Ben Shapiro

Lass

"I found this thread rather strange; some of us are pro-choice; have supported campaigns for pro-choice ; have donated money to charties such as ASN but have personal reservations, which we were clear we were not seeking others to agree with, nor even express in a context outside this forum, but that somehow is unacceptable"

Yes I agree. To have reservations means we lack 'guts', as it was put and are not quite feminist enough. Bollocks to that, I'm not being forced to swallow someone else's views anymore than I will force mine on others

Sorry, pressed post before quite finishing my train of thought!

Of course it all links back to the whore / madonna system of control of women: if we are virgins (or otherwise non-sexually active); if we get pregnant in a non-ideal situation, it must be because we are whores...

Hmm, well, many anti-abortion campaigners would also argue for reducing unwanted pregnancies, but they say that the way to achieve that is abstinence, as that is the most effective contraception. (They are right on that - I think the % of women who get pregnant from activity other than straightforward PIV must be very very small)

Yum, thanks!

I quite often see posts by you I agree with!

Lass! We agree on something!

High five?

I may not reach the exact same place as everyone else, but that will have to be between me and my conscience

I think I am in the same place as you. I found this thread rather strange; some of us are pro-choice; have supported campaigns for pro-choice ; have donated money to charties such as ASN but have personal reservations, which we were clear we were not seeking others to agree with, nor even express in a context outside this forum, but that somehow is unacceptable.

i'm getting the impression that unintended pregnancies are simply a fact of life
I think when 1 in 6 pregnancies are unplanned this statement is pretty much accurate
Like a lot of reproductive stuff though, women are conditioned not to talk about it by assumptions like unplanned = unwanted , contraception is infallible, pregnant women are somehow reckless etc etc

Mumsnet has been a mine of information for me, for several years. And I appreciate everyone engaging. It's given me food for thought.

I actually think we're pretty much on the same page. With varying degrees. Which is a good thing.

Sometimes with these things, the very devil is in the detail. The external factors that aren't immediately apparent.

So I am taking on board what everyone has said. My opinion has evolved over the course of this thread.

I may not reach the exact same place as everyone else, but that will have to be between me and my conscience.

However, I am now more aware of the issues so I'll go forward with that and keep learning.

Maybe we are at our absolute limit in terms of sex education, using contraception, and there really is absolutely nothing to be done.

There is also another way of looking at this besides education and contraception-

Reducing violence against women, reducing poverty, improving childcare, income equality, medical research. These are all feminist issues and are all part of the same thing. This discussion is about limiting abortion though and I am not sure that sex education is any more relevent than any of those other things.

Because i'm getting the impression that unintended pregnancies are simply a fact of life, are irrelevant and not to be talked about because it interferes too much with campaigning for the right to abortion

For me personally, how the unintended pregnancy came about is irrelevant to my pro-choice position.

As I said before, I doubt you'll find many (any?) pro-choicers who are opposed to contraception. But it's a separate thing to abortion. Connected yes but a separate topic and a separate campaign.

And I agree with shiny about male non-barrier contraceptive. I'm sure when Caitlin Moran talked about her abortion - when married with two children - she stated that if you were to profile the average woman seeking abortion it would be someone like her, in their 30s, married, with children. Not sure how true that is, but if it is true, probably the most effective way to tackle that is a LARC for men.

Because i'm getting the impression that unintended pregnancies are simply a fact of life, are irrelevant and not to be talked about because it interferes too much with campaigning for the right to abortion.

I don't think that's the case, Datun, from what I know a lot of pro-choice campaigners also argue for better sex education in schools (something anti-abortion campaigners, unsurprisingly, also oppose).

Applying a filter of "Does this woman deserve an abortion?", based on whether she has been fool-hardy, is as misogynistic as asking whether a rape victim was asking for it.

Except that's not what I said, neither do I think it.

It's a little hard to engage with you shiney as you are connecting dots that are not there. Especially ones that I have not provided.

I can see that the connection of those dots can be used by the anti-abortionists to justify their position. That is not what I am doing.

It seems to me that there is, on this thread, a value that is being attached to abortion. That value being 'good'. Indeed previous posts have said just that.

I agree that abortion is a 'good solution' to an unintended problem. But I don't agree that abortion is intrinsically good.

Therefore I would wish for a way to limit it.

I have listened to what everyone has said. I see a very definite opinion that it is wrong to attach a judgement to unintended pregnancy. Which I agree with.

But I would still like to know if there is anything further to be done to limit unintended pregnancies. Without judgement, without it being any kind of condition to be able to access an abortion.

This is becoming something of an intellectual exercise. Because i'm getting the impression that unintended pregnancies are simply a fact of life, are irrelevant and not to be talked about because it interferes too much with campaigning for the right to abortion.

Maybe we are at our absolute limit in terms of sex education, using contraception, and there really is absolutely nothing to be done.

We can do no more and that's why it's irrelevant.

The bit I am struggling with is it not logical for me to think there are some people who are fool hardy?

Are some people foolhardy? Yup, everyone. You and me for instance. Do you drink alcohol? I do - yet I know that it is harmful to women, even in small amounts (the possible small cardiovascular benefit is outweighed by the cancer risk). Do I exercise every day? No. Did I eat a non-nutritionist approved supper of popcorn and slightly stale Fruit & Fibre last night because I couldn't be arsed to go to Sainsbury's? Guilty as charged.

You need to let go of the idea that there is a binary distinction between good, logical decisions about health/wellbeing/sex and bad, illogical ones. Obviously there are extremes at either end of the spectrum: it is better to live on grilled vegetables than nothing but Mars Bars. It is worse to drink 2 bottles of vodka a day than have a tipple only at Christmas. But most decisions are somewhere in the middle. And deciding what is logical and good is by no means objective.

Applying a filter of "Does this woman deserve an abortion?", based on whether she has been fool-hardy, is as misogynistic as asking whether a rape victim was asking for it.

Another way of reducing unwanted pregnancies would be to improve contraception by either making current female contraception more effective or providing a good, non barrier male contraceptive.

In the Netherlands they promote the belt and braces method in sex ed classes because real world use of condoms is about 82% effective (98% effective with perfect use but teenagers don't tend to achieve that) and real world use of contraceptive pill, particularly for younger women trying different forms of contraception for the first time is around 97%. This creates a real life effectiveness of 99.5% which means there's still a number of unwanted pregnancies at a population level.

The best way to improve these odds is not to focus on the female contraceptive which is pretty damn effective, but to look at the major issues with condoms and find a more appropriate male contraceptive. Apparently though policy makers don't think men will accept that.

battles

I don't disagree with anything in your post.

Sorry just realised how patronising that first bit was! Apologies!!

Another thing you're missing Datun is a lot of your illogical thinkers are men.

I wonder how many women seeking abortion would say they had free and full control over their sexuality? And how many would say they had been pressured / forced, and how many others would say their partner had led them to believe a pregnancy would be wanted when actually he didn't want the responsibility of a child.

The trouble for me with linking contraception and abortion is that contraception, consent, responsible sexual behaviour, etc is the responsibility of both men and women. Abortion is a woman's choice alone. The two aren't the same.

shinynewusername

You're probably right. Which is why I keep coming back to this thread! I genuinely want to understand.

My opinion is that avoidable unprotected sex is fool hardy. But I can see the difference between thinking that, and agreeing that should someone be fool hardy, they have every right to have an abortion.

The bit I am struggling with is it not logical for me to think there are some people who are fool hardy?

I think your answer to that would be no it's not illogical but it has nothing to do with abortion. And whilst I agree it has nothing to do with abortion rights, does it correlate to actual abortions?

If statistics show that fool hardiness only leads to very few abortions, then I can dispense with that niggle.

This is the first time I have ever engaged with a discussion about abortion, so I appreciate you taking time to explain your viewpoint.

do you think it is pointless trying to make people think more logically?

Yes. And who decides what is logical anyway? It isn't necessarily illogical to have unprotected sex; it's just making a decision to prioritise pleasure (assuming the sex is consensual) over the quite small risk of pregnancy.

There is an offensive woman-blaming undercurrent behind the assumption that "we wouldn't need abortion if these stupid girls could just plan ahead/behave more logically". I'm not suggesting that that is your conscious viewpoint, Datun - I know you believe in women's autonomy - but I do think some of your PPs suggest you may be subconsciously influenced by it.

Reducing unwanted pregnancies might reduce abortions, but it doesn't mean abortions should inform part of the argument for free access to contraception and education. Two different things IMO.

Okay, I can definitely see the logic in that statement.

I think unwanted pregnancies should be reduced because whether pregnancy is kept or terminated, an unwanted pregnancy carrys risks of adverse health implications. Of course I think full contraceptive advice should be available to everyone, as I think most pro-choicers do.

To me reducing unwanted pregnancies is nothing to do with abortion. I don't want women to suffer physical changes they don't want to suffer.

Unwanted pregnancies can occur as a result of rape. The reason I am anti-rape (odd wording but hopefully YSWIM) is not because I want to reduce unwanted pregnancies. It's because I'm anti-rape. Obviously a benefit of reducing rape would be reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies but that doesn't inform my feelings about rape.

Reducing unwanted pregnancies might reduce abortions, but it doesn't mean abortions should inform part of the argument for free access to contraception and education. Two different things IMO.

Batteriesallgone

Ok. Thanks for the recommendation. Given what you have just said, do you think it is pointless trying to make people think more logically?

Is the idea of limiting unwanted pregnancies something that is fruitless to address? Or is it that pro-choicers don't focus on it because it detracts from the fight for access to abortion? (Which i'm perfectly willing to accept).

Datun people don't behave logically, I dont know why you're assuming they do.

I think it's pretty established that corporal punishment doesn't decrease crime rate, for example. You'd think the death penalty would be a deterrent but it isn't.

As an aside, the book 'thinking fast and slow' is really good on stuff like this. On the whole, people just don't make decisions according to statistics or likelyhood, there's a huge element of 'it won't happen to me' thinking.

I have lost count of the number of times a woman has assured me that there is no chance she could be pregnant, then goes on to admit that she is (a) sexually active and (b) not using contraception. This happens several times a week.

But the facts do not support the idea that easier access to abortion increases the abortion rate

How is there not a correlation between the first paragraph and the second paragraph? I'm willing to accept that the statistics say that isn't. But I don't understand why.

If, for the sake of argument (only for the sake of argument, honestly) abortion was made illegal, would there not be fewer people as described in the first paragraph?

Would those people really have such a cavalier attitude to the possibility of pregnancy, if the option for abortion was removed?

I am absolutely pro-choice. I support abortion. And it is purely because I support it that I would like to see as many ways as possible to limit it.

And yes, taking things to their logical conclusion I would not, and could not, support prosecution for seeking an abortion. That does not mean, in an ideal world, I wish there were less of them.