Up till now I've used the term 'pro-life'....

(88 Posts)
GrimmaTheNome Thu 15-Nov-12 08:29:17

Usually in quotes...but even so...

Clearly enough in the light of the tragic case in Galway, this is an oxymoron.

I want a more accurate term - should it be 'anti-choice' or is there something better I should use?

Anti Abortion Above All Else

GrimmaTheNome Thu 15-Nov-12 08:45:09

In the galway case it wasn't really an abortion that was reqested , it was medical treatment of an inevitable miscarriage.

slightlycrumpled Thu 15-Nov-12 08:47:20

I was incensed watching an interview with a staunch pro- lifer in the news this morning about this. It's truly incomprehensible that this has happened.

ProcrastinatingPanda Thu 15-Nov-12 08:49:02

I think anti-choice is a more suitable term.

AliceWChild Thu 15-Nov-12 08:58:29

Yes please don't buy into their rhetoric with 'pro life'. Anti choice or anti abortionist.

YoullScreamAboutItOneDay Thu 15-Nov-12 09:18:07

I tend to feel anti-choice is a bit odd as a phrase. I say anti-abortion, or sometimes, depending on context, anti-legal abortion (because it's not as if making it illegal stops it, it just stops it being legal and safe).

I don't actually like pro-choice either, but obviously pro-abortion is wrong. Very few people are really 'pro-abortion'. I think we'd probably all rather a woman didn't have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. If anyone can come up with a better phrase than pro-choice I'd like that too!

ProcrastinatingPanda Thu 15-Nov-12 09:39:40

Why do you feel that it's an odd choice?

YoullScreamAboutItOneDay Thu 15-Nov-12 09:44:09

Um, I guess because I don't feel abortion is about choice per say in many cases. For many women it is about necessity - financial, emotional, physical. So I feel anti-choice implies being anti those who 'simply' choose that now is not the right time for a baby. Whereas the reality is that they are against something much wider. So I think it kind of glosses over the reality.

Does that make sense?

Snazzyfeelingfestive Thu 15-Nov-12 09:44:28

It's very difficult to find suitable terms. I have no problem with anti-choice as it makes the terms used about either side more symmetrical. Then again anti-abortion makes the situation crystal clear. Pro life is definitely highly ironic.

I say 'anti abortion', but then I am uncomfortable with that too, especially in this case. No-one is really 'pro abortion', especially a woman miscarrying a wanted baby.

'Woman-haters'?

SoggyMoggy Thu 15-Nov-12 10:04:59

I tend to use 'anti/pro abortion rights'.

Grimma in the Galway case it's still an abortion. The foetus has a heartbeat. The doctors removed the foetus once its heartbeat is stopped. If the doctor helped removed the foetus when the woman started miscarrying, then they'd have helped killed a living being.

I understood where these people are coming from. But I'm pro-choice because honest I think women should have a say over our own bodies. Even in late term abortions, it's usually very very sad cases that end up there.

GrimmaTheNome Thu 15-Nov-12 10:19:25

There isn't a simple one-size fits all label for either side, is there?

Yes, YouScream - In poor Savita's case, she was not 'choosing' an 'abortion'. It was a wanted baby, the whole medical situation of miscarriage was nothing to do with 'choice'. The insistence on waiting for the foetal heartbeat to (inevitably) cease was presumably in the first instance motivated by the doctor's fear of legal action but what underlay that seems to me nothing but religious dogma.

ProcrastinatingPanda Thu 15-Nov-12 10:20:43

I see your point youllscream, but for me the 'choice' refers to women having the choice over what happens to their body, where as anti-choice would be taking away that choice completely iyswim.

mayihaveaboxofchoculaits Thu 15-Nov-12 10:22:26

Whatever your view of pro choice/life, isnt it a straight choice where the medical staff did not do their job.
Medical staff are liable for criminal charges.

Out of this,and the untenable position that allowed them to neglect that has been highlighted, the strict right to life edict must fall.

mayihave it's not a straight choice for some people with pro-life beliefs. If you see the foetus as a living being, than the doctors have the horrible choice of mother vs child. If you argue that the child is dying anyway, then may I ask what is your view on assisted suicide? Do you think it's right for a doctor to help a patient with a terminal illness to die? In the case of a 17wk foetus, he couldn't even make a choice for himself.

I say 'anti-abortionists' because that's what members of the pro-life movement are. They are against abortion in most cases and the more fundamental ones are against it in all cases.

When I was at university, an anti-abortionist I encountered told me, "if I'm an anti-abortionist, you're a pro-abortionist." I calmly pointed out no-one is pro-abortion, simply pro-choice. I told her no-one goes around with banners saying "abortion is great - go have one" and thus, no-one is pro-abortion.

NB: To explain briefly how I encountered this person. I fell pregnant at 19 (and was left in the lurch by the father), and when I returned from a year long break from university (to have my son), I was approached by the university's pro-life group. For some bizarre reason, they seemed to assume that as I had had my child, that must mean I was one of them. confused

I would say that I am pro-choice because I believe that women should have the choice to have an abortion if they want/need one.

I think that part of the problem with the term 'pro-choice' is that it implies that women are choosing to have abortions almost for the fun of it, iyswim. It lends credence to the idea that some women use abortions as birth control (which as far as I know is nonsense).

KRITIQ Thu 15-Nov-12 12:36:31

My preference is "anti-abortion," because campaigners oppose access to abortion, usually in any circumstances.

I suppose anti-choice could refer to those campaigners who agree that abortion should be available in some cases (e.g. where life of woman is at risk, in case of incest, etc.) because they don't oppose abortion totally - just that they do not believe women themselves have any right to decide for themselves. It can only happen where there is a medical indication or where pregnancy resulted from a breach of the law (e.g. incest or rape.)

Pro-choice does what it says on the tin - believes that women not only should have access to terminations for health reasons, or as the result of rape or incest, but because they do not wish to continue a pregnancy.

sashh Thu 15-Nov-12 13:28:40

I want a more accurate term

Mysoginist?

slug Thu 15-Nov-12 13:28:44

My preference, as I have said elsewhere is "forced birther" because that is the end result of the removal of choice from women.

It may sound harsh but it forces us to acknowledge what the end result of this argument is i.e. women forced to give birth against their will. Or, in the Galway case, a women left to die.

I usually use 'anti-choice'. I think it's the least worst fit in the situation.

MrsHoarder Thu 15-Nov-12 15:52:43

I'm pro-choice because I think that the procedure of an abortion is sufficient that no-one who is mature and stable enough to have a child would deliberately get herself into the position of choosing to be pregnant. Do we by law limit fillings to only those who have tooth decay or assume that if someone is willing to go through with one they must be in a bad position.

The problem with permitting abortions only when the mother's life is in danger is that HCPs have to be prepared to stand up in a court and say that that woman would have died had an abortion not been carried out. This doesn't work because its very rare that maternal death is a certainty. Instead its a % risk, and is non-zero even for healthy uncomplicated pregnancies. So how likely does death have to be before an abortion can be performed, given the HCP risks ending up in jail should they judge the risk incorrectly?

My preference for term is also "forced birther".

StewieGriffinsMom Thu 15-Nov-12 16:02:16

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

grimbletart Thu 15-Nov-12 18:02:32

I use anti-choice because they want to remove a woman's choice. If you are pro-choice it does not mean you are pro-abortion: you can choose not to have an abortion as many women with unexpected pregnancies do. It means you are free to choose what is right for you in your particular circumstances.

To use the term anti-abortion is to imply that pro-choicers are pro-abortion. We are not. We are pro the woman's right to choose whether to have the child or not.

I refuse to use the term pro-life because pro-lifers are only pro the foetus's life. They regard the mother's life as secondary. That is not being pro-life.

GrimmaTheNome Thu 15-Nov-12 18:44:48

>I refuse to use the term pro-life because pro-lifers are only pro the foetus's life. They regard the mother's life as secondary. That is not being pro-life.

Quite so - that was the nub of my initial objection.

Well said grimble

I think anti-choice is appropriate - it will be as offensive to those that are pro-life as the term pro-abortion is to those who are pro-choice!

SamuraiCindy Thu 15-Nov-12 19:15:44

I am quite torn on this one. The baby has a heartbeat very early on....there is life there. That can't be denied. I am 16 weeks pregnant and have started to feel the small little flutterings of a living, growing baby inside me. Never in a million years could I live with myself if I chose to end this life. It is a brand new and yes, INNOCENT life.

Yet I can also see that women should have autonomy over their own bodies. I am very much pro-women and would find it very hard to tell a desperate woman she should have the baby when not having it would be best for her.

I would never put the baby's life before the woman's...but I also cannot see the baby as anything but a baby who is human and alive as much as you or me.

I suppose what I am saying is I think women should choose, but I feel sad and sorrowful for the little lives that are lost.

GrimmaTheNome Thu 15-Nov-12 19:26:09

>I suppose what I am saying is I think women should choose, but I feel sad and sorrowful for the little lives that are lost.

Yes. Well put.

I concur entirely with that sentiment too

FastidiaBlueberry Thu 15-Nov-12 22:33:44

I really like "pro-forced-birther".

I am going to use it from now on.

When not using "uterus-bothering bucketheads", obviously. grin

ConsiderCasey Thu 15-Nov-12 22:59:17

what about "interfering judgemental hypocrites"?

summerflower Thu 15-Nov-12 23:38:59

I think the problem with pro-life/pro-choice rhetoric is that it sets up an emotionally charged, oppositional dichotomy, which does not deal with the complexity of the issues.

I think it is hard to argue that pro-life means pro-life, when there are examples of places where the woman's life is secondary, I concur with that view.

Equally, I would also argue that pro-choice is a misnomer, when many women seek abortions due to poverty, social pressure, lack of resources to bring up a child, where women are seen as the primary carers, having primary responsibility for contraception, for childcare, for balancing the needs of existing and potential children. Without equality, with more women than men living in poverty, without adequate support for pregnancy and childcare, I am sure that many, many times, it is not a 'choice' as such. I personally would not adopt the language of choice until all else is equal.

I am aware others disagree with me, having had this debate before. I don't have the heart to have it again at the moment. I don't have a name for my views or a quick label. I just am not sure that polarising the debate helps.

WidowWadman Fri 16-Nov-12 07:10:14

I've heard the term 'pro-birth' used before, as that's what it's all about. Personally I prefer using 'anti-choice'.

There's plenty of pro-choicers who, privately would not choose an abortion themselves, so are 'pro-life' on a personal level, however they don't want to force their personal choice onto other people.

JoTheHot Fri 16-Nov-12 11:52:08

I don't agree with woman-haters or misogynist, as religion infects women as often as it infects men, and it seems odd to describe millions of delusional women as women-haters.

I simply use religious, or religious extremists, as I prefer to focus on the cause rather than the symptom. That said, there is some minority who are not religious.

Alternatively, pro- vs anti- medicine (which results in the loss of a foetus), or more generally, anti-euthanasia.

'Pro-forced-birther' is apt. I might start using that.

GrimmaTheNome Fri 16-Nov-12 17:20:24

>I just am not sure that polarising the debate helps.
You're right, summerflower - and the rest of that post.

My problem is that language does matter - the difficulty of finding appropriate terminology results in skewed understanding of the issues by some.

alexpolismum Fri 16-Nov-12 18:55:31

I agree, Grimma, language does matter. That's why they use the term "pro-life", because it paints them in such a good light and makes the rest of us sound like some sort of death cult for not being "pro-life".

I am of course pro-life. I have never murdered anyone, never advocated murder and I am very much in favour of medicine to save lives. I would say that this is what the term "pro-life" should mean. It has nothing to do with abortion and it clouds the issue using this term to describe the anti-abortion camp.

Pro-forced-birther seems to fit nicely for me too. I have always used anti-abortionist before, but I like this term.

I do think language matters hugely, too.

It seems to me it's the anti-abortion side who polarise the debate. So this woman's death has become an 'abortion' issue. I think it's awful. Why don't they recognize that there's a huge spectrum of outcomes to a pregnancy that don't end in a nice easy birth with a lovely, healthy full-term baby? Because I think that is the issue. I think this must be related to the way miscarriage is really still hugely stigmatized, and the way there really isn't a lot of humane treatment of pregnancy loss later on, or of neonatal death.

FastidiaBlueberry Fri 16-Nov-12 19:50:11

I think that's a really interesting point, that failure of our society to deal with miscarriage.

The technical term for miscarriage in the 1st trimester, is of course "abortion". (A friend of mine was known as "an habitual aborter" in the seventies when she had 7 miscarriages). There was much less distinction between deliberate termination and spontaneous abortion and of course there was a massive amount of stigma about miscarriage and still is.

FastidiaBlueberry Fri 16-Nov-12 19:51:39

Have just realised how odd that sounds.

Said friend was not known as "habitual aborter" by all and sundry as a nickname or anythign - she was called that by the medical profession. She was greeted one day by the receptionist "ah yes, Mrs L - you're the habitual aborter, aren't you? Doctor will only be 5 minutes..."

SethStarkadder Fri 16-Nov-12 19:54:16

I've always felt it was pro choice/no choice.

SethStarkadder Fri 16-Nov-12 19:58:49

Forced birther is grim though which is helpful for getting the point over. Due to thread on here I've been inwardly debating the clinically accurate paedophile versus old school child molester. I'm wondering if the seperateness of the work paedophile detracts from the horror, whereas child molester is graphic and meaningful.

I think pro-life is a very cleverly chosen slogan, because it is not at all what denial of the right to abort is in reality.

GrimmaTheNome Fri 16-Nov-12 20:13:49

Its the term used of livestock too - you hear of cases where dogs worry ewes and they abort their lambs. You never hear of it referred to as 'miscarrying'. Odd stuff, language.

I've somehow been oblivious that miscarriage was stigmatised - perhaps because of the way my mother would occasionally mention the two she'd had between my brothers and myself, sad but certainly not something to hide ...I simply can't think why on earth why anyone would stigmatise it. confused

FastidiaBlueberry Fri 16-Nov-12 20:17:13

I suspect that in the old days, it was partly because no-one knew if a miscarriage was spontaneous or deliberate. And there were all sorts of stupid ideas like miscarriage being caused by sin, or it being a bad omen and other sorts of superstitious crap.

We still haven't quite got over all that.

GrimmaTheNome Fri 16-Nov-12 20:18:45

>Forced birther is grim
Even that doesn't quite get to the full grimness of what happened to Savita - it wasn't as though there was even any hope of a birth.

SethStarkadder Fri 16-Nov-12 20:37:57

Exactly, it's horrifying and nonsensical that that poor woman and her family were given no choice at all. A foetus known to have no hope of survival was allowed to die in its own time and that was considered the priority over a grown woman. I mean we help the terminally ill to die by withdrawing nutrition or not resuscitating.

FastidiaBlueberry Fri 16-Nov-12 20:39:48

It's just horrifying.

Every time I think about it I'm staggered by the contempt and inhumanity they showed that poor woman.

They have no fucking right to call themselves doctors and I hope they're struck off.

I get what you're saying fastidia, about supersitition or crank theology around miscarriage, but I actually think it is worse than that.

I am not a theologian, far from it, but I do know Catholic theology from back in a time when medicine was desperate attempt to stop people dying. And it does seem that back then, people did have a natural instinct to want to save a dying woman if they could. I honestly believe things have become worse, not better. It is macabre.

summerflower Fri 16-Nov-12 21:47:58

Two things: I entirely agree that language matters, Grimma, I guess that was where I was going with my comments on the other thread (albeit in a slightly different context).

Secondly, FastidiaBlueberry, I think you are right to say that there used to be confusion between whether a miscarriage was spontaneous or induced, before abortion was legal. Part of the confusion was that the medical profession had no idea of the true rate of natural pregnancy loss, because there were no reliable pregnancy tests, no ultrasound, and people relied on the woman herself to make the pregnancy known, usually not until quickening (foetal movements felt). The only person who knew whether the abortion was spontaneous or induced was the woman herself (and anyone who helped her procure it, if it was induced)

So, in many ways, the creation of foetal personhood (which the pro-life debate uses to emotional advantage) is the result of technology, I think, which makes the inside of a pregnancy visible and takes it beyond the woman’s control. If that makes sense. Pregnancy is a public matter from the earliest days now, because we all can see the foetus (not the actual individual foetus, but the general, known foetus which we imagine, from scans we have seen and from well known photographs (the Swedish photographer in the 1960s whose name escapes me who used aborted foetuses for a photo series in Life magazine - ?).

So, pre-technology, it was not just sin and superstition, but the fact that the foetus was not known/seen in the way it is today.

This always makes me wonder if there was, or is, a qualitative difference between abortion 100 years ago and today, even though the actual outcome is the same.

Apologies for the long post!

SethStarkadder Fri 16-Nov-12 23:28:59

I've got a feeling that the foetus wasn't considered to be alive/real until the "quickening" (feeling kicks) in pre scan times. I'm struggling for source but I've definitely read various historical data from eqyptian texts or uk history talking about treating both men and women for issues if the foetus failed to quicken, oddly enough it's ringing a bell that this was considered to be a male failing. Must dig.

FastidiaBlueberry Sat 17-Nov-12 09:37:19

Yes even the catholic church allowed abortion up to quickening at various points in history. Augustine was more liberal on abortion, than Pope Benedict is. Although he believed "ensoulment" happened at 40 days. (nice random religious number there) I think it was Pope Innocent III in the c12 who decided quickening was when the woman felt the baby move.

It was only when women started to get some real legal rights in Europe, that the church started to decide that abortion was a sin in all cases. IE, backlash. Women get some rights in one area? Attack them in another. It's all so drearily familiar.

sashh Sat 17-Nov-12 10:17:16

SamuraiCindy

But your baby is wanted and healthy, and I hope it stays that way. One of my relatives went to her first scan to find out her baby had no brain.

She could have carried to term but her baby would either be born dead, or live for seconds. She chose to terminate.

And that's what pro choice is. The choice to terminate, and to change your mind depending on circumstances.

There are women in that same situation who do carry to term. It is their choice and I'm glad that so many places allow it.

Trills Sat 17-Nov-12 10:29:06

I am pro choice because I think that whether to carry a fetus to term should be a choice.

For this reason I am also pro contraception and sexual education - people should be as well-informed as possible on how not to get pregnant in the first place if they don't want to.

I am also pro free healthcare and the welfare state and subsidised childcare and the destigmatisation of single parenthood - the choice of whether to have children should be as much as possible a free choice.

Ironically, those two praragraphs are full of things that would reduce the abortion rate, not increse it. If women did not get pregnant unless they wanted to, and if an unplanned child was not a disaster (financially, emotionally, socially), there would be fewer abortions.

But few of those who claim to be "pro life" care about the life of the woman before she falls pregnant or the life of the woman ad child after the child is born.

SamuraiCindy Sat 17-Nov-12 13:12:22

Sassh, yes I see what you mean, and I am glad women do have the choice, especially in cases like the one you mentioned.

Not that long ago I was staunchly anti-abortion. I was brought up in an ultra Catholic house (my parents are brilliant - very tolerant and loving considering they have the strongest faith ever), went to a Catholic school, went to a Catholic college, taught RE in Catholic schools (thankfully that's all over). In school there was a video called 'The Silent Scream', that was shown to ALL pupils in Year 12, that showed a baby being ripped apart inside the womb until just the head was left. Can you believe that up until quite recently, I thought that was how all abortion was carried out??? THAT is what is taught in Catholic schools...at least the one I went to (a convent school) and the ones I taught in.

So regarding abortion, all I saw was an issue of life and death...the baby's that is. I even fell out with a friend when she told me she had had an abortion after a one night stand. She was just so flippant about it like she didn't care, and it seemed so disrespectful to her baby. I could not understand how people did not see it as I saw it.

I can't believe I was ever so narrow minded. Thank goodness I became interested in feminism and learned to educate myself.

summerflower Sat 17-Nov-12 13:21:24

Seth and Fastidia, really interesting comments. If you find the reference, Seth, please do post it! Thanks.

TeaAndHugs Tue 20-Nov-12 12:43:51

I use anti-abortion and pro-choice. Anti-abortion is an accurate but not inflammatory term. Some people say that pro-choice should be referred to as pro-abortion, but that's disingenuous as most pro-choice campaigners do not want to increase the number of abortions, they just want the option to be there.

Pro-life is much too vague a term. If you asked somebody who had never heard the term used in the abortion context what they thought pro-life means, they might think of charities promoting healthcare, trying to stop wars, or all kinds of other things. Maybe some anti-abortionists also care about those things, but in this context, anti-abortion is the relevant term.

mignonette Tue 20-Nov-12 12:48:20

I use pro abortion and anti abortion. Keeps the two standpoints as clear as possible.

FastidiaBlueberry Tue 20-Nov-12 15:08:47

I don't think it does mignon because a lot of people who are in favour of abortion being a legal and safe option for a woman, are anti-abortion in the sense that they would never choose it for themselves.

In that sense, pro choice and anti-choice is more accurate.

But it's not very accurate either, because most women don't actively choose to have an abortion - they have one because there is no other choice.

I read it once described as choosing to have an abortion in the same way a fox caught in a trap chooses to gnaw its own leg off.

YoullScreamAboutItOneDay Tue 20-Nov-12 15:37:04

I agree.

I don't like the term 'pro abortion' because it makes them sound like a good thing. Safe, legal abortion for those who need or want one is a good thing. But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't prefer every pregnancy to be a wanted one. And a healthy one.

Similarly I am pro-life. I think life is a good thing. I am pro people living. I hate that the term has been co-opted to mean something else.

I saw a shocking article in the Times yesterday. Women in Ireland who had had much wanted babies with conditions incompatible with life. Made to either wait until the foetus died, carry it to term (when it would die) or speak in veiled terms to medical staff about an abortion in England. Then spend their savings doing it (or borrow money from family,can't remember). Absolutely fucking shocking. Likewise a women with advanced cancer refused an abortion and resulting in a late surgical abortion in the UK. Makes me mad.

mignonette Tue 20-Nov-12 16:21:06

Your analogy is a good one Fastidia.

I still prefer to use 'pro abortion' though because also many anti-abortion campaigners sadly argue that they also offer women 'choice' in the choice to not have one confused while they claim pro abortion campaigners tend to present the 'no choice but to have one' viewpoint..

Which as we know, really is 'no choice'. We'd all like the luxury to have every baby in comfort, happiness, wealth and freedom from health concerns....

mignonette Tue 20-Nov-12 16:22:21

Also what I would choose for myself has no business interfering with what other women should have to do or have the opportunity to do. So I respectfully stick to my pro or anti abortion terms...

OneMoreChap Tue 20-Nov-12 16:28:32

Always astonishes me how many pro-lifers (particularly in the US) are also pro death penalty....

GrimmaTheNome Tue 20-Nov-12 16:31:59

Perhaps rather than 'pro/anti abortion' its more like 'pro abortion rights', 'anti abortion rights' ?

GrimmaTheNome Tue 20-Nov-12 16:34:45

>Always astonishes me how many pro-lifers (particularly in the US) are also pro death penalty....
I'd like to hear how they attempt to square that circle. Or maybe they just don't. Irrational and incompatible beliefs don't seem to worry some people.

mignonette Tue 20-Nov-12 16:45:20

Trouble is anti abortion campaigners would reverse that argument by asking why so many pro-abortion campaigners are against the death penalty? They see abortion as a form of state sanctioned murder.

I'm pro abortion rights by the way. Just think that we have to have arguments prepared against these people.

OneMoreChap Tue 20-Nov-12 16:56:41

mignonette
Trouble is anti abortion campaigners would reverse that argument by asking why so many pro-abortion campaigners are against the death penalty? They see abortion as a form of state sanctioned murder.

Despite having supported Women's Right to Choose for 30+ years, I do have a little sympathy for that view as it goes later stage. All I ever did was point to the alternative.

Forcing women to lose control of their own bodily integrity and bring another potentially unwanted life into the world. Sorry, that trumps all else, I feel.

MrsHoarder Tue 20-Nov-12 16:59:38

asking why so many pro-abortion campaigners are against the death penalty?

That one's easy: I'm in favour of minimising the damage to the lives of all the people alive now. Even murderers because there's a small probability that they are innocent. Plus I don't think the government should leglistate to control our bodies, so no preventing women from seeking an abortion and no killing people.

I don't think we need to prepare to discuss that one in the UK so much though, I thought the death penalty is a settled matter here. Can't see it being reintroduced in my lifetime easily...

mignonette Tue 20-Nov-12 17:02:06

Thank you OneMore for your points- It is hard to not get caught up in the late stage debate. Trouble is these are usually involving women having to make truly heartbreaking decisions about very serious problems concerning mother or child. It is portrayed in a very disingenuous manner by a lot of press inferring that choices to terminate are based upon easily rectified cosmetic or other foetal abnormalities. The reality is usually very different.

To add to the pain of these women and their partners/families by falsely portraying them as being irresponsible or unnecessarily using abortion is heinous.

mignonette Tue 20-Nov-12 17:04:57

We have to be prepared to discuss it because U.S anti abortion groups are infiltrating and funding British groups, building new campaign tactics based upon scaremongering, intimidation, harassment, the disingenuous use of dubiously acquired 'photographs' and they will use that argument over here. Whether or not we have it. They will ask why we banned death penalty but still support abortion.

MrsHoarder Tue 20-Nov-12 17:36:13

I suppose "because we're a civilised first world country" is considered inflammatory too wink

FastidiaBlueberry Tue 20-Nov-12 17:49:38

Yes I agree Mignonette I think a lot of people steer clear of discussing abortion because of the perception of it as distasteful and because so many people feel uncomfortable with it.

The danger with not engaging is that we hand the argument over to the forced-birth supporters and are forced to have it on their terms.

TeiTetua Tue 20-Nov-12 18:09:23

I would always say, "I trust women's individual consciences on this. Don't you?"

I mainly use anti-choice, but I think forced-birthers is even more accurate. Though anti-women also fits the bill.

SamuraiCindy Tue 20-Nov-12 19:36:20

* OneMoreChap Tue 20-Nov-12 16:28:32

Always astonishes me how many pro-lifers (particularly in the US) are also pro death penalty....*

To me, there is a world of difference in an innocent baby who has done no harm to anyone and hasn't even had a chance at living, and a brutal, sadistic killer who has caused untold devastation to families and people's lovedones.

FastidiaBlueberry Tue 20-Nov-12 19:54:50

But they are both human lives.

Which is what the pro-forced-birthers are pretending they're all about.

GothAnneGeddes Tue 20-Nov-12 20:08:53

I use the term "forced birther" for the reasons stated above.

What annoys me about the abortion debate, is that we're always stuck trying to defend abortion rights, when I really I think the bigger fight would be to give women much better services to reduce unwanted pregnancies, abortion is necessary, but it would great if fewer women had to have one. Likewise, I believe in subsidised childcare, etc so women have a true choice.

I'm furious at the upswing in forced birther fuckery. I drove past a clinic the other day and there were swarms of them outside angry

confuddledDOTcom Tue 20-Nov-12 23:59:53

I've always said I'm both. I do believe in life from conception and that affects my choices for contraception (complicated when you add in that I have thrombophilia) but I believe that it's an answer that no one can definitively give which makes it a moral decision - I do think there comes a point when if the baby would survive outside it's different, so I do think there needs to be a cut off, unless it's for not compatible with life. Even amongst Christians there are those who believe that life begins at 50-something days because of a particular Bible verse. Because I see it as a moral decision I don't believe it is anyone's place to dictate to anyone else.

For myself I have taken MAP following an assault which was with the support of my pastor and church counsellor (in fact I was asked why I was bothering to ask them, just get on and take it! The counsellor put it a lot politer than our pastor and told him off). I'm not sure whether I would put my life at risk, I guess that would totally depend on the situation and whether I could get to a decent gestation - particularly as I don't do term anyway - the current case is a no brainer to me. I wouldn't for disability. I once read someone say that they knew at some point they would have to remove their child's life support, making their body the life support they removed seemed much kinder to the child - I can understand that.

Of course if abortion choice was removed we'd end up back with knitting needles and horrible concoctions.

SethStarkadder, paedophiles are people who are attracted to children, not necessarily people who abuse children, so there is certainly a distinction. Most of them actually spend their time trying not to go there, so I think it is important to make the distinction. A person can be either one without the other or can be both.

GrimmaTheNome, back in the good ol' days when women had to be fertile, miscarriage was not a good thing and of course if you were to have more than one the chances are you will keep having them and they had no way to prevent them (which reminds me, where's my needle...)

GrimmaTheNome Wed 21-Nov-12 00:06:39

>Because I see it as a moral decision I don't believe it is anyone's place to dictate to anyone else.

Yes, exactly. (I think the same applies to euthanasia/assisted suicide)

confuddledDOTcom Wed 21-Nov-12 00:25:57

There are a million things that aren't right and wrong, just moral. As a Christian I don't believe other religions are right, but that's my morals, they have a right to their own morals and following them as their morals dictate. If I wish freewill then I have to accept it for others too - sadly that means a lot of bad things in the world but if I allowed freewill to be taken away from other people I'd have to be prepared for mine to go too.

GrimmaTheNome Wed 21-Nov-12 07:51:31

There comes a point though, at which laws have to be written - civilized society demands that a psychopath is not allowed to exercise freewill by his moral code. The knotty issues are those where society at large doesn't have a clear consensus and there are competing genuine ethical questions. The introduction of religious reasoning into such cases is usually a large part of the problem in resolving them.

confuddledDOTcom Wed 21-Nov-12 09:57:23

That's different though, it is a clear right or wrong. I'm not saying laws shouldn't be written against freewill, just the whole "why is there bad in the world" thing, it's there because we all have the same freewill to choose, just some people don't choose well. Morals are when there's no clear right and wrong answer. There's no clear right and wrong answer on when life starts, on which is the right faith, decisions within a faith (why you get denominations and extremists), assisted suicide. On another thread the morality of keeping an engagement ring is in debate!

For myself I believe that life is from conception and I'm confident in my faith but believe trying to force others to live by it is as useful as telling them Father Christmas won't bring their presents if they're naughty. I believe preventing same sex marriage is no different than preventing a couple from a different faith from getting married in front of their god. I believe if you don't believe in something then don't do it - if God doesn't like it, He will deal with it but he's not best pleased with all your actions either. As a Christian my beliefs are probably quite strong on rights and wrongs, difference is I accept them as mine. But again, all of this is about living within the law.

OneMoreChap Wed 21-Nov-12 10:28:42

confuddledDOTcom

I believe preventing same sex marriage is no different than preventing a couple from a different faith from getting married in front of their god.

Can I fairly politely suggest that if you don't want a same sex-marriage, don't have one. Like I'd say if you don't want an abortion, don't have one.

I'd be very grateful if people with imaginary friends kept their neb out of other people's morals, and lived according to their own holy texts. Which most don't.

confuddledDOTcom Wed 21-Nov-12 11:23:17

Wow, you just agreed with me. Thanks.

scottishmummy Thu 22-Nov-12 07:59:39

hate phrase prolife,no one is anti life.
the antiabortion lobby dont have moral high ground on valuing life
i value life and i value a woman right to chose her life path and how to control contraception

StewieGriffinsMom Thu 22-Nov-12 08:03:39

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

OneMoreChap Thu 22-Nov-12 13:32:07

I thought I was agreeing with her - as in personal choice for each individual ( e.g. If you don't like women priests, don't go to their services - don't try and stop the rest of the congregation. When I was a churchgoer I opposed women clergy... Until I saw who else did. Then became pro, then became atheist FWIW)

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now