delicate subject - abortion

Fire_Fox

likelyfran wrote: »

I really don't get the 'pro-choice' term.
OK, there are some women who become pregnant when they really didn't want to and actually tried not to, as for the rest - just use ****ing contraception! :mad:
Some women really do have abortion after abortion and it's really not OK! The child didn't ask to be conceived nor seen as a mere 'inconvenience' before it's poisoned, sucked out, macerated or however it's 'aborted'. Sorry but it's true!

I don't think ANYONE on this thread or any other abortion thread thinks that multiple abortions are acceptable, but thankfully those are a tiny proportion of all the abortions performed. I am pro-choice but don't support late abortions except in very extreme circumstances. I support a reduction in the gestation down to 20 weeks with a view to reducing that further still, and am relieved that the vast majority are performed before 12 weeks. Pro-choice is not simply about a woman having the right to choose on a whim, it's about being able to choose what is right for your mental, physical and social wellbeing within the framework of the legislation.

No child asks to be born into a household where it is not loved, no stability or discipline, addiction, prostitution, ASBOs, physical abuse or to spend its formative years in a series of foster homes.

poet123 wrote: »

What century do you think we are living in? Has anyone ever said that to you? I think that such a warped view of how others would perceive someone who doesn't want children shows that you have real issues surrounding this subject which probably colour many other areas of your life.

Basically yes. I've been told smugly many times I'd change my mind about not wanting children, read many times of people not comprehending that every woman isn't emotionally bonded to her unwanted pregnancy, read many times that we all have a biological/ hormonal urge to breed without any evidence, that those of us who don't are unnatural/ abnormal/ selfish and many other negative terms.

poet123 wrote: »

Is that not backwards thinking? Firstly, for me, it illustrates that they should have a foolproof method of contraception, belt and braces if necessary. And before anyone says there is no foolproof method I know that, but if you use more than one method together the chances of failure are negligible. In fact anyone who feels that strongly should seek a permanent method of contraception.

Back in the real world what percentage of youngsters are responsible and forward thinking enough to use two methods of contraception? The high pregnancy rate and high abortion rate in teens/ under 24s shows that too many are not. One solution is enforced contraception, only able to opt out if you have health reasons or can demonstrate you are in a committed relationship. The British public won't go for that, they will bleat about the nanny state. No more than they will accept far better sex education in schools as other countries with lower teenage pregnancy rates have.

poet123

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Basically yes. I've been told smugly many times I'd change my mind about not wanting children, read many times of people not comprehending that every woman isn't emotionally bonded to her unwanted pregnancy, read many times that we all have a biological/ hormonal urge to breed without any evidence, that those of us who don't are unnatural/ abnormal/ selfish and many other negative terms.




Back in the real world what percentage of youngsters are responsible and forward thinking enough to use two methods of contraception? The high pregnancy rate and high abortion rate in teens/ under 24s shows that too many are not. One solution is enforced contraception, only able to opt out if you have health reasons or can demonstrate you are in a committed relationship. The British public won't go for that, they will bleat about the nanny state. No more than they will accept far better sex education in schools as other countries with lower teenage pregnancy rates have.

If you go back and read the context of those posts they were made to Humphrey10 specifically, and relate to a very specific part of a specific post.

Fire_Fox

poet123 wrote: »

I can see why 18 would be considered too young to make such a far reaching decision.

Later, maybe they considered that your request could be coloured by the MH issues you were having?

If you are willing to pay, and can give informed consent, they will perform the OP.[

You are moving the goalposts now. You previously claimed "In any event if you were to suggest that bearing a child would be injurious to their mental health I suspect the NHS would do it."

They won't. I asked. Several times. So did Welshwoofs. What age do you think they should perform a sterilisation on a childless woman? How can that reduce the high unplanned pregnancy and abortion rate in the oh-so-fertile under 24s?

poet123 wrote: »

I don't know how you would describe the state of a foetus at 12 weeks gestation so I can't comment, and obviously my other comments weren't aimed at you. However, whatever your background you cannot argue with the facts that at 12 weeks, on a scan their is life.

Your comments were not aimed at me? So why say "Those who persist in playing that down do so for their own reasons"? I fit into that category.

In this thread and elsewhere I've described the embryo/ foetus prior to twelve weeks as a bundle of cells (as viewed under a high powered microscope) progressing to differentiated cells/ recognisable tissues. It is no more A life than a teratoma is A life, too all intents and purposes an embryo/ foetus is a parasite or perhaps a symbiotic relationship in the case of much wanted pregnancies.

A 12 week pregnancy is not classed as A life in the eyes of the medical profession nor the law in this country and I adhere to that. My personal view is that it is not A life until it is fully formed and viable outside the womb with all the help the medical profession can provide. By fully formed I mean mature not rudimentary organs.

Welshwoofs

poet123 wrote: »

You can of course think of it in any way you choose. It does not alter the fact that at 12 weeks the foetus is fully formed and alive, so a life.

And yet again, most abortions are done before 12 weeks and even if they are done AT 12 weeks or even a few weeks later than that they are still removing something that is completely unviable outside the womb. You can't argue that because it's a biological fact.

That view does not make it so universally, it does even make it anything other than a view, a way of looking at an issue which suits you.

It's a universal truth that a 12 week old foetus is not viable outside the womb. It is a fact in both legal and biological terms that a 12 week old foetus is NOT a baby. So no, those things are not a 'view' they are facts.

but I would hope I would not try to rationalise away the actuality of it if I did take that course of action.

Who has tried to 'rationalise away the actuality of it'? Nobody. It's the removal of a foetus from the womb. It is the termination of a pregnancy and the potential for that foetus to mature into a baby. That is what abortion is. I'm perfectly aware of that and I'm utterly dispassionate about it which is not the same thing at all as trying to 'rationalise' it away as though it's something too awful to contemplate. It wasn't awful for me to contemplate - it was trivial and didn't spark any particular emotions in me other than my fear of needles!

Fire_Fox

Humphrey10 wrote: »

*waits for replies along the line of "but you're a woman, you should want to be pregnant all the time, your only purpose is to serve men by sexually pleasuring them and bearing their children" *

Above is the paragraph you emboldened.

poet123 wrote: »

What century do you think we are living in? Has anyone ever said that to you? I think that such a warped view of how others would perceive someone who doesn't want children shows that you have real issues surrounding this subject which probably colour many other areas of your life.

poet123 wrote: »

If you go back and read the context of those posts they were made to Humphrey10 specifically, and relate to a very specific part of a specific post.

I read the context, both you and Humphrey10 made general statements.

poet123

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Above is the paragraph you emboldened.





I read the context, both you and Humphrey10 made general statements.

No, my comments were specific to Humprey10, which was why I quoted her and why I emboldened the relevant point.

Lotus-eater

While I understand it's a delicate subject, I am frankly a little disturbed by some of the descriptions and language used on this thread.

No matter how strongly you feel, there is no need to refer to a baby growing inside someone, in some of the terms that have been used.

It is most of the usual suspects of course, so I shouldn't be too surprised.

I'm usually disgusted by the pro-life lobby, but find myself being disgusted by the vehemently pro abortion lobby this time.

poet123

Fire_Fox wrote: »

You are moving the goalposts now. You previously claimed "In any event if you were to suggest that bearing a child would be injurious to their mental health I suspect the NHS would do it."

They won't. I asked. Several times. So did Welshwoofs. What age do you think they should perform a sterilisation on a childless woman? How can that reduce the high unplanned pregnancy and abortion rate in the oh-so-fertile under 24s?

You asked at 18 which is very young and I can see why it may be refused, if you persisted and had evidence to show it would affect your mental health I suspect you would succeed. Neither you nor I know for sure whether that would be the case, so neither of us can say definitively. Later you had MH issues so from the POV of the NHS informed consent may have been an issue. So I wouldn't say you were a typical case from which we can draw concrete conclusions.

Did you pursue the private route?

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Your comments were not aimed at me? So why say "Those who persist in playing that down do so for their own reasons"? I fit into that category.

My comments may apply to you but they were not aimed at you, there is a difference.

Fire_Fox wrote: »

In this thread and elsewhere I've described the embryo/ foetus prior to twelve weeks as a bundle of cells (as viewed under a high powered microscope) progressing to differentiated cells/ recognisable tissues. It is no more A life than a teratoma is A life, too all intents and purposes an embryo/ foetus is a parasite or perhaps a symbiotic relationship in the case of much wanted pregnancies.

A 12 week pregnancy is not classed as A life in the eyes of the medical profession nor the law in this country and I adhere to that. My personal view is that it is not A life until it is fully formed and viable outside the womb with all the help the medical profession can provide. By fully formed I mean mature not rudimentary organs.

It is life though, and abortion ends that life whatever the semantics of it.

POPPYOSCAR

We get it

There are those that:

1. Think nothing of abortion

2. Agree with Abortion and choice etc. but think it is a big thing.

3. Are completely against it.

All of us fall somewhere within these which we are perfectly entitled to do, so why are some going continually round in circles!

poet123

Welshwoofs wrote: »

And yet again, most abortions are done before 12 weeks and even if they are done AT 12 weeks or even a few weeks later than that they are still removing something that is completely unviable outside the womb. You can't argue that because it's a biological fact.

I have never argued that point.

Welshwoofs wrote: »

It's a universal truth that a 12 week old foetus is not viable outside the womb. It is a fact in both legal and biological terms that a 12 week old foetus is NOT a baby. So no, those things are not a 'view' they are facts.

I referred to it as a foetus

Welshwoofs wrote: »

Who has tried to 'rationalise away the actuality of it'? Nobody. It's the removal of a foetus from the womb. It is the termination of a pregnancy and the potential for that foetus to mature into a baby. That is what abortion is. I'm perfectly aware of that and I'm utterly dispassionate about it which is not the same thing at all as trying to 'rationalise' it away as though it's something too awful to contemplate. It wasn't awful for me to contemplate - it was trivial and didn't spark any particular emotions in me other than my fear of needles!

We are going to have to agree to differ here again. I think the way you and others refer to the procedure is a rationalisation.