delicate subject - abortion

likelyfran

balletshoes wrote: »

Mary I know this has been gone over in previous threads, but at the point in the termination procedure where you were given the anaesthetic, it was already too late to stop the procedure, as you'd already been given the tablets to soften the neck of the womb.

It also never occurs to me that a surgeon who conducts abortions is called an abortionist - they are a surgeon. In which circles are they called abortionists?

Quite frankly, it seems to me that if any medical professional is to blame for this, its your GP. If you were vehement with him/her that you wanted to keep your baby when you discovered you were pregnant, why were you referred to a termination clinic in the first place?

I don't see a problem with the term 'abortionist'. Surely it just means 'person who performs an abortion'. Therefore, the surgeon is both a surgeon and an abortionist - I think perhaps your problem with the term comes from you seeing it as loaded.

likelyfran

Welshwoofs wrote: »

I don't know how many more ways there are to say this to make you (and others) understand...but that is what it was to me! For many women abortion is not a life-changing, traumatic experience and though it obviously is for others, why on earth should those who experienced no problems and no regrets have to hide their thoughts and feelings away?



My reason for using those terms is because that is how I viewed it. Why on earth would I use such terms as 'baby' or 'child' when it was never that to me? (And in fact is not a 'baby' or a 'child' at that stage in legal or biological terminology either!)

I'd also add that those who persist in using emotive phrases are also doing it for their own reasons - why not question their motives?

Now I'm going to state quite bluntly here that neither you nor anyone else is going to browbeat me into viewing an embryo at the stage that most abortions are done as anything other than a blob of matter and if my views about that offend people....tough, they'll just have to put up with it...in exactly the same way as I put up with ludicrous overly-dramatic rhetoric about killing babies.

The kind of attitude displayed above seriously makes me wonder what kind of parents people with it would/do make.. very 'me me me'.

amus

likelyfran wrote: »

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?

There are plenty of kids already in the care system that need good homes. No need to add more!

Thats of course forgetting the toll of childbearing and labour on a womans body. A woman shouldnt be forced to go through that just because there are some people who may want to look after their babies.

And it is not killing a child. At the stage when most abortions are conducted it isnt even killing a foetus, its an embryo, a few paces forward from a sperm, and billions of those are murdered each day for the pleasure of their Fathers.

amus

likelyfran wrote: »

The kind of attitude displayed above seriously makes me wonder what kind of parents people with it would/do make.. very 'me me me'.

I really hope you're not suggesting that any woman who readily admits to not wanting a child is selfish.........

poet123

likelyfran wrote: »

The kind of attitude displayed above seriously makes me wonder what kind of parents people with it would/do make.. very 'me me me'.

Ohh the irony!!;)

POPPYOSCAR

amus wrote: »

I really hope you're not suggesting that any woman who readily admits to not wanting a child is selfish.........

Whilst not agreeing with the poster I really do not see where you got that from in her post.

poet123

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Whilst not agreeing with the poster I really do not see where you got that from in her post.

I thanked it, but on re reading I think you are correct, she is implying selfishness, but you can't extrapolate that further to include the subject matter of having a child.

Fire_Fox

poet123 wrote: »

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.

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

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.

Of course I see the correlation: the point was that I started asking at 18, had the foresight to have it put on my medical notes and was STILL dismissed when I asked for the last time within the last five years. In principle is not in fact: it is MUCH easier to access an abortion and, shockingly, to access a series of abortions than to access a permanent form of contraception if you are child-free.

I did not say I didn't remember the reasons, I said I can't remember much about the conversation on a specific occasion. I can't attribute which snippet to which time in my life, but basically they all boiled down to me being childless. Where exactly do you propose I went to get sterilised after being dismissed by more than one GP? The third world where money trumps ethics?

What the article actually says is "Surgeons are more willing to perform sterilisation when women are over 30 years old and have had children, although some younger women who have never had a baby choose it." The thousands who do access sterilisation are all comers, there are no stats for childfree or under thirties let alone both. If you read the comments section there are indications that some women with children are struggling to access sterilisation.

This is what women are currently up against
"There is no official age criterion for the operation - the decision is made by patient and doctor together. However, most doctors in the NHS and private sector will not consider a woman until at least 25, and are likely to recommend 30.

Peter Brinsden, the medical director at Bourn Hall Clinic, Cambridge, who has carried out reversals, believes it is common for women who later regret being sterilised to have had a deep conviction when they were younger that they never wanted children. He believes women should not be considered for sterilisation until at least the age of 28, and says women who do come to regret the decision have not always received adequate counselling before taking what is a "very, very big step".

"I've seen a large number of women who've had a sterilisation at a young age and they've changed their mind," he says. "They've met a partner who wants children and they want to arrange a reversal so they can start a family." He estimates there is a 50-50 chance that a young sterilised woman will regret her decision.."
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/the-human-condition-women-who-dont-want-to-be-mother-1575344.html

amus

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Whilst not agreeing with the poster I really do not see where you got that from in her post.

I dont see where the poster she was responding to has displayed an attitude of selfishness, so I can only assume it is where she is making it perfectly clear that she doesnt want kids?

likelyfran

kitschkitty wrote: »

Pro abortion???? I don't think anyone is pro abortion, they are pro choice.

Huh??? By definition if someone thinks it is OK to either have an abortion or not have one, they are 'pro' both options. Your post makes no sense at all!!