remorse and counselling is not a one size fits all but working with the woman to help her to come to terms with what she now sees as a negative event.

I'm not doubting or denying that some women feel guilty. I am saying it is wrong to consider repentance as what they need. Anyone who says they want to help you by helping you to repent is doing a disservice unless it is in a religious context. Using such negative and emotive language in the context it was used is not helpful or healthy.

Welshwoofs

poet123 wrote: »

. If you like it was the style your comments were written in which I think could have been more sensitive, similar to the way we both view the style some of the site was written in I suppose.

I literally don't understand where you're coming from on this because I was talking about a website. It's not possible to insensitive towards a bunch of HTML, it's only possible to be insensitive towards people...and I wasn't.

You do come across as very unemotional in your posts in general, not specifically on here. Some people are simply made that way, it isn't a criticism.

Terming someone unemotional is a criticism because everyone has emotions and you'd not be a normal human being if you didn't. I certainly have emotions; I'm just not the type of writer who 'gushes' emotionally because I see no point in doing so.

amus

I havnt had an abortion but I recently miscarried and before doing so read up on my options (medical management with pills or a D&C) which are essentially the same as abortion.

I opted for the medical management with pills as I didnt want to be put under with anaesthetic. I didnt need it in the end as I miscarried naturally at 9 weeks whilst waiting to be given the pills. Anyway the point Im getting at is depending on how far along she is when she comes to have the termination, if she opts for the pills she will feel the pregnancy pass which I imagine would probably be worse than having the D&C under anasthetic as that way you're not aware of anything coming out if that makes sense.

When she goes to the clinic she should be given a leaflet with both of the options on and these give the pros and cons of each proceedure, its basically up to the woman to decide which option would be best for her.

From what you have said it sounds to me like she is pretty sure about her decision and has made up her mind, so going to the clinic where she will be given her options in an impartial, factual manner is probably a good idea.

With regards to the 'life debate' when I lost the pregnancy it actually upset me more when the nurses told me that the products of conception are cremated and sent to a special 'baby garden' in the cemetary because it made it sound as if it was a baby. I dont feel that what I lost was a baby, it was a potential baby in the same way as an egg or sperm.

The fact is everybodys going to feel different about subjects like this, some people like to think of the loss as a baby and remember dates etc. Some people get offended when people refer to pregnanacy losses/terminations in a 'cold' manner, others prefer that what was lost is not 'humanised'.

Theres no right or wrong and everyone is entitled to express their views how they wish.

poet123

Welshwoofs wrote: »

I literally don't understand where you're coming from on this because I was talking about a website. It's not possible to insensitive towards a bunch of HTML, it's only possible to be insensitive towards people...and I wasn't.


Terming someone unemotional is a criticism because everyone has emotions and you'd not be a normal human being if you didn't. I certainly have emotions; I'm just not the type of writer who 'gushes' emotionally because I see no point in doing so.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.:D

I apologise if you felt it was a criticism, it was not intended that way at all. Obviously, I can only go off your writing and as you say it isn't full of emotion. I fully expected you to come back with the rejoinder about not being affected by words on a screen, which is fine, many people aren't, but many more are.

However, my point stands, if you think of a subject which you do feel emotional about and from there consider a post touches insensitively on that, and seems to disrespect those emotions, then that is how at least one poster took the post I quoted above, and I can see why. If you can't that is fine, it doesn't negate her feelings.

Welshwoofs

poet123 wrote: »

However, my point stands, if you think of a subject which you do feel emotional about and from there consider a post touches insensitively on that, and seems to disrespect those emotions, then that is how at least one poster took the post I quoted above, and I can see why. If you can't that is fine, it doesn't negate her feelings.

No you're right, it doesn't negate her feelings but neither does it mean her feelings should result in anyone having to censor what they feel about a website. Being upset because someone is slating a website is only logical if one were part of the team that created that website. I totally appreciate that she (and I'll be honest here...I'm not even sure who we're talking about here as I didn't pay a lot of attention) is upset about having an abortion and that's perfectly understandable. However that has absolutely no bearing on my views of that website and I'm certainly not going to curtail my views about that site in any way simply because someone else happens to rate it and it helped them. The site and the tone that it uses is utter !!!!!! and I'm happy to stand by that opinion. Religious institutions have no business passing themselves off as impartial counselling on anything.

poet123

Welshwoofs wrote: »

No you're right, it doesn't negate her feelings but neither does it mean her feelings spring from reason. Being upset because someone is slating a website is only logical if one were part of the team that created that website.

I think you miss the point I am making, the comments made by the website would be true for some, perhaps many, women, therefore by rubbishing them (albeit from a personal standpoint) they would see that as denying that anyone could feel that way. For many people it wouldn't be a load of !!!!!! but would accurately represent their feelings.

We are not seeing this from the same perspective obviously, but having seen my friends reaction many years down the line from her abortion I know from experience that she would be very much in agreement with the comment you described as !!!!!!.

marywooyeah

balletshoes wrote: »

I don't think the girl the OP is talking about was in the same position as you though mary, you wanted to keep your baby. She doesn't, and I honestly do believe that makes a huge difference to how you feel after going through with a termination.

With respect I think you have misunderstood the context the comment was made in - it was not about the girl in the OP's question but in response to heartbreak star's comment that the counsellor she dealt with had overstepped the mark - I was saying that I believe women should be told about the possibility that they may suffer emotionally and that this should be considered when they make their decision.

I do however agree with your statement that how you feel about keeping your baby will affect how you feel afterwards.

mishkanorman

Welshwoofs wrote: »

No you're right, it doesn't negate her feelings but neither does it mean her feelings should result in anyone having to censor what they feel about a website. Being upset because someone is slating a website is only logical if one were part of the team that created that website. I totally appreciate that she (and I'll be honest here...I'm not even sure who we're talking about here as I didn't pay a lot of attention) is upset about having an abortion and that's perfectly understandable. However that has absolutely no bearing on my views of that website and I'm certainly not going to curtail my views about that site in any way simply because someone else happens to rate it and it helped them. The site and the tone that it uses is utter !!!!!! and I'm happy to stand by that opinion. Religious institutions have no business passing themselves off as impartial counselling on anything.

As the potential poster in question i would like a chance to clarify that I dont object to your opinion, the right to state it how you wish or anything else suggested by some here, my comments in response to this,

"Well I've had an abortion and it was neither something 'I had to come to terms with' nor something that was 'a painful part of their lives'. I've had more painful bowel movements and I've given more thought to my choice of dishes from a take-away menu. Why make an abortion into a life changing thing when it's simply a very trivial thing to a lot of women?"


were because for you it was trivial, and you need no further sensitivity shown towards you or your experience - there are however many of us for whom it was not a decision that came easily, it has many repercussions in our lives and was the most painful thing we have been through. Whilst you may not see the need for such websites, leaflets or viewpoints to be-little their need in such a manner is potentially upsetting,

I would say for me personally reading that i felt how you were made to feel by the nurse at the hospital, she was entitled to have her opinion of you and your choices but didnt need to make you aware of them in such a manner as to cause you upset.

Person_one

marywooyeah wrote: »

With respect I think you have misunderstood the context the comment was made in - it was not about the girl in the OP's question but in response to heartbreak star's comment that the counsellor she dealt with had overstepped the mark - I was saying that I believe women should be told about the possibility that they may suffer emotionally and that this should be considered when they make their decision.

I do however agree with your statement that how you feel about keeping your baby will affect how you feel afterwards.

PND is a lot more common than 'emotional problems' following abortion, especially with an unwanted pregnancy I wonder how much Care Confidential warn women about that possibility.

Torry_Quine

Welshwoofs wrote: »

No you're right, it doesn't negate her feelings but neither does it mean her feelings should result in anyone having to censor what they feel about a website. Being upset because someone is slating a website is only logical if one were part of the team that created that website. I totally appreciate that she (and I'll be honest here...I'm not even sure who we're talking about here as I didn't pay a lot of attention) is upset about having an abortion and that's perfectly understandable. However that has absolutely no bearing on my views of that website and I'm certainly not going to curtail my views about that site in any way simply because someone else happens to rate it and it helped them. The site and the tone that it uses is utter !!!!!! and I'm happy to stand by that opinion. Religious institutions have no business passing themselves off as impartial counselling on anything.

My bold-: You should never know the religious leanings or lack of when receiving counselling. The only time it should be mentioned is if brought up by the client.

Person_one wrote: »

PND is a lot more common than 'emotional problems' following abortion, especially with an unwanted pregnancy I wonder how much Care Confidential warn women about that possibility.

Personally I've never known any woman with PND but several with post-abortion trauma but that wouldn't make me say it was more common. Yes a good counsellor should make the client aware that she risks PND but at least that is more easilly recognised and treated by the medical profession.