delicate subject - abortion

marywooyeah

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.

No you're right that wouldn't happen - because you don't meet all those people, it's not a big meet and greet of everyone who will abort your baby. The only person I spoke to was one Dr , I thought she was a nurse and it was only last year after a lot of digging that I found out the same person I had made it clear to that I wanted my baby was the same person that carried out the abortion.

There was no admitting nurse, you don't speak to the theatre staff and the anaesthetist put the needle in my hand without saying anything to me. This was raised at the meeting and the chair said that it is "not uncommon" for people to raise objections as they are falling asleep and the procedures are always carried out regardless. I personally find it very concerning that someone can say they don't want something to be done but for it to go ahead anyway once they are unconcious.

erichamster

Nicki wrote: »

That link was interesting to drill into the figures welshwoofs. But it still shows that 5,600 women in the UK had at least their third abortion in 2011 (could be more) with another 58,000 odd having had their second that year. Which means that earlier statements on the thread about only a very small number of women having multiple abortions, or only a tiny percentage of abortions being not a woman's one and only, are just wrong.

What difference does this really make though. Either you agree that abortion should be provided for those who need it or you don't. These women wanted and needed 1, 2, or however many abortions because of circumstances we have no inkling of. They're not doing it for !!!!!! and giggles.

We don't dream of limiting the amount of other medical procedures people can have in other circumstances. We don't say "Mr Jones your leg is broken, but I'm afraid I see from your notes that you broke your other leg last year, therefore this time I can do nothing for you. You're clearly someone who is either too stupid to prevent leg breakage or you're enjoying the leg breaking or fixing process a little too much for my liking. Have you considered just using a wheelchair from now on to stop this happening."

Women who have abortions clearly need and/or want them, as far as I'm concerned it is none of our business, we provide social medicine to people in need, surely you're not suggesting some form of quota? Why would we want to force/encourage women to bear children they don't want? Unwanted children are one of the most regrettable problems our society faces.

As far as I'm concerned all those statistics show is that we are clearly failing either in the types of contraception available, or the availability of such, or in how we educate people about using such methods, these are the problems we should be addressing.

erichamster

Nicki wrote: »

I guess what I meant by "choosing not to use contraception or use it properly", was not the way you have interpreted it - ie wanting to have a termination, but rather in the sense of knowing that they were at risk of pregnancy, and yet not bothering to do anything to prevent it, ie choosing to accept a risk. So, for example, knowing their implant or depo jab had expired and not using barrier until it was renewed, having a one night stand without protection and without then taking the MAP or having a coil inserted, running out of pills and not using alternative methods for the correct length of time. In other words playing fast and loose, knowing that they were at risk of pregnancy even though this wasn't an outcome they wanted, in reliance of the fact that if they did conceive they could easily abort

What good do you think will be served by making them have an unwanted child? There will always be irresponsible/uneducated/unfortunate/just damn unlucky people who need abortions, what we should do is treat them with compassion.

Why shouldn't they be able to easily abort? How do you propose we should make it more difficult for them, perhaps deny them any form of anaesthetic? Make them take home the embryo in a plastic bag?

Errata

So nobody checked your details, confirmed you were a patient, took your BP, temperature, and bloods? And nobody in the anaesthesia room spoke to you and asked you to confirm who you were and your details?

Nicki

I am not saying I know the answers erichamster, just that I don't think that the current situation is working if it throws up statistics like the ones I have quoted.

Somewhat ironically, I was rather more pro choice when I started reading this thread, then I feel having read through the whole thread and the links. I wouldn't have a termination myself, but in theory I do support the woman's right not to have to give birth to an unwanted child. I am just I guess shocked by how lightly this decision can be taken by some (not referring to specific posters by this) and that a signifcant number of women apparently don't take extra care with contraception following one abortion, so end up in the situation of having two or more abortions.

I can get my head around abortion in some situations being a good thing socially, but not with 189,000 of them happening every year, when there are methods of contraception which are 98% effective out there (and almost 100% if combined with a barrier method). That to me is not the mark of a civilised society either.

Errata

It certainly seems a highly unusual, if not unique experience.

erichamster

Nicki wrote: »

I am not saying I know the answers erichamster, just that I don't think that the current situation is working if it throws up statistics like the ones I have quoted.

Somewhat ironically, I was rather more pro choice when I started reading this thread, then I feel having read through the whole thread and the links. I wouldn't have a termination myself, but in theory I do support the woman's right not to have to give birth to an unwanted child. I am just I guess shocked by how lightly this decision can be taken by some (not referring to specific posters by this) and that a signifcant number of women apparently don't take extra care with contraception following one abortion, so end up in the situation of having two or more abortions.

I can get my head around abortion in some situations being a good thing socially, but not with 189,000 of them happening every year, when there are methods of contraception which are 98% effective out there (and almost 100% if combined with a barrier method). That to me is not the mark of a civilised society either.

Clearly there is a problem with contraception, either it's effectiveness, availability, the ability of people to use it correctly, or the willingness to do so. These are the points we should be addressing, not moralizing about the choices that women can make concerning their own bodies.

We should be encouraging men and women to use contraception and instilling in them that no one should have a child if they don't expressly want one, that should be the bare minimum requirement.

erichamster

A world without unwanted children would certainly be a more civilized one. Until contraception is 100% effective and used 100% correctly, safe, legal abortion for those who want it is a necessity, and I think a morally neutral one.

Nicki

erichamster wrote: »

A world without unwanted children would certainly be a more civilized one. Until contraception is 100% effective and used 100% correctly, safe, legal abortion for those who want it is a necessity, and I think a morally neutral one.

But if the only issue is achieving a world without unwanted children, that could equally well be achieved by requiring all women when they reach puberty to the age of menopause to be fitted with a coil/implant/depo jab, which could only be removed if the woman signed a declaration saying she was actively trying for a baby. Then abortion could be limited only to those for whom contraception failed or where there were serious medical issues.

I am not suggesting that as a genuine solution by the way, just pointing out that all methods of achieving your objective are not "morally neutral", and in my heart, I personally don't find a woman failing to use contraception and having multiple abortions to be morally neutral either.

I do find this a complex issue though and not a black and white one my any means.

Person_one

Nicki wrote: »

But if the only issue is achieving a world without unwanted children, that could equally well be achieved by requiring all women when they reach puberty to the age of menopause to be fitted with a coil/implant/depo jab, which could only be removed if the woman signed a declaration saying she was actively trying for a baby. Then abortion could be limited only to those for whom contraception failed or where there were serious medical issues.

No, actually it couldn't.

Seriously, do people deliberately ignore the information about contraceptive failure rates because it doesn't suit their judgemental ranting?

Remember these headlines about the implant that you feel could achieve zero abortion rates?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12117299

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jan/05/pregnant-contraceptive-implant-implanon

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1344132/Contraceptive-implant-alert-Hundreds-women-pregnant-birth-control-fails.html