delicate subject - abortion

poet123

Torry_Quine wrote: »

I said we shouldn't judge or condemn which is not the same as teaching responsibility at all. I do believe that some women are irresponsible but that in no way is the whole story.

Is that not a judgement?

giantmutantbroccoli

to me it is undesirable on many levels to blythely accept multiple abortions if there are alternatives which could prevent that need.

It is not your place to accept or deny the abortions (multiple or not) of other women who are not you. Blithely or not. As for the alternatives, they are all already available. There is nothing more to be done. People are made aware of the risks by their doctors and medical professionals. At the point where you start suggesting that abortions should be refused or discouraged based on your idea of what is risky (and given you're not a doctor, I question how close to the truth that idea really is), you are no longer pro-choice, you are anti-choice. Women should have the right to choose without judgement from anybody. Judgement is only of use if somebody is doing something wrong.

As for your line about "personal responsibility", I have heard that before from a whole range of religious anti-choice "pro-life" advocates who value the potential life of an unborn foetus over the actual life of an adult woman. I would love that idea to be widely thought of as "old fashioned" as you appear to think it is, along with the idea that "you've made your bed, now lie in it" that leads to teenage girls from Catholic families being forced into marriage to support the child that they do not wish to have. It is not.

Torry_Quine

poet123 wrote: »

Is that not a judgement?

Strictly speaking it could be interpreted that way. I suppose I mean that some women behave in ways that others may deem 'irresponsible' such as having repeated unprotected sex and appearing not to think about possible consequences. That said we shouldn't judge them as to why they are behaving that way or treat them any differently because of it.

poet123

giantmutantbroccoli wrote: »

It is not your place to accept or deny the abortions (multiple or not) of other women who are not you. Blithely or not.

Where have I mentioned denying abortions to anyone? Quite the opposite.

giantmutantbroccoli wrote: »

As for the alternatives, they are all already available. There is nothing more to be done.

How do you know that? Are a healthcare professional in this field? How is your opinion or take on this more valid than mine? You speak as if your opinion is fact. It isn't.

giantmutantbroccoli wrote: »

People are made aware of the risks by their doctors and medical professionals. At the point where you start suggesting that abortions should be refused or discouraged based on your idea of what is risky (and given you're not a doctor, I question how close to the truth that idea really is), you are no longer pro-choice, you are anti-choice. Women should have the right to choose without judgement from anybody. Judgement is only of use if somebody is doing something wrong.

Again, I have never suggested what you contend, never. Pointless to debate when you are seeing what you want to see in my posts. There are acknowledged health issues surrounding abortion; fertility issues for one.

We are not talking about choosing at the point when abortion is needed. We are talking about education/counselling/monitoring so that it doesn't get to that point on numerous occasions for the same sub set of women. Women should not be choosing abortion as a substitute for contraception in my opinion. An opinion which probably differs from yours, but that is the nature of opinion.

giantmutantbroccoli wrote: »

As for your line about "personal responsoibility", I have heard that before from a whole range of religious anti-choice "pro-life" advocates who value the potential life of an unborn foetus over the actual life of an adult woman. I would love that idea to be widely thought of as "old fashioned" as you appear to think it is, along with the idea that "you've made your bed, now lie in it" that leads to teenage girls from Catholic families being forced into marriage to support the child that they do not wish to have. It is not.

I certainly don't fall into that category (sorry to disappoint:D) but I do believe strongly in taking responsibility for your own actions in all spheres and in learning from your mistakes.

I struggle to see why you would assume or imply that only those who are anti abortion would want to see a way found to reduce the incidence of multiple abortions. Several other posters have expressed a similar disquiet and afaiaa they are pro choice, as am I.

Regarding the issue of personal responsibility I don't see that abortion should be different to any other issue when considering that. Are pregnant women somehow to be absolved from that? How quaint, but just a bit patronising.

I know very well that personal responsibility per se is seen as old fashioned, and I think we can see the societal results of that all around us.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this issue I think.:D

poet123

Torry_Quine wrote: »

Strictly speaking it could be interpreted that way. I suppose I mean that some women behave in ways that others may deem 'irresponsible' such as having repeated unprotected sex and appearing not to think about possible consequences. That said we shouldn't judge them as to why they are behaving that way or treat them any differently because of it.

Sorry Torry, that is semantics, your comment was judgemental and contradictory.

By treating them differently does that include not trying to help by putting measures in place to try to pre emt the likelihood of them presenting for multiple abortions?

Are you against those who have had several abortions being counselled or singled out for help, or should we just accept that is the way they are and let them get on with it?

Torry_Quine

poet123 wrote: »

Sorry Torry, that is semantics, your comment was judgemental and contradictory.

By treating them differently does that include not trying to help by putting measures in place to try to pre emt the likelihood of them presenting for multiple abortions?

Are you against those who have had several abortions being counselled or singled out for help, or should we just accept that is the way they are and let them get on with it?

It can be suggested that anyone who has an abortion whether the first time or repeat occassion that they have help and support with for any issues such as contraception but I don't think we should single anyone one out for help based on the number of abortions no.

poet123

Torry_Quine wrote: »

It can be suggested that anyone who has an abortion whether the first time or repeat occassion that they have help and support with for any issues such as contraception but I don't think we should single anyone one out for help based on the number of abortions no.

To be honest I find that incredible, but you are an honest poster and so if you say that you don't believe that someone who has had five abortions as opposed to one is not in greater need of counselling/education etc, then I have no reason to doubt you, but it does surprise me.

coolcait

poet123 wrote: »

Sorry Torry, that is semantics, your comment was judgemental and contradictory.

By treating them differently does that include not trying to help by putting measures in place to try to pre emt the likelihood of them presenting for multiple abortions?

Are you against those who have had several abortions being counselled or singled out for help, or should we just accept that is the way they are and let them get on with it?

I disagree with your judgement on Torry's post.

I also completely disagree with the idea that specific groups should be 'singled out'.

I'm pro-counselling, but I see it as being for every woman who has an abortion. Not in order to deny her the abortion, but to help her avoid the need for an abortion in future (all the while accepting that if she does need another abortion in future, then she should get it on exactly the same basis as anyone else).

In otther words, I agree with the position taken by the spokesperson for Marie Stopes in this article

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18249026

This paragraph particularly resonates with me:

"We believe we need to radically change the way we provide post-abortion contraception to women, if we're going to reduce the number of abortions by any great number".

Counselling may also help women who are experiencing domestic violence and/or sexual abuse. I know that not all women in those circumstances will feel able to speak up, but they should still be given the opportunity to do so. And, if the counselling is a standard part of the abortion process, it makes it more difficult for the abuser to prevent the woman attending.

Following on from that, I do feel that counselling is particularly vital for cases like the 82 under-16s having their second abortion, and the 2 under-16s having their third abortion (mentioned in the article).

poet123

coolcait wrote: »

I disagree with your judgement on Torry's post.

I also completely disagree with the idea that specific groups should be 'singled out'.

I'm pro-counselling, but I see it as being for every woman who has an abortion. Not in order to deny her the abortion, but to help her avoid the need for an abortion in future (all the while accepting that if she does need another abortion in future, then she should get it on exactly the same basis as anyone else).

In otther words, I agree with the position taken by the spokesperson for Marie Stopes in this article

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18249026

This paragraph particularly resonates with me:

"We believe we need to radically change the way we provide post-abortion contraception to women, if we're going to reduce the number of abortions by any great number".

Counselling may also help women who are experiencing domestic violence and/or sexual abuse. I know that not all women in those circumstances will feel able to speak up, but they should still be given the opportunity to do so. And, if the counselling is a standard part of the abortion process, it makes it more difficult for the abuser to prevent the woman attending.

Following on from that, I do feel that counselling is particularly vital for cases like the 82 under-16s having their second abortion, and the 2 under-16s having their third abortion (mentioned in the article).

I agree with you, and if it was universal and mandatory then I also agree that would be the optimum situation. I suspect however that financial constraints may come into play here and so if it wasn't universal then I do believe we should prioritise rather than not do it at all. I do think that mandatory counselling would not be well received by many though.

With regard to your last para if you feel it is particularly vital for that group would you not prioritise them if universal counselling was a non starter?

My point was also that many posters on this thread would disagree vehemently with this;

"We believe we need to radically change the way we provide post-abortion contraception to women, if we're going to reduce the number of abortions by any great number".

It has already been said that we should not be looking to reduce the number of abortions.

I also think this is welcome news;

"We're currently conducting a much-needed piece of new research which will look at how we can reduce the number of women we see more than once for an abortion, by working closely with them to understand exactly why it is that we're seeing them two or more times for this procedure."

Essentially, I think we are in agreement.

Torry_Quine

poet123 wrote: »

To be honest I find that incredible, but you are an honest poster and so if you say that you don't believe that someone who has had five abortions as opposed to one is not in greater need of counselling/education etc, then I have no reason to doubt you, but it does surprise me.

I didn't actually say anything about whether anyone who has had several abortions was or wasn't in greater need of counselling so you have made your own mind up there. I do think though that more education is needed in this area.