Sensitive first post

mumps

Person_one wrote: »

Because having them available free of charge is better, both for individuals and for society as a whole.

Well so is five a day, individuals healthier less pressure on NHS, but I haven't noticed anyone dropping me off a veg box free of charge.

Person_one

mumps wrote: »

Well so is five a day, individuals healthier less pressure on NHS, but I haven't noticed anyone dropping me off a veg box free of charge.

Vegetables aren't medicines or medical procedures.

I've never had a fire or been a victim of crime, maybe I should get a refund on all those taxes that have paid for the police and fire services!

mumps

MothballsWallet wrote: »

OP, I hope you're able to make your decision as you see best, but I am speaking as an adopted child whose biological parents gave him up for adoption for the very reason that they couldn't afford a child.

This was the 1970's so contraception must have been available but they didn't use it, or it failed, or whatever reason. Also, they didn't abort me.

They've never even tried to find me in later years, and I've not really bothered trying to find them. I'm still in two minds as to whether I should.

I think that, if you feel you can't afford to bring a child into the world and nurture them, then you're possibly doing the right thing.

Contraception was very available in the 70s. In the 60s single people could have trouble getting the pill, family planning clinics and GPs weren't always happy to prescribe but certainly in the bigger cities organisations like The Brook made contraceptives easily and freely available in the 70s.

I hope your adoption was a good result for you. I don't know your mother's circumstances but I lived close to a mother and baby home in the early 70s. The young girls had a pretty miserable time and I remember queueing to use the payphone on the corner and hearing them begging their parents to let them bring the baby home. This wasn't just once and not just one girl, it was a frequent event. I found it heartbreaking and I suppose some of those girls were traumatised by the event. Maybe that is why some aren't strong enough to go looking for their baby now.

claire16c

mumps wrote: »

Maybe some tax payers feel they are entitled to an opinion if their taxes are paying for it? I have never understood why tax payers are expected to pay for contraception or abortions. When I first when on the pill (over 40 years ago) I had to pay for a private prescription and then pay for the pills. I can't remember what the prescription cost but the months supply of the pill was 11 shillings, 55p, which was ten per cent of a weeks pay. I did struggle to pay some months and can remember months when I started a new pack 12 hrs late as I had to wait till the following morning to get paid before I could get the new pack.

Eventually I got my pills from the Brook, which was free, but I can't remember when it became free on the NHS, I think I changed to the coil before that.

It is a lot cheaper to pay for contraception than paying for pregnancy and childbirth! Goodness knows how many people would be having unplanned pregnancies if they had to pay for contraception - probably higher rates such as in the US where they do have to unless they can go somewhere like Planned Parenthood.

I dont see why I should have to pay for gastric band procedures for people who eat too much and cant be bothered to exercise. But apparently that can be cheaper than treating their 1001 complications if they don't get it.

Im sure there is all stuff we dont like paying for.

claire16c

jellyhead wrote: »

At a hospital, some of the women going past will be those who have just miscarried, or are worrying that a miscarriage has started, and those with a 'missed miscarriage' going back 2 weeks later desperately hoping that this time there will be a heartbeat. Just after my miscarriage I was upset by a picture in an email that I'd forgotten to unsubscribe from. It looked too much like what I'd handed over for testing.

Also, there will be women who feel that a termination is a sad necessity, and it's cruel to shove those pictures in their faces. I doubt that many women make the decision to terminate lightly, and they know what they are doing - in some cases they've even seen the scan.

By all means campaign for the 24 week limit to be reduced, or for more counselling, or better information about the alternatives, or for increased uptake in adoption or fostering rates, or for reducing the red tape so that more people are accepted for adoption. Does standing outside a clinic with a placard actually reduce the abortion rate? I doubt it.

Yup thats pretty much what I was thinking of.

I cant even begin to imagine what I would have done to someone holding a sign like that when I came out of the hospital after my miscarriage.

Thank goodness Ive only seen them in the US or internet and they seem to be few and far between here.

claire16c

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

Why is it 'hysterical' to expect people to research their method of contraception?

Why is it 'hysterical' to expect someone who absolutely must NOT get pregnant to use more than one method of contraception to prevent said pregnancy?

Simple fact is, this situation WAS preventable.

A bit of care would have ensured a life wasn't created only to be prematurely brought to an end.

See there you go again.

Banging on about contraception and not offering anything else.

You do realise the OP is pregnant right?

System

Thinking about this, seeing as abstaining is the only 100% method of avoiding pregnancy, how many relationships realistically could survive without sex? It's pretty much human desire to have sex and seeing as we're the only mammals (aside from dolphins I think) who do it for pleasure as well as procreation, why shouldn't we? We have methods that are close to 100% so I think really if you take precautions why shouldn't you have a happy and fulfilling sex life?

I have no idea where I'm going with this but it just bugs me that some people seem to think you shouldn't have sex unless you're willing to get pregnant

Torry_Quine

xXMessedUpXx wrote: »

Thinking about this, seeing as abstaining is the only 100% method of avoiding pregnancy, how many relationships realistically could survive without sex? It's pretty much human desire to have sex and seeing as we're the only mammals (aside from dolphins I think) who do it for pleasure as well as procreation, why shouldn't we? We have methods that are close to 100% so I think really if you take precautions why shouldn't you have a happy and fulfilling sex life?

I have no idea where I'm going with this but it just bugs me that some people seem to think you shouldn't have sex unless you're willing to get pregnant

You're right but I do think that people should realise that pregnancy is always a possibility however remote and have thought about how they would deal with it should an unplanned pregnancy occur.

mynameisclare

mumps wrote: »

I have never understood why tax payers are expected to pay for contraception or abortions
...
I did struggle to pay some months and can remember months when I started a new pack 12 hrs late as I had to wait till the following morning to get paid before I could get the new pack.

Looks like you answered your own question there

lostinrates

Torry_Quine wrote: »

You're right but I do think that people should realise that pregnancy is always a possibility however remote and have thought about how they would deal with it should an unplanned pregnancy occur.

This too is true.

Thankfully, in a worst case scenario option, having taken contraception and had it fail we do have an option of not continuing pregnancy.


It isn5 easy decision, of course its not. But it is an option , not mandatory for those that don't want to, thank god, that would be barbaric.

Fwiw, I love sex,:D. And consider it important in my marriage, but yes, I think a relationship can survive without sex. I know a couple of people who are asexual and I am pretty certain that if something happened to my husband that made sex difficult I'd rather be with him without sex than without him and with someone else. That's not trite, and its not to diminish The role of sex, but......it is possible to survive without it, as wonderful as it is. Not wanting to is different.