delicate subject - abortion

poet123

Fire_Fox wrote: »

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 agree it is shocking, but it can be achieved so if it was so important to me I would persist. WW states she didn't pursue it, my bet is that if she had she would have achieved what she wanted.

Fire_Fox wrote: »

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?

Being childness does not preclude you from being sterilised I agree it makes it more difficult, but it does not preclude you, so I personally wouldnt have settled for that as answer.

Fire_Fox wrote: »

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

If those are the figures for change of heart, you can see why there is a reluctance.

ETA From your link;

"More women under 30 are sterilised in Britain than anywhere in Europe or America"

Fire_Fox

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 freely admit to being selfish and freely admit that I would make a rubbish parent. Isn't it responsible of those of us who know we are not cut out for parenting to remain child-free by choice be that via contraception, sterilisation or abortion?

There is an argument that Westerners who choose to breed are equally selfish: they do it because they want to, they put their desires ahead of the issues of overpopulation and overconsumption, many expect the taxpayer to fund part or all of their choice, many constantly rabbit on about their little darlings. Who honestly gets pregnant for the future of our nation, in order that our species can continue?

POPPYOSCAR

amus wrote: »

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?

"Me, Me, Me" attitude as she put it, is not the same as saying someone is selfish because they do not want kids.

For example, I do not have a "me me me attitude" as I very often put others before myself, but I did have children for 'selfish' reasons because I wanted them for my benefit.

likelyfran

Errata wrote: »

I said I couldn't believe what was posted, because I simply don't believe that in the UK someone who is taken to a hospital against their 'free will', and makes clear to the admitting nurse, the doctor, the anaesthetist and all the theatre staff that they do not want to have an abortion performed is given one.
That's my opinion. Others may have formed a different opinion, which is what happens on a free for all internet forum.

'Stranger things have happened', for want of a better way of putting it.
Sometimes we say things, but if we feel powerless (as someone else said on here) or unconfident or anything like that, part of the dynamic with others that ensues is quite often that our words or expressions are ineffective. One sad but common aspect of human psychology/interaction. I'm not sure if I've got across what I mean but I'm talking from experience.

likelyfran

amus wrote: »

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.

Because some people fight for the vulnerable? Also, people are free to define feotuses/embryos as 'people' - as you put it, I would say living beings - if they want to, regardless of what legal or medical opinion is!

Fire_Fox

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.

poet123 wrote: »

I agree it is shocking, but it can be achieved so if it was so important to me I would persist. WW states she didn't pursue it, my bet is that if she had she would have achieved what she wanted.

Being childness does not preclude you from being sterilised I agree it makes it more difficult, but it does not preclude you, so I personally wouldnt have settled for that as answer.

If those are the figures for change of heart, you can see why there is a reluctance.

ETA From your link;

"More women under 30 are sterilised in Britain than anywhere in Europe or America"

Of course I understand the reluctance, when have I ever said otherwise? I have actually tried to illustrate the scale of the reluctance from my own experience and with links!! :rotfl: Are you finally willing to accept that sterilisation is not a viable alternative to contraception and abortion for most want to remain child free by choice?

amus

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

"Me, Me, Me" attitude as she put it, is not the same as saying someone is selfish because they do not want kids.

For example, I do not have a "me me me attitude" as I very often put others before myself, but I did have children for 'selfish' reasons because I wanted them for my benefit.

Surely anybody on an internet forum where people are discussing their own viewpoints and giving their own experiences are going to come across as me me me?

In either case judging whether somebody has a me me me attitude is purely sujective, and the opinion that a person does is of no relevance to this debate, unless of course they are being judged on the basis that they do not want children/had no problem aborting a child.

likelyfran

amus wrote: »

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.

Aside from disagreeing.. hahaha! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::T

*max*

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'.

And you were saying some people show a lack of logic? Oh the irony...

Hypothetical exchange:

"I don't want children and I won't have them"
"Well, not with that attitude, you won't!"

Can you not see how illogical your statement is?

likelyfran

amus wrote: »

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

I wasn't actually but now you mention it, that's probably true in a lot of cases. And I'm judging by people I know in real life..