Sensitive first post

**professor~yaffle**

Humphrey10 wrote: »

The law is clear. As you say:
two doctors must agree that an abortion would cause less damage to a woman's physical or mental health than continuing with the pregnancy

An early abortion will always cause less damage to a woman's physical health than pregnancy and childbirth - it's the safest option (14 times safer than childbirth in the US, apparently).

I don't think it IS clear, though. As it stands a woman could be refused an abortion if a doctor does not agree that her health will be affected if the pregnancy were to continue. If we're going to effectively have abortion on demand why not be open about it, debate it in Parliament and (if passed) say openly it is the woman's right to do so.

As it stands, it seems to be that legally she can't have a pregnancy termination unless her or the baby's health is likely to be affected, but people get round the law, as long as they go to 2 doctors who are willing to sign the papers.

moneyistooshorttomention

I think the law is fine as it is. None of us seem to know of any woman being denied an abortion when she has decided on one. So "if it aint broke don't fix it".

Any attempt made to change the law so that the words read "on demand" would only lead to Cruella and her pro-life friends leaping up and down and trying to "swing the wheel back" to where a woman couldn't get an abortion when she needs one.

It's as well to "leave well alone" on this.

Morglin

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

In my opinion...

Having man/woman sex comes with the risk of pregnancy.

Not using sufficient contraceptives when you know you must not get pregnant is reckless in the extreme... so no sympathy from me.

Then choosing to end your child's life to mitigate any financial impact of that 'mistake' is just too awful to articulate.

How can you measure a life in £sss?

The only fact here is that it is not your body that will have to incubate this foetus for nine months, and it is not your life that will be disrupted because of it.

I don't know if you have got kids, but if you have, then presumably you made your own choices about it?

If more people thought about whether they could afford kids, before giving birth, we might just have fewer neglected kids.

You have your thoughts on termination, but everyone is in a different situation to another, and you should not just say 'abortion is wrong' because, in many cases, it is the right thing to do.

Lin :whistle:

justanopinion

Hi OP,

If you're still reading, the only reason I said about maternity pay was because in your OP it was mainly financial reasons. I just wanted you to know what the basic entitlement was. Since then, your subsequent posts have explained further.

I hope you're feeling a bit better today and that you make the right choice for you. x

lostinrates

daisiegg wrote: »

I agree with this too. When people say 'well the pill failed because I had a stomach upset' I am just thinking why did you not use condoms then, like it says in the instructions that you should do if you get a stomach upset?!

Fwiw, even though we 'know' I a. Infertile and have had a lot of unprotected sex happy in that knowledge and ok that if we were wrong we'd be very happy, last year when I had a radio active investigation we still used condoms. Chances of them being needed are pretty much none, but......better safe than sorry. Otoh, I think its fair enough to feel that if you have taken advice on a method of contraception, followed it, then its acceptable. When we used condoms we only used condoms. I don't use hormonal contraception, but many do in a long term relationship and expect it to be sufficient. While we have abortion as a back up should the clue be one of the percentage for whom it does fail and pregnancy is not desirable at that time, then in in a country where abortion is available for such eventuality its not the worst thing in the world.

daisiegg

lostinrates wrote: »

Fwiw, even though we 'know' I a. Infertile and have had a lot of unprotected sex happy in that knowledge and ok that if we were wrong we'd be very happy, last year when I had a radio active investigation we still used condoms. Chances of them being needed are pretty much none, but......better safe than sorry. Otoh, I think its fair enough to feel that if you have taken advice on a method of contraception, followed it, then its acceptable. When we used condoms we only used condoms. I don't use hormonal contraception, but many do in a long term relationship and expect it to be sufficient. While we have abortion as a back up should the clue be one of the percentage for whom it does fail and pregnancy is not desirable at that time, then in in a country where abortion is available for such eventuality its not the worst thing in the world.

(My bold)

I'm not sure I understand your point. If the advice is to use condoms when you have a stomach upset, and someone has not used condoms when they had a stomach upset, then they have not followed the advice given.

Tiredandstressed_3

Just to put the record straight, I didn't have a stomach upset, take herbal remedies or anything like that. I took the pill at the same time every day and neither myself nor the healthcare professional know why.
I thought ( and still believe) I did everything by the book.

lostinrates

daisiegg wrote: »

(My bold)

I'm not sure I understand your point. If the advice is to use condoms when you have a stomach upset, and someone has not used condoms when they had a stomach upset, then they have not followed the advice given.

Agreed, you find no disagreement from me there

Sometimes however people are the tiny minority, the . 01 who follow advice and are well but who suffer a contraception failure. Or who know how to put on a condom and yet suffer a problem with it ( fwiw I have never had a condom split on me, but I have had partners buy ones that aren't the best size for them, rectified with experimentation and I dare say those are more prone to have problems so probably have been lucky...or perhaps my infertility spared me more problems I wasn't aware of.)

mountainofdebt

Tiredandstressed wrote: »

I had an internal scan to determine the dates and she showed me the image. This is what has made me waver a little on the desision.

And imo whoever did this is a cow....and I make no apologies for that.

There was no reason what so ever for her to do this unless she had a particular axe to grind.

I saw a dating scan for a similar reason being done many years ago and the cow who did that was asking the woman all sorts of questions, questions which imo were none of her business and had no relevance to the scan - and even after all these years I still think she was a cow and highly unprofessional

horsewhisperer_2

Tiredandstressed, please don't feel you have to justify yourself.


I have been very taken aback at some of the posts here although I can see in later pages a kinder and less judgemental attitude has materialised which is pleasing.


I also had a termination, at 8 weeks, last year. We weren't using contraception at all - why? Mine was, ironically, a planned and wanted baby. But a lot changed in those weeks and I realised that the circumstances were, put simply, far from ideal.


I had my termination privately at Marie Stopes and the actual experience (of Catholic extremists outside the clinic) primarily was awful. I also had a scan and saw the foetus which I could have done without.


As awful as the experience was, I have to admit that it was the right thing. I see my pregnancy as a strange sort of blessing as it did allow me to see things so very clearly. My periods returned after 6 weeks and I was no unwell at all (early pregnancy made me very unwell which was one but by no means the only factor in deciding not to go ahead with it.)


I wish you well x