to understand why some people have a problem with abortion?

[LolaRennt]

I am pro choice first of all, just to get that out of the way.

But what confuses me is that on many threads I have seen if someone in a tiny voice dares to admit that they might have a an anti abortion view they get jumped on pretty quickly.

But surely if someone belives from a purely emotion point that abortion is the ending of a life you can't change that view simply by calling them a woman hater or abusing them? I can understand how pro choice people don't see abortion as a feminst issue or a human rights issue at all and can't get past the view that it is just ending a life.

I am a vegan and I don't wear leather or fur. I see it as murder. I know other people do it (even my friends, husband and family) but for me it will always be murder. Its a purely emotional view that go against what the vast majority of the western world see as normal. But there is nothing any of you could ever say that would make me change my mind. So maybe I can empathise better than some?

My belief is that women need safe access to abortion, no one likes the idea of abortion butit needs to be avalaible because the alternatives would be devastating. Wouldn't it make sense to approach it from that point of view to someone who is anti abortion? Accept that the idea maybe abhorent (and that they arent wrong for feeling that way) but it is a basic human right to not be forced to pregnant and that for many reasons it is the best choice for the woman?

So, OP, you are fine with women choosing to end the life of their babies but think eating meat is murder? Just so I can get it straight in my head...

Perhaps the pro-life brigade should stop insulting people who don't agree with them in such staggeringly unpleasant ways then?

I don't think you can get much lower than inferring that someone who has had an abortion would happily sacrifice their own living children if it was convenient.

Actually the pro lifers should keep their opinions to themselves when a woman has quite clearly thought about her options and, with an often heavy heart, has chosen to terminate. Debates about the rights or wrongs of abortion belong elsewhere.

yes, i understand why they do it, but it is not a sound enough legal reason to allow ALL women the choice to have an abortion- it would only apply in a small number of cases. So therefore lets have some reasoned debate that a court of law would accept as sound reason to allow ALL women the right to choose? What argument would you put to the courts in Northern Ireland for example to get them to change their stance to allow all women the right to choose? (In Northern Ireland if the mothers life is in serious danger abortion is allowed and the most recent statistics show 90 abortions in 2007 were carried out for this reason)

It's an easy argument because it's valid Scarlet. The reason pro lifers don't want to talk about these is because fundamentally you apportion blame onto the woman and unless she can't be blamed she has to keep the baby. So one fetus has more right to life than the other is dependent on it's conception or perfection.

"If they do want to argue about it at least come up with an argument beyond "what if someone was raped/too young/ too poor""

plenty of people on this thread have said they think women should be able to have an abortion whatever the circumstances of the conception and whatever their lifestyle is like. The argument is that no woman should be forced to continue a pregnancy they do not want to continue. Get it? Why is it so hard to understand.

Women having abortions are, in the main, fully aware of what they are choosing to do and most do so without any kind of coersion or guilt.

So, OP, you are fine with women choosing to end the life of their babies but think eating meat is murder? Just so I can get it straight in my head.

1. abortion: I am prochoice, yes. I do not agree however, with some posters who say they would support a woman's right to choose up to 40 weeks even for social reasons. The only exception for me being that the child would be born with a an illness that would make them result in them dying shortly after birth or cause them great pain.

2.)meat: murder yup

again- lazy legal reasoning. Can anyone who is pro choice convince me that all women should have the right to choose regardless of how they have ended up pregnant?? perhaps the law should be extended to the victims of rape and incest, if you read my initial post you will see I actually agree with that, but what about in every other case?

For a bit of background, I became pregnant outside of marriage at 25. At the time I had a fabulous life, I was earning 70k a year doing a job I loved and enjoying all the nice things that brought. I wasn't thrilled therefore to be pregnant. Now I could have chosen not to keep the baby and continue with my lovely life and not have my career prospects damaged. But I didn't, I kept my baby. I knew that I would no longer be able to keep that job and lifestyle. I was also on the pill so had taken precautions but not once did I use that as an excuse not to keep my baby. I just accepted that there are an awful lot worse things to happen than a baby. And this was how my life was meant to be. I didn't once moan about it but just got on with things.

because it is "their choice" is not an argument. otherwise you could say that everyone should have a choice to do anything.

But scarlettsmummy how would you enforce making abortion available only to rape victims? Rapists are hardly ever convicted and some women who are desperate for an abortion will lie.

I would also say that giving up a well-paid job is hardly a tale of woe compared to what some women who abort have been through.

"Can anyone who is pro choice convince me that all women should have the right to choose regardless of how they have ended up pregnant??"

i dont think you want to be convinced so i doubt there is any point trying. but out of interest, why should you or anyone else get to decide what reasons justify a termination for someone else?

Legal argument as follows (disclaimer: I'm a computer scientist, not a lawyer):

The right to self-determination is in many other cases regarded as prevailing over the right to life. We do not, for instance, mandate organ donation. Even when the donor is already dead it is not seen as acceptable to harvest their bodies for organs unless a) they agreed to this in life or b) their family agree (presumably in the belief that the deceased would have).

Furthermore, it is considered even less acceptable to mandate live donations; this is regardless of the potential impact on the donor. A kidney, for example, can be donated quite easily and will not lead to significant adverse effects on the donor. Still we do not force people to donate kidneys when they are a match for a transplant patient who would otherwise die.

Even if a person has directly caused another person's kidney failure (e.g. via deliberately injuring them) we do not forcibly make them share their own kidneys with their victim.

Since pregnancy can take place only within a woman's body and it cannot be transferred into a more willing host, the option to terminate a pregnancy becomes a question of a woman's right to make decisions regarding her own body. As mentioned above, this is a right which is accepted in our society and can at times outweigh even the right to life of a fully grown, intelligent adult. The fact that a foetus does not, according to current research, have the same emotional and intellectual capabilities as the pregnant woman must give additional weight to her interest. If the right to self-determination is suspended only when the issue at hand affects women only, it is also debatable whether this is permissible in the light of gender equality legislation.

Finally, abortions do happen regardless of the legal situation. The impact of a ban on abortion is therefore not a cessation of abortion as such but a system that discriminates systematically against those unable to access it safely, whether abroad or at a private clinic. This is not only questionable from a moral perspective but may also lead to the unnecessary deaths of women and a potentially lucrative area of criminal enterprise.

NotADudeExactly - there was once a character in Viz Magazine called Mr Logic. Are you him?

Maybe I am. For starters I will happily take inspiration from him while I point out that ad hominem (ad mulierem, rather) is in fact a logical fallacy rather than a valid argument, ...

It is well documented that there are certain medications which are abolutely contraindacted in pregnancy. Whilst many medications carry an advisory note advising against use in pregnancy often this is to cover the drug companies against complications that could be attributed to their use.

The medications I am refering too dont fall into this caterogy. These medications have serious, longterm side effects on the foetus/baby.

Take methotraxte for example, commonly used under consultant supervision for treatment of rhuematoid arthritis and severe chronic psoriasis. This drug affects the way cells divide and develop (mitosis) and it is well known that because of this the ability of that human life would not properly develop. Getting pregnant is absolutely to be avoided. At all costs. Contraception must be in place. But we all know contracpetion can fail. In this case medically terminating the pregnancy would be the only option offered to a woman.

You could argue that the best way to not get pregnant is not to have sex at all. But I would argue that sex has an integral part to play in a happy loving relationship and so many women assess the risks and hope and pray their contraception does not fail.

I ended up being that woman. Not taking methotraxte (but i have taken this in the past) but another, more experimental (prescribed) drug which the long term risks to my own health are not known. I took that risk for myself. We used contraception and it failed. I felt that it was not fair to inflict my actions (taking the drug) for my own selfish reasons (improving my health) onto a child that might not have made it to term, might not have survived, had a high risks of some horrendous deformities and to whom the long term health risks are not known. This was the view supported by the medical team. But it was still my signature on the form. And you may judge me for this but I believe that given all the facts, statisitics and medical opinions it was the right decision for us.

But I can not write on this board saying well abortion was right for me but it isnt right for other women. I am not in a position to judge their circumstances and their feelings.

please excuse the spelling mistakes

notadudeexactly- I think you make some very good points and can see that is a well thought out argument about the rights of the mother. Certainly if you were to remove emotion from the equation it would be hard to argue against it.

I Just want to give one more example of why I still think the rights of the child should be considered before I go to bed.

My foster son is one of five children who are all in care. His mother is a drug addict and his father is a serial sex offender. Social workers did try and encourage his mother to terminate her last pregnancy but she didn't as she didn't believe in abortion despite knowing she was incapable of looking after the baby herself. That baby has now been adopted and will hopefully have a happy life. My own foster son is a lovely pleasant boy who is very happy. If you were to ask him if his drug addict, absolutely no money, mother should have aborted him I don't think he would say yes. So please lets stop thinking that these unborn babies shouldn't have any rights too for whatever the reason the mother sees fit.

" If you were to ask him if his drug addict, absolutely no money, mother should have aborted him I don't think he would say yes. So please lets stop thinking that these unborn babies shouldn't have any rights too for whatever the reason the mother sees fit."

scarlettsmummy, without wishing to upset you. i find it ridiculous that you a) suggest asking a child if they wish they didn't exist!! and b) base your conclusion on what you think he might say in response.

Scarlettsmummy
I just want to thank you for posting here.
It has been such a relief to read your comments.
I just want to encourage you because the presence of clear and rational voice helps to prevent this thread from descending into a bear pit.

Sometimes I read posts here and have to step away from the computer for a while. But I'm very mindful that there are other people reading here who know intuitively that there is something very wrong with our present situstion, and that there is a weird logical disconnect in a "rights of the child" culture that cannot even acknowledge the humanity of the child before birth.
However, not everyone can articulate what they intuitively know. So it is enormously useful for them when people like yourself continue to post on this horribly contentious and thorny issue.

" If you were to ask him if his drug addict, absolutely no money, mother should have aborted him I don't think he would say yes. So please lets stop thinking that these unborn babies shouldn't have any rights too for whatever the reason the mother sees fit ."

" scarlettsmummy, without wishing to upset you. i find it ridiculous that you a) suggest asking a child if they wish they didn't exist!! and b) base your conclusion on what you think he might say in response. "

Boohoo
She didn't suggest asking him. She said that IF you were to ask him, she didn't think he would prefer to have been aborted.
This constant twisting nd misrepresenting of what people say is doing the discussion no favours.
i think the example of her foster son is a particularly good one. Sonce that is precisely the kind of scenario that the pro abort lobby would be using as a support for their position.

queenmary please drop the act that you give a shit about what the child would want. You said on another thread that if a child had a condition that wasn't compatible with life and they would suffer for hours and die having no quality of life whatsoever it would STILL be wrong to abort. The pro-foetus lobby care for nothing above their own agenda.

"I think the example of her foster son is a particularly good one. "

But is also a good example of the mother's choice. She didnt agree with abortion and decided to proceed with the pregnancy, despite probably knowing that the child would not be placed with her.

I would respect her decision because it was what she felt was the right thing to do for herself in her circumstances.

queenmary Still not answered the very reasonable question that several people have asked... How do you propose to stop abortion? In the midst of the very emotive arguments, on a very practical note what's your solution?