delicate subject - abortion

raven83

marywooyeah wrote: »

I didn't go of my own free will, but as I have said in earlier posts about three times now I do accept that I bear some blame, and getting changed etc comes into that as I did change into the gown.



No. Given the amount I have already disclosed I find it insensitive that you would even consider that I "changed my mind". I was consistently adamant that I wanted to keep the baby and explained that it was my boyfriend who wanted an abortion. I explained I felt under pressure and that he had told me I had no other choice, the form was put in front of me and the Dr told me I needed to sign it. This formed part of the discussion at the meeting, and the chair said he felt that by being told I needed to sign the form that could exacerbate a feeling of helpness/force and the chair said he felt I should have been told "you should only sign this form if you want to have an abortion"



Indeed - it hasn't been raised in this thread by anyone before you but you are correct and again that is something I have accepted as part of my blame.

The GP wasn't to blame as when I went for the initial appointment with her, which lasted about 10 minutes I said "I have to have an abortion" and she literally picked up the phone, arranged the appointment and told me when and where to go - we didn't discuss my pregnancy at all and I understand that by saying I have to have an abortion it was not necessarily clear that I don't want to have an abortion.

I hope it everything is a bit clearer to people that have asked questions directly to me. I understand that it is difficult to understand what happened, I wish it hadn't happened but it did and it is really insulting to have people say they don't believe me.

I would rather not have to keep going through it now as it's getting a bit much for me and I hope people could respect that.

For what it is worth Mary, I believe you, I myself have my own personal experience with this subject, which I care not to go into, but I know what it is like to have people take control of the situation and make the problem go away, even if it is not something you are really sure you want.

Welshwoofs

Lotus-eater wrote: »

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

Firstly it's not 'pro-abortion' - pro-abortion implies that someone encourages pregnant women to terminate pregnancies in all cases and that's total an utter hogwash. Pro-choice is about supporting women who've made the choice to terminate a pregnancy rather than say try and emotionally blugeon them into continuing the pregnancy.

I have no idea what you've found to be 'disgusted' about (unless, of course, almost anything disgusts you). Why should it disgust you if a woman finds a pregnancy inconvenient? Why should it disgust you if a woman refuses to term a foetus as a 'baby' (because it isn't)? Why should it disgust you that a woman doesn't suffer emotional or physical trauma from the decision to abort?

Seriously....get over yourself.

raven83

Welshwoofs wrote: »

Firstly it's not 'pro-abortion' - pro-abortion implies that someone encourages pregnant women to terminate pregnancies in all cases and that's total an utter hogwash. Pro-choice is about supporting women who've made the choice to terminate a pregnancy rather than say try and emotionally blugeon them into continuing the pregnancy.

I have no idea what you've found to be 'disgusted' about (unless, of course, almost anything disgusts you). Why should it disgust you if a woman finds a pregnancy inconvenient? Why should it disgust you if a woman refuses to term a foetus as a 'baby' (because it isn't)? Why should it disgust you that a woman doesn't suffer emotional or physical trauma from the decision to abort?

Seriously....get over yourself.

Erm might have something to do with the terminology being used to describe a life that is growing inside of you, something that is half you to add to that!

amus

http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml

An excellent article if anyones interested, cover points raised here such as when is a life a life etc.

Welshwoofs

Lotus-eater wrote: »

Yeah you're right, I probably should have said "Anti children" or to be more exact, "anti pieces of repugnant parasitical flesh which live inside me"

Wanting to have an abortion does not equate to being 'anti children'. My Mother had an abortion in the early 60s and then she went on to have me....she clearly wasn't 'anti-children'. One of my good friends had an abortion when she was 19 and then went on to have 2 children in her late 20s...again, not anti-children.

Re the parasite thing - no, a foetus is not a parasite since, although it lives in and gains nourishment from another, it is of the same species as its host. Parasites also live in/on a host and gain nourshiment from it, but they're always a different species.

kitschkitty

Lotus-eater wrote: »

Yeah you're right, I probably should have said "Anti children" or to be more exact, "anti pieces of repugnant parasitical flesh which live inside me"

Again that's incorrect being personally anti pregnant isn't the same as being anti children.


(In reference to anyone who has posted here and those who agree but haven't posted, that they never, ever want to be pregnant).

amus

raven83 wrote: »

Erm might have something to do with the terminology being used to describe a life that is growing inside of you, something that is half you to add to that!

A cancer cell is 'life' growing inside you, and thats all of you.

I can understand why some may wish to think of embryos/foetuses as babies but Im not sure why others would take issue with other people choosing not to, feotuses/embryos are not legally nor medically defined as people so people are free to refer to them as they choose.

Welshwoofs

raven83 wrote: »

Erm might have something to do with the terminology being used to describe a life that is growing inside of you, something that is half you to add to that!

And what terminology would that be?

Fire_Fox

Lotus-eater wrote: »

Yeah you're right, I probably should have said "Anti children" or to be more exact, "anti pieces of repugnant parasitical flesh which live inside me"

Nobody has been anti-children, please stop polarising the issue and demonising those you don't agree with. Not wanting a foetus/ embryo inside you or not wanting to be responsible for another human being 24/7 for the next two decades doesn't mean we hate them all nor that we are pro-abortion. Plenty of child-free by choice are school teachers, social workers, nurses, favourite aunties or godparents.

poet123

Fire_Fox wrote: »

I DID seek and I did persist: as already stated I first asked at 18, last asked in my thirties and several times in between. I doubt I enquired about private initially because, like most 18 year olds, I was on a low income. Like Welshwoofs that would have been the time in my life pregnancy would have been most disastrous - I was hugely immature, had been kicked out of my parents' home the year before and a student. I did ask about going private in my twenties and that was dismissed, can't recall much about the conversation but IIRC it revolved around ethics.

And you don't see the correlation with the refusal here?

If in your twenties you were "dismissed" that was down to you to persist or go elsewhere if it was that important to you.

Fire_Fox wrote: »

You are contradicting yourself, how can one demonstrate pregnancy would affect one's mental health without previously having been pregnant or having diagnosed mental health issues? What exactly are you trying to prove, that it is possible to get sterilised if you are mature, have the money to pay for the operation AND are willing to expend a lot of time and effort pushing for it? Quite possibly, again how does that help reduce the unplanned pregnancy rate and abortion rate in the under 24s? Would that have stopped Welshwoofs needing an abortion?

I was discussing the abstract concept of permanent birth control methods as pertaining to the statements made by Humphrey10 originally, but you chose to make yourself the focus of the comments so I answered your queries. I made no reference to WW as I have no knowledge of her age or circumstances. So, I am not contradicting myself you are looking at answers which do not pertain to the questions you believe they do.

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Your 'divide and conquer' approach to posts is disingenuous. You are making sweeping claims and refusing to accept any anecdotal evidence from anyone other than the person you are posting to at the time! How can one person refute such claims? You dismiss Humphrey10 for being warped, Welshwoofs for having her own reasons and me for either being too young (teens) or like one in four of us having diagnosed mental health issues (thirties). What about when I was in my twenties, in good health and married to a man who was supportive of my decision?

ETA http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC558215/
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Female-sterilisation/Pages/Introduction.aspx (also see comments)

No divide and conquer approach, simply a response to individual comments, it isn't all about you. Nor did I say Humphrey10 was warped. With regard to your comment about what happened when you were in your twenties how can I comment? I don't know how persistent you were, how you presented or who you saw, and I find it odd that you cannot remember the detail of the reasons for refusal if it was such an important issue for you. I think I would remember.

The links you provide seem to show that in principal the NHS will sterilise those under 30, and that over 30 it is quite common. How old are you now? Have you been back recently?

You seem to be taking all this very personally, my comments were general and they appear to be backed up by the NHS site info. It is possible to get sterilised, it may not be easy to do, but the fact that they say thousands of women do have it done each year suggests that you may just have been unlucky or not a suitable candidate for the procedure at that time.