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?

No bubbley some 19 yos will be able to cope - some won't. People are different.

I actually think in many cases (not all) that the availability of abortions and the labelling of them as a woman's 'right to choose' has just given women a sense of entitlement to simply choose what they consider to be the 'perfect time' to have a baby. I do not believe that making abortion less accessible would result in every woman attempting one herself or going to some back street 'clinic'. I think that many of them would just get on with it, as many women in the past have done, and they would be good mothers. If there wasn't an 'easy' alternative then people would perhaps be more inclined to accept that they may need to take a break from their education/career progression etc to have the baby.

"I do not believe that making abortion less accessible would result in every woman attempting one herself or going to some back street 'clinic'."

So only if "every" women went for a back street abortion would our worries be valid? Do you believe that the deaths of those women who did go to back street abortionists before abortion was made legal count for nothing?

If some women die due to circumstances which could easily be avoided, isn't that too many? And as I suspect that your response will be that they shouldn't have aborted in the first place, does that mean you believe they got what was coming to them?

no doubt not everyone would risk trying to abort themselves or having a backstreet abortion but the fact is it did happen, and it still does where abortion is banned and thousands of women have died this way because when that desperate that is what they will resort too

Bubbley, I have never claimed benefits and unless something catastrophic happened I can't see me ever needing to. If I had kept the baby Iwould have had to quit university and either moved back home (perish the thought) or claimed benefits and lived in a HA flat. None of these were desirable and I was taking the pill when I became pg, along with lots of 'party' drugs.

I have been pg 7 times and have five children. The earliest I EVER felt movement, including those teeny bubbley feelings was 15 weeks. It's rather stupid to talk about these fetus' as they are rarely aborted.

I do understand your purely emotional reasons for being anti abortion but with that comes the rape victim and incest victim and child with profound SN are you willing to force these women to have their babies? Bubbley...please actaully answer.

I'm just pointing out that all the pro-choice 'if abortion wasn't available all those women would end up damaged or dead' is a bit extreme. I also think it's worth considering the stigma that was, until quite recently really, attached to being an unmarried pregnant woman and that still exists in some countries and cultures around the world. I think people in those situations were probably more inclined to feel that they had no other choice than a woman who is perhaps 'choosing' to abort because she wants to get to the next rung on the career ladder but who, if abortion wasn't as easily available, would not be as inclined to seek one out or use other methods themselves.

bubbley....please answer the question about SN, rape and incest. A woman with money would still get an abortion, they could fly and get one somewhere....making abortion illegal would simply mena the most poor and vulnerable would have the risk of bleeding to death.

And if you think being an unmarried mother doesn't carry stigma why not ask a few? Ask them how stigmatised they are, trapped in poverty and living a subsistence with little support.

Why msteak? She asked and I gave her my opinion. What do you want me to do? Tiptoe around it? I thought people who had abortions 'knew what they were doing' and 'made an informed choice'.

No, what they often do is travel to the nearest country that has abortion, if they can. Enduring much later, much more painful and hard abortions. Do you understand why they put themselves through that? Because they are "pro-abortion feminist nutcases", as you put it?

You don't think about those women. You don't care about them. You pretend to care about hypothetical "unborn babies", but you really only care about your own moralistic stance. You disgust me.

Crapola, give me a minute will you - we're not all glued to our computers hitting refresh!

Re. not talking about 15 week fetuses ( I did mention feeling kicking at 15 weeks in my post - also that they must be moving around before that) does that mean you are only pro-choice until 15 weeks? Why does it become more of a life to you then? They aren't that rare btw. There are still several thousand carried out at that stage.

Re all the extreme cases that you are mentioning - if you arent happy to discuss 15 week old foetuses because abortions at that state are rare then why should I have to discuss those rare instances? Please answer me.

Ms teak - are you accusing me of calling someone a pro-abortion feminist nutcase?

I don't care if I disgust you or not. Plenty of the views here disgust me too.

Maybe there should be a condition for most (not all) abortions that women be sterilised at the same time. Maybe that would help them to consider their 'choice' a bit more carefully.

See you did it again. As far as I'm concerned if there's a good enough reason, ie the mothers wants it, I'm pretty okay with terminations up to the legal limit. Everything has consequences and every time I would rather give the mother my consideration than the fetus. I am pro choice without conditions, it's a moral line that I have drawn, if I start trying to put conditions on that I become a hypocrite.

Lovely, now we have eugenics and forcible sterilisation. Whats the rung after disgust? Who would decide who to forcibly sterilise? You? Would we do just the poor, or the reckless, or the young?

Please do share your nasty thoughts with us?

That is truly vile bubblymummy.

None of the pro life on here have adequately answered the questions about whether they would rather women performed their own abortions and bleed to death instead. Which is what would happen.

Very selective.

So 14 year old who didn't use contraception....have a baby now or never? Or woman that got pregnant with no means of self support and the babies father is a violent alcoholic, baby now or never.

Yes, and thieves should have their hands cut off, that'll learn 'em.

Scratch a pro-lifer and the eugenicist just pops out.

I think prolifers fall short of a decent argument...I was going to qualify that but there's really no need.

Prolifers fall short of a decent argument. end of./

" whether they would rather women performed their own abortions and bleed to death instead. Which is what would happen. "

I did actually say that I don't think this would happen in a majority of cases - you're just being a bit extreme.

I also realise the sterilisation idea is a bit extreme but I thought it may discourage some (and i realise there arent many) from using it as a form of contraception and others who are perhaps just going to be a bit inconvenienced by the timing to think carefully.

Thank you-A more balanced post albeit one I don't agree with.

Women have and continue to perform home abortions, in places where it is illegal. If it was criminalised here, many many more women would die.

bubbley
You've made some great points thank you for continuing to hold their collective feet to the fire.
I think this thread has made it abundantly clear where the muddled, emotive, irrational thinking is coming from. Not to mention the vulgar outbursts.
Abortion hurts people, and hurt people lash out.

" Re all the extreme cases that you are mentioning - if you arent happy to discuss 15 week old foetuses because abortions at that state are rare then why should I have to discuss those rare instances? Please answer me "

A very good point

" I don't care if I disgust you or not. Plenty of the views here disgust me too "

I second that emotion.