delicate subject - abortion

Mrs_Arcanum

Fire_Fox wrote: »

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.

And Midwives too.

poet123

marywooyeah wrote: »

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"

My apologies, it wasn't my intention to be insensitive I was just trying to find a reason why they could go ahead with a procedure which you state was forced. Clearly they had a signed consent form, equally clearly you signed that form without being clear what it entailed or what it actually permitted.

Again, I apologise for any upset, you were obviously not well treated by those professionals at a time when you were very vulnerable.

Welshwoofs

poet123 wrote: »

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

I think what is probably happening here is that you're viewing the wanting of a steralisation as something of a political crusade that women would keep battling to get. My reasons for asking was because it seemed logical to be steralised if I didn't want children; thereby removing the risk of another accidental pregnancy. I think I was probably into my late 20s/early 30s when I asked - I was told no, mentally shrugged to myself and thought "Oh well, I'll have to keep using the standard old protection then." Perhaps if I'd demanded second, third, fourth opinions and generally made a big old fuss I may have found someone to do it...but the truth is that I couldn't be bothered. It was a nice idea, but having been denied I went on my way and took the normal route.

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 and answers which do not pertain to the questions you believe they do.

I was somewhere between 21-23 (I can't remember exactly...it's 20 years ago) when I was pregnant and my partner was entering final year of his degree and I was the bread-winner. I asked about steralisation some years later when the pill I was on wasn't agreeing with me.

Now I'm 43 and obviously in a much less fertile part of my life, I wouldn't bother getting steralised. If contraception failed on me at this point I'd obviously have another abortion - though being in that situation again would be massively unlikely (and unlucky!)

likelyfran

amus wrote: »

There may be a tiny tiny percentage of women that have abortion after abortion, but for the majority of women this is most cetainly not the case.

'Pro Choice' means that it is a womans right to choose what happens to her own body i.e. choosing not to go through with an unwanted pregnancy.

It's the apparent casualness of it all that gets me. The terms in common use - 'unwanted pregnancy', 'I fell pregnant' 'it wasn't planned [but I didn't use contraception]'.
I don't agree with the 'pro-choice' movement because I think it's just making abortion more and more 'OK', when it's not. It seems that for many people, getting pregnant, is just not a big thing now. It is a big thing, because from the moment of conception, there is a life there!
OK, so the majority of women don't have 'abortion after abortion' but there is a minority of women who do - and I'm talking 6,7,8, there's certainly many, I would argue who have 2 or more. It's another of those things that I just don't get.

Lotus-eater

Fire_Fox wrote: »

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.

I'm not demonizing anyone, I merely do not like a growing child inside a woman to be called a tumour.

Now call me old fashioned, but I don't think that's very nice and I don't think it's needed on this site.

Nor do I disagree with pro choice. My views happen to be very middle of the road.

likelyfran

Welshwoofs wrote: »

I was using contraception for the very reason that the absolute last thing I wanted in my life was a child.




Actually, very far from true as there's no child to 'ask' anything. Most abortions in the UK are done before the embryo is even fully formed, let alone sentient and able to sit around making choices about its future prospects.

There's a life and you can't say whether and when that being is sentient or not.

likelyfran

raven83 wrote: »

This thread is getting more and more disturbing.

It's funny when a woman is pregnant say at 9 weeks and refers to what is inside her a "cells" or a "blob" and that it is nothing to her, then the same woman at 9 weeks pregnant with a wanted child refers to the pregnancy as her baby or "bean", and how her baby has got this and that being formed at that week.

Edit. people keep going on about a baby in utero is incapable of making choices/decisions, but then a newborn baby is also incapable of making decisions, so would it be acceptable to end the life of a child that has been born?!

Very well said raven. Faulty logic seriously at play in some posts here.

likelyfran

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.

I've heard 'the condom split' said so many times - I always wonder what the heck kind of condoms they're using and what kind of activities they're engaging in for that to happen because I've never known one to split. tbh, I think a lot of the time when people say it, they're lying, I really do, to cover up their stupidity at not using anything in the first place.

likelyfran

Person_one wrote: »

A permanent method like sterilisation? Which still has a failure rate?

The most effective form of contraception is actually the implant, and hundreds of women have conceived using that, you may remember the headlines a while back.

Don't forget that not every woman can use every contraceptive. I had to rely on barrier methods for years until I found a hormonal method that didn't make me ill.

Even if someone like that poster is a wee bit careless or makes a mistake, what life are you wishing on the unwanted child for the sake of punishing the mother's carelessness?

There's plenty of people dying to adopt. Would it not be better to have the child - who is after all blameless, instead of killing it, and let it go to a loving home elsewhere?

amus

likelyfran wrote: »

It's the apparent casualness of it all that gets me. The terms in common use - 'unwanted pregnancy', 'I fell pregnant' 'it wasn't planned [but I didn't use contraception].
I don't agree with the 'pro-choice' movement because I think it's just making abortion more and more 'OK', when it's not. It seems that for many people, getting pregnant, is just not a big thing now. It is a big thing, because from the moment of conception, there is a life there!
OK, so the majority of women don't have 'abortion after abortion' but there is a minority of women who do - and I'm talking 6,7,8, there's certainly many, I would argue who have 2 or more. It's another of those things that I just don't get.

Casual or not whats the alternative?

To force women to have unwanted babies which may end up neglected and uncared for? The care system is already at breaking point.

Just because some women are irresponsible about contraception doesnt mean the choice should be taken away from other women.

I personally dont 'get' why some women would forgo contraception knowing the inevitable outcome of such actions and then opt for abortion, especially in this day and age, but I still think its a far better alternative than bringing an unwanted human being into this world.