We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
delicate subject - abortion
Comments
-
Person_one wrote: »I can only apologise on behalf of my 16 year old self for not being all that keen on getting a coil or diaphragm fitted.
Good to know that even strict condom use isn't enough to protect somebody from judgemental types deciding its all their own fault if they have an accidental pregnancy.
But this is you distorting what has been said for your own purposes AGAIN on this thread.
No one has said that ONE accidental pregnancy where contraception was MISUSED OR FAILED as a child is an issue. What has been said is that REPEATED MISUSE of contraception and REPEATED TERMINATIONS are issues which should be addressed.
If at 16 you are mature enough to be in a sexual relationship, you should be mature enough to use contraception in the way in which it is designed, and if you are aware that it has failed (eg you have missed a pill) or if you have an incident of unprotected sex, to seek the MAP immediately. If you have already had one termination and you are adamant that this was despite using contraception completely perfectly, then it isn't unreasonable surely to move to a belt and braces apporach and for this to be preferable to just continuing with the same form of contraception which failed previously and opting for more abortions if it fails again? If the reason for the first abortion was using the chosen method of contraception improperly, then again not unreasonable to expect you to use it properly from then on, rather than multiple abortions.
Neither poet or I are talking about refusing abortions to those who genuinely need them and ARE ALREADY IN THE POSITION OF NEEDING THEM. We are both talking about trying to get women to protect themselves and take responsibility SO THAT NOT SO MANY ABORTIONS ARE NEEDED BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T GET PREGNANT WHEN THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Sorry for shouting to anyone reading this thread who is not choosing to be wilfully obtuse and distort or misrepresent what some of us are trying to say.0 -
Neither poet or I are talking about refusing abortions to those who genuinely need them and ARE ALREADY IN THE POSITION OF NEEDING THEM. We are both talking about trying to get women to protect themselves and take responsibility SO THAT NOT SO MANY ABORTIONS ARE NEEDED BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T GET PREGNANT WHEN THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
'genuinely need them'?
What does that even mean?
Nobody is against education about contraception, but what more are you suggesting here?0 -
Person_one wrote: »'genuinely need them'?
What does that even mean?
Nobody is against education about contraception, but what more are you suggesting here?
How else would you rather it was phrased then? The whole thrust of everything you have posted on this thread is that abortions are an absolute necessity in every single case, and yet you now take umbrage when the phrase is used by anyone who feels the total number of abortions should be reduced if possible.
I, and I suspect poet too, are proposing massive investment in education on abortion, with increased emphasis on educating those who have already presented for one abortion, on how to use contraception so that every single women without exception knows exactly what will cause contraception to fail and all myths are conclusively dispelled. So that no women can use the excuse that they didn't understand that being sick effected the reliability of the pill for example and women who do have a tummy bug in a month they are sexually active don't then end up presenting for a termination a few weeks or months later. Clear enough?0 -
How else would you rather it was phrased then? The whole thrust of everything you have posted on this thread is that abortions are an absolute necessity in every single case, and yet you now take umbrage when the phrase is used by anyone who feels the total number of abortions should be reduced if possible.
It was more the word 'genuinely' I was asking about.
Abortion is a necessity in every case where a woman is pregnant and doesn't want to be, of course.0 -
And there are, as already shown on this thread, some cases where a woman ends up having an abortion because no alternative viable options seem open to her - eg Mary. Was that a "genuine need" for an abortion then too becaus in your world all abortions which are carried out are unavoidable?0
-
And there are, as already shown on this thread, some cases where a woman ends up having an abortion because no alternative viable options seem open to her - eg Mary. Was that a "genuine need" for an abortion then too becaus in your world all abortions which are carried out are unavoidable?
Why are you getting so irate?
In 'my world' I want to make sure women have easy access to abortion without facing interference and judgement for their actions. That's all.0 -
Person_one wrote: »Why are you getting so irate?
In 'my world' I want to make sure women have easy access to abortion without facing interference and judgement for their actions. That's all.
No, in addition to that you want to absolve all those women from any personal responsibility, even if they are on their 5th or more abortion. That is not a good message to send.0 -
No, in addition to that you want to absolve all those women from any personal responsibility, even if they are on their 5th or more abortion. That is not a good message to send.
What would you propose to do with those women then? Chastise them publicly? Refuse them an abortion if they've had 2, 3, 4 previously? What would the cut off number be?
It's all well and good to say you want women to feel personal responsibility, but if they don't, then what? I think you are making a moot point here. Either abortions are available to all, or they aren't available to anyone. You can't go around making exceptions based on moral judgement of what you deem acceptable or not.
Obviously everyone is saying the emphasis should be on prevention. But when that fails - as will always happen, due to medical OR human factors - then abortion is the ultimate solution. No ifs or buts. If a woman, ANY woman, regardless of her circumstances, becomes pregnant and does not want to be, then she should be entitled to an abortion.0 -
What would you propose to do with those women then? Chastise them publicly? Refuse them an abortion if they've had 2, 3, 4 previously? What would the cut off number be?
It's all well and good to say you want women to feel personal responsibility, but if they don't, then what? I think you are making a moot point here. Either abortions are available to all, or they aren't available to anyone. You can't go around making exceptions based on moral judgement of what you deem acceptable or not.
Obviously everyone is saying the emphasis should be on prevention. But when that fails - as will always happen, due to medical OR human factors - then abortion is the ultimate solution. No ifs or buts. If a woman, ANY woman, regardless of her circumstances, does not want to be pregnant, then she should be entitled to an abortion.
I have already said that ultimately they should have the abortion.
Nor would I chastise them publicly....I am no advocate of the stocks;)
However, imo they should have to undergo mandatory counselling and an individually tailored education programme should be drawn up. They should be monitored and they should be left in no doubt that they need to take some personal responsibility and that it is not the norm to see abortion as a replacement for contraception.
When would this kick in? Clearly, it would need individual assessment but certainly if a woman is on her third abortion alarm bells should be sounding.
This (obviously) won't prevent every further abortion, but it will prevent some, perhaps a lot, and so it has to be worth trying. However, if the consensus is that we have x number of women who have numerous abortions, but so what? then we will never make any inroads into reducing the number of repeat abortions.0 -
Poet I can see the point you're trying to make, but I'm far more concerned about the women who trash the lives of the children they give birth to than those women who have multiple abortions. As society seems to be helpless in the face of the former, I can't see how it could do anything other than wring its hands in the face of the latter..................
....I'm smiling because I have no idea what's going on ...:)
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards