Advanced search

Rather than the right to a termination ...

(25 Posts)
TheoriginalLEM Wed 03-Jun-15 19:53:51

shouldn't the focus being on the right for freely accessible contraception?

i have just read a deeply distressing thread about women being sent abortion pills with no medical care whatsoever

Whatever one's views on abortion, surely the focus should be on getting women contraception - i am talking about women in countries where this isn't freely available.

Leaving aside the fact that there are contraception failures and the fact that mistakes happen, im talking about countries where women don't have the choice about contraception?

I don't claim to have any knowledge so please don't come and flame me for getting my facts wrong but to me wouldn't this be better?

Shouldn't we be aiming for all women having the right to contraception?

YonicScrewdriver Wed 03-Jun-15 20:04:09

I think all women should have access to contraception and to abortion because contraception fails, runs out or just isn't used on occasion.

Preminstreltension Wed 03-Jun-15 20:09:34

I want both confused. They are both essential to women's autonomy

GeorgeYeatsAutomaticWriter Wed 03-Jun-15 20:11:53

It's not an either/or situation.

TheFutureSupremeRulersMum Wed 03-Jun-15 20:13:34

What George said

geekaMaxima Wed 03-Jun-15 20:58:57


You shouldn't have one without the other. Not if you want full reproductive rights.

wigglesrock Wed 03-Jun-15 21:14:29

I live in NI, I have used contraception for over 20 years thankfully it's worked because where I live I'd be absolutely fucked if it didn't and attitudes like yours are the reasons I'm afraid for my daughters should they become pregnant and want a termination.

LonnyVonnyWilsonFrickett Wed 03-Jun-15 21:19:01

Surely there should be both? And while I would infinitely prefer women to be able to access free, legal and safe terminations, I think the service you are referring to is an absolute lifeline. Hats off to the people who are behind it.

PuffinsAreFictitious Wed 03-Jun-15 21:19:47

The reason those women are sent abortion pills with no in situ medical cover is that, in those places, women are unable to access abortion legally, safely or affordably. To provide medical cover in situ would be illegal or in other ways impossible. It's a terrible state of affairs when women are unable to make decisions about their own bodies.

The sad fact is that statistically, most women accessing abortions have been using contraceptives or at least contraceptive methods acceptable to the country they live in.

All women should have the right to and realistic access to both contraceptives and abortion. Until that happens, activist groups, who have a huge amount of knowledge and medical back up, will have to continue to help women who have no other choice than them, or a man in a dirty room with a coat hanger.

CoteDAzur Wed 03-Jun-15 21:23:14

By the time a woman needs abortion pills, the ship for contraception has sailed.

Besides, contraception is not fail-safe. You can be on contraception and still find that you need abortion pills.

PacificDogwood Wed 03-Jun-15 21:24:59

Yy to 'full reproductive rights'

Contraception and safe termination of pregnancy are not the same thing.

BertrandRussell Wed 03-Jun-15 21:37:18

Many,women live in cultures/societies where contraception is hard to get and frequently disapproved of. Women would have to be sent the pill on a regular basis. They would have to keep it concealed from their husbands often in environments where hiding things is difficult. And the consequences of them being found out could well be disastrous. Abortion pills are the least worst crisis management. Ongoing education programmes for men are the way forward obviously but not an immediate solution.

HoVis2001 Wed 03-Jun-15 21:56:57

We can focus on multiple things, you know. hmm You can't 'leave aside' all of the things you mentioned and just work on one day in the future improving access to contraception, when in the meantime there are women who need a way to end unwanted pregnancies.

As others have said, it's not an either-or situation. Let's campaign for both, and all the other myriad issues that affect women's health and autonomy. Our minds are not so simple we cannot cope with trying to tackle a multiplicity of issues!

uglyswan Wed 03-Jun-15 22:00:44

OP - the organisations that provide abortifacients (such as women on waves or women on web) also provide detailed medical guidance on how to safely induce an abortion. These organisations also tell you what symptoms you should be experiencing, when to consult a doctor and, very importantly, what to tell medical staff. They also train volunteers working for abortion hotlines in countries where abortion is unavailable and provide information on safe sex and contraception. No one is just sending off random packs of pills to women who need them, without any kind of guidance or information.

YonicScrewdriver Wed 03-Jun-15 22:14:10

I agree with Puffins.

Thanks for that info, swan.

AskBasil Wed 03-Jun-15 22:56:01

I don 't understand why it's one or the other.

We need both

SolidGoldBrass Wed 03-Jun-15 23:47:57

Of course women need both! No contraception is 100% effective, and not all women want to use 'ongoing' contraception such as the pill or the injection or whatever - and if your usual method is a condom or diaphragm and you get raped then you may well need an abortion.

HapShawl Thu 04-Jun-15 06:40:17

OP, you should watch the documentary vessel about the organisation Women on Waves

Abortion should be available to every woman, no questions asked. However in the context of our misogynist world it can be problematic as it can be used as another form of abuse of women. But contraception and abortion go hand in hand in women controlling their reproduction

sashh Thu 04-Jun-15 08:18:09

i have just read a deeply distressing thread about women being sent abortion pills with no medical care whatsoever

No that is not disturbing.

Women and girls (there is a 10 year old in Paraguay being forced to continue a pregnancy) not being able to get contraception or abortion is disturbing.

Women having to rely on volunteers in another country is disturbing.

Women having miscarriages and being scared to go to the hospital in case they are arrested and sent to prison for life is disturbing.

Women like you not knowing or bothering to find out the difficulties of womem with no access to rights over their own bodies is disturbing.

BigChocFrenzy Thu 04-Jun-15 10:25:43

Reproductive rights requires access to both, so let's campaign for both.

Contraception is not 100%. And no good telling a rape victim she should have had contraception - or is every female from age 10 supposed to have permanent contraception in case she is raped ?

A woman or girl with an unwanted pregnancy is entitled to abort if she chooses. It should be with proper medical care.
However, in those countries where abortion is illegal and a woman can't travel abroad, she may decide online pills are the best option for her situation.

When the unwanted pregnancy has already happened, what is your alternative solution ?

NoTechnologicalBreakdown Thu 04-Jun-15 12:45:50

^^ yy

Not either/ or.

LurcioAgain Thu 04-Jun-15 12:59:04

Another vote for both. If you'd phrased your post "As well as..." instead of "Rather than..." I'd have had a bit more sympathy.

maternal mortality rates world wide
women's rights world wide

Basically, women do better off materially in countries where they have more rights, access to contraception and access to abortion. I read a very good blog post by a former republican evangelical anti-abortion campaigner who'd switched sides and started promoting contraception - because she said she couldn't get past the stats from the WHO. If one was genuinely of the opinion that reducing the number of abortions was a good thing (and she did still believe this) then the way to do it was to provide easy, cheap access to contraception, not to ban it - because banning it didn't change abortion rates in the slightest, it just made the procedure unsafe.

ChickenLaVidaLoca Tue 09-Jun-15 14:43:12

While this is not AIBU, nonetheless YABVVVU. Contraception is not a substitute for abortion, particularly not for those women who are already undergoing unwanted pregnancy (and you've not told us yet what you propose to do about them while we sort out universal access to contraception for all the women on the planet, which might take a little while). They are complementary. Better to have one than neither, but both are needed.

zozzij Tue 09-Jun-15 23:46:24

Whatever one's views on abortion, surely the focus should be on getting women contraception

Or how about rooting out the idea that sex = PIV? If you actually want to tackle the issue of unwanted pregnancies, that's where you have to go, and few people are willing.

TriJo Wed 10-Jun-15 14:08:40

They both need to be fought for. Contraception isn't free in ROI - I used to pay €15 a month for my pill when I lived in Dublin, Mirena was about €300 plus cost of fitting up front - prohibitive for those on a low income, and some GPs who take the medical card won't do them. I paid the €100 plus appointment charge for my younger sister to get an Implanon when she was 20 because she was so short on money when she was a student working part-time. The upfront cost should never be a barrier to access to the most effective methods of contraception. I live in London these days and would be happy to help any of my friends or family out who needed to travel to access abortion services, but that wouldn't be an option for everyone.

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