delicate subject - abortion

likelyfran

erichamster wrote: »

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.

Depends on your definition of 'need'. Stupid people not bothering with contraception and having multiple 'unwanted' preganancies don't really 'need' abortions in my eyes.

likelyfran

Errata wrote: »

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?

Oh just leave the woman alone Errata! Are you an expert of some kind in hospital procedures?
Even just as a patient myself, I know that everything that 'should' always be done, isn't always!

likelyfran

Errata wrote: »

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

Yes, and people do sometimes have very unfortunate, unpleasant, 'out of the ordinary' medical experiences.
Or are you saying they're all liars?

likelyfran

erichamster wrote: »

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.

The whole point is, though, that it's not just about women and their own bodies in this case - it's about women and their bodies and other lives inside them. Amazing that so few people seem to get that.

Welshwoofs

poet123 wrote: »

I don't know what the answer is, but part of the solution is to get across the message that aborting a foetus is not a triviality, not an inconsequential event, but a matter requiring serious thought because of the gravitas of what is being done. For the individual it may be an obvious decision, necessary or indeed the only viable option. For society it should be seen as of greater import.

You only need a solution if you perceive there to be a problem. I don't perceive there to be a problem that needs a solution. You're also attempting to stamp your personal opinions about abortion on everyone else - you can't make someone feel about their own pregnancy the way you think they should feel. Emotions just don't work that way.

I a pro choice, and no advocate of force or coercion in any guise, but if some thing which is a "necessary evil" is reduced to the import of choosing a pair of shoes then we have lost sight of the reasons the Abortion Act was conceived.

It was conceived to give women choice and that is what women have, it doesn't demand that women adopt a particular moral standpoint where they see what they're doing as an 'evil', albeit a necessary one in their circumstance. That almost seems to be demanding that they feel guilt for making one choice over another.

newcook

Hi again all!

First of all, thank you so much to those who have shared your experiences both on the thread and also via PM – believe it or not, it was good to get a non-clinical view so I would know which way to support the young woman.

However, we went to the clinic today for her consultation and it seems she is 7.5 weeks along (so more than she thought) and over the weekend she has done a lot of thinking and after being given all options by the clinic she has decided to keep it!
She is going to tell her dad towards the end of the week after she has had a bit more time to get her head around it all – I have offered to be there when she tells him.

It also looks like we might be bump buddies! me and OH got a positive this morning (I had assumed my period was late due to the stress over the last couple of weeks – we have been ‘not trying, not preventing). I haven’t told her our news yet and wont until she is 100% certain of what she wants to do as I wouldn’t want to influence her decision in any way.

likelyfran

marywooyeah wrote: »

No, I only saw the Dr before being taken to the room where I was put to sleep. The anaethetist didn't ask me anything or say anything to me I was surprised when I felt the needle in my hand but obviously it was too late by then.

Again, this was raised in the meeting and the chair told me all the patient checks are carried out but not always in front of the patient - I didn't have any BP checks or blood tests, and I don't know why I should have had my temperature taken but no didn't have that either.

[text removed by MSE Forum Team]

So the thread IS being monitored.. strange..

likelyfran

Errata wrote: »

You're clearly very damaged. I hope you find the help you need.

And you are clearly very nasty.

poet123

Welshwoofs wrote: »

You only need a solution if you perceive there to be a problem. I don't perceive there to be a problem that needs a solution. You're also attempting to stamp your personal opinions about abortion on everyone else - you can't make someone feel about their own pregnancy the way you think they should feel. Emotions just don't work that way.

If you read my post I did say that if on an individual level the choice is easy trough circumstance, overall, the act of abortion should not be seen as a trivial event.

Welshwoofs wrote: »

It was conceived to give women choice and that is what women have, it doesn't demand that women adopt a particular moral standpoint where they see what they're doing as an 'evil', albeit a necessary one in their circumstance. That almost seems to be demanding that they feel guilt for making one choice over another.

I don't believe it was conceived to be used in the way it is now used. Indeed, there are ongoing investigations into various breaches by numerous doctors who seem to have become cavalier with consent issues, and often openly flout the law with regard to the reasons for termination. The law prescribes criteria there is much debate over whether that criteria is routinely met.

I deliberately put the words in quotes to take away the connotation of the second word. Not evil in the sense that requires atonement, but evil as in a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea.

Welshwoofs

likelyfran wrote: »

They do tend to dictate what people do to other people's bodies though, in violence or murder terms.

A foetus is not a person in legal terms in this country and is not subject to the standard laws covering violence for that reason.

There is a charge of 'Child Destruction' in the UK which is for the unlawful killing of an unborn but viable foetus (i.e. a foetus of 24 weeks and over)