Sensitive first post

Tiddlywinks

Valli wrote: »

So?

The heart cannot sustain the life independently of the mother's body yet - not now and not for many weeks.

I assume I wont find you on the benefit threads, then, passing comment about those who have children wholly or partly supported by the state because their parents cannot afford to provide for the children?

If left in situ, the child would most likely develop to the point of delivery - the OP is choosing to have that life snuffed out prematurely... for monetary reasons.

Tiredandstressed_3

jacques_chirac wrote: »

I don't disagree with you P_o, but I do question why someone would post on an internet forum about such a personal and emotive issue. They claim to be a regular, they would know not everyone was going to agree with them. Makes me wonder if they were trying to provoke a reaction. There are plenty of other things they could have done if they just fancied a rant.

What else could I have done?
I didn't ask for every one to agree with me. I just couldn't keep this in as it was just going round and round in my head. Seeing as no one knows and this forum is where I spend a lot of my time it seemed the obvious place.

Tiredandstressed_3

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

If left in situ, the child would most likely develop to the point of delivery - the OP is choosing to have that life snuffed out prematurely... for monetary reasons.

So continuing the pregnancy and struggling for money, struggling to pay the bills and care for the children I have got would be better?
I don't think so.

I can understand that your view differs to mine an of course you are entitled to it. However, I don't really want to get into the moral rights and wrongs just to work out 100% that I'm making the right choice. That's all.

Tiddlywinks

Why were you only using the pill when you absolutely needed to not get pregnant? All the leaflets enclosed say that this method is not 100% effective

You have created a life.... It is your responsibility for that.

Valli

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

If left in situ, the child would most likely develop to the point of delivery - the OP is choosing to have that life snuffed out prematurely... for monetary reasons.

Like I said - so?

Her choice. Not yours, not mine. Hers.

A perfectly valid reason. She has children already and doesn't want more; moreover the strain on the family finances would be great.

Welcome to the 21st Century in a developed country where people can make sensible decisions about how to live their lives!

Errata

Tiredandstressed wrote: »

What else could I have done?
I didn't ask for every one to agree with me. I just couldn't keep this in as it was just going round and round in my head. Seeing as no one knows and this forum is where I spend a lot of my time it seemed the obvious place.

Fair enough if you can cope with posters using your situation to grind their own axes.

System

Surely the best for the "baby" would be having parents who could support it and give it the best start in life? If they cannot finically do that without putting the well being of the existing children at risk then why is so bad that they area trying to be responsible.

Personally if I got caught out a termination would be the best option, I am unable to work full time currently due to my disability so would not be able to finically provide for a child without either claiming top ups or becoming totally reliant on benefits-not something I wish to do as it took me 3 years to get move off them in the first place, also I have bipolar and an unexpected pregnancy could be very dangerous in terms of having to come off medication, which could lead to being to ill to work again. So these are monetary reasons, but I still think they are valid reasons so I understand where the op is coming from, quite frankly I think it's irresponsible to have kids when you can't provide for them, such as those who don't work but knock out kid after kid (rare but it happens) most people would consider the financial situation before trying for a child so why is it so wrong for someone who found themselves pregnant unplanned to consider the same?

Tiddlywinks

How to live their lives and END others.

Valli

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

How to live their lives and END others.

Since the 'baby' is not yet capable of living independently your (somewhat hysterical) stance is moot.

All over Christmas there have been appeals for financial donations - for children in this country neglected and beaten by the people who should be loving them.
For children in other countries who do not have access to clean, safe water.

And yet you would 'force' someone to carry an unwanted child?

No less barbaric IMO.

I would love to see every child everywhere in this world be loved, wanted and have the chance to grow up safely.

There's a long way to go yet.

Tiredandstressed_3

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

Why were you only using the pill when you absolutely needed to not get pregnant? All the leaflets enclosed say that this method is not 100% effective

You have created a life.... It is your responsibility for that.

Nothing is 100% except to abstain. Somehow I don't like that option.
Even a vasectomy isn't 100%.
I have created a life and that is why I'm struggling with this decision. It's not an easy one I can assure you. I'm trying to consider the family I have now andwhat the repercussions financially the decision to continue the pregnancy might bring to our lives.