Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to think the "40 Days for Life" campaigners are utterly immoral

225 replies

technodad · 15/03/2012 21:01

news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9705000/9705877.stm

OP posts:
SugarPasteHedgehog · 29/03/2012 19:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

bumbleymummy · 29/03/2012 19:45

Dusted, I can't understand why, as a Christian, you would find prayer distressing and inappropriate Confused but if that's the way you feel then that's the way you feel. I'm sure it's not their intention to traumatise people with their prayers. I'm so sorry for your loss and I hope you and your family are doing ok.

bumbleymummy · 29/03/2012 19:47

Sugar, some of them do that as well.

Out of curiosity, when does a foetus/baby come to have its own body in your opinion?

Bogeyface · 29/03/2012 20:52

Bumble you keep trying to sidetrack this into a pro-choice v pro-life debate which isnt what the thread is about.

You have your right to your opinion and your right to voice that opinion, I am very thankful that I live in a country that allows freedom of speech.

What posters are objecting to is NOT the viewpoint of the protesters, but the way in which they are protesting. And you yourself said that harrassment and filming of women against their wishes is wrong, so why do you keep coming back and arguing the pro-life viewpoint?

We all understand what your thoughts are, we understand pro-life as you understand pro-choice, so stop trying to start a fight!

SugarPasteHedgehog · 29/03/2012 21:01

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

bumbleymummy · 29/03/2012 21:09

I'm not arguing anything, I was asking a question. How is that starting a fight or attempting to make this into a pro-life/pro-choice debate? Is there any reason why you've decided to police this particular thread and not all the others that move a bit away from the OP? Sugar doesn't have to answer my question but I don't think she needs you to tell her whether she should or not!

bumbleymummy · 29/03/2012 21:17

X-post sugar, thank you for replying. I definitely agree with you on the 'mother' definition wrt it bring for the care giver rather than just someone who gave birth.

I just find it difficult to get my head around people's idea that the baby is part of their body and for them to do what they like with it except when it reaches this magic 24 week mark. Nothing special changes at that particular time but it just all of a sudden becomes less acceptable to terminate the pregnancy at that point. It seems strange to me that you've specifically said that while the pregnancy is in the woman's body then she should have control over it which suggests that you support abortion to term yet in your next paragraph you think the limit should be lowered Confused

Bogeyface · 29/03/2012 21:22

I am not policing anything, but everyone of your comments is peppered with your beliefs about abortion and frankly no one gives a toss about that!

However, I am interested in your thoughts, as a pro-life christian, about this particular protest. Constantly asking people to defend their pro-choice beliefs is antagonistic and likely to cause an argument so I am wondering why you are doing it.

I am pro-choice but am also pro-freedom of speech and I have no problem with protests. My problem with this protest is that it a) intimidates already emotionally fragile women and b) doesnt actually offer a viable alternative to the choice these women have made. A true caring prayer vigil would not be taking place directly outside a clinic, and done in such a way as to intimidate and bully.

Protest all you like, but do it in an appropriate way. As someone else said, a bunch of catholics protesting against Islam outside a Mosque would be moved on pretty sharpish and charged with inciting racial hatred. How is this different? Asking anyone how they define life and at what point a child is deemed to be in possession of its own body is just as inflammatory when the thread is nothing to do with whether abortion is right or not.

Bogeyface · 29/03/2012 21:25

Many pro-choicers support a lowering in the limit, myself included. The limit was placed at that point because human life was not viable before that point. Now that has changed and I do believe that the limit should take that in account. It doesnt mean I dont fully support the right to abortion.

SugarPasteHedgehog · 29/03/2012 21:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

bumbleymummy · 29/03/2012 21:36

I'm actually laughing at how ironic it is to say that you are 'pro-freedom of speech' in a post where you are criticising someone for expressing their opinion and telling them what they should/should not discuss on a thread!

I have asked certain posters direct questions, you don't have to answer them or get involved if you don't want to.

WRT your last post, I realise that there is a spectrum of pro-choicers - those who believe that it should be a woman's choice to term and those who believe that it should be a woman's choice up to a particular point. IMO sugarpaste's position was a bit unclear because she specifically said that while the foetus/baby is inside the woman then it should be her choice but her next line seemed to contradict that.

Bogeyface · 29/03/2012 21:38

I give up. If you think thats ironic then there is no hope for you!

bumbleymummy · 29/03/2012 21:40

So sugar, you think a woman should only have a right over her body up to a point then? Is that the 24 week limit in the legislation at the moment or from the earliest that a foetus can survive? (I'm not going to use independently here because of course a premature baby is going to need intervention but equally a full term baby could require some assistance so I think it muddies things a bit.)

bumbleymummy · 29/03/2012 21:43

Ok, I think you're being hypocritical then. Is that better? Freedom of speech - but only if you talk about what I tell you!

ChaoticAngel · 29/03/2012 21:55

"Babies have survived from 21 + 5 weeks iirc"

Some born at 24 weeks have died, despite medical intervention. It's a grey area, there is no magic moment where it can be said that this is the point where life outside the womb will be guaranteed if a woman goes into labour.

I've signed and also put it on FB/Twitter.

notforlong · 29/03/2012 21:57

Tough question.

In my arms I have a five month old baby boy. His DM was persuaded not to terminate her pregnancy by protesters outside Marie Stopes clinic.

In a way I think if she really felt it was the right thing to do she would have stood her ground.

bumbleymummy · 29/03/2012 21:59

I haven't said it's guaranteed, but if even 1 baby survives then it means that it is possible - that life is viable at that point. Some babies born at term don't survive. There is no guarantee of anything.

bumbleymummy · 29/03/2012 22:00

notforlong - are you fostering/adopting him?

maddening · 29/03/2012 22:02

I know this is straying slightly but to the point of lowering the limit - doing this would also allow drs the freedom to try to save premature babies of 23 weeks or sooner ( I'm not sure of the very earliest that has been saved though) so there are cases for doing this beyond the abortion issue

notforlong · 29/03/2012 22:03

No he is my Grandson. My DD is keeping him. She did not want another, she has three in three years and is only 22 herself. She is coping ok with help.

bumbleymummy · 29/03/2012 22:08

maddening - the youngest was 21 weeks +5

Story here - she was not the only one to survive being born that early either.

notforlong - I'm glad things are working out for you all. It's great that you can be there to help her out. :)

ledkr · 30/03/2012 09:11

Wow this thread has taken a turn since i last looked.

notforlongThat is a nice story an now he is here im sure you all wouldnt have it any other way but some girls wouldnt be as lucky as her to have family support. I had 3 by 23 and its not easy and i was married with fab support but i work with families for whom another baby would be very detrimental to them. Also what about if a person was disuaded at the doors to continue with the pg when it was detrimental to her health?That wouldnt be such a great story.

Im sure it must be very unusual for theses protestors to change a womans mind at the door of the clinic.People dont go into termination lightly and will have done plenty of thinking first.

I had my first at 17 and was lucky enough to have plenty of support to keep him and never considered a termination.

However 2 years ago when i was 43 i found myself pg and did actually have to think about it for many reasons,my age,the fact i had had 3 sections already and difficult pregnancies and the fact that i had had cancer/ I also have an older child with renal failure whom i obiously care for.

As it happened i decided to go ahead and have a beautiful dd who is a joy but had i decided upson a termination woould that have been appropriate for me to be harrassed and made to feel more guilty as i went in to do something so difficult?

You really cant understand something,like this unless you have ever been in that situation yourself which i doubt that these protestors have.
I used to be an animal rights activist but then had chemo and ds needs a transplant both of which will have been tested on animals but when its you who needs theses things its easy to forget your convictions.

Instead of "praying" outside the clinics could they not pray in church or hold a vigil elsewhere? Or maybe their time would be better spend helping the many families who are struggling to bring up exisiting children.

TheresaMayHaveaBiscuit · 30/03/2012 19:34

I've just tweeted the link to the petition to Cath Elliot from the Guardian - she's at the counter-protest this evening. Thought it might be something she'd be interested in. Oh, and I'm real me on Twitter, so if you spot the tweet, please don't out me Thanks

PS: Been too busy to post, so apologies to anyone I owe a reply :-(

MyleeneCrass · 03/04/2012 00:12

I don't understand why these people harassing women attending clinics aren't prosecuted:
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 inserted Part 4A into the Public Order Act 1986. That part prohibits anyone from causing alarm or distress. Part 4A states:
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he? (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

aurynne · 03/04/2012 03:14

Very enlightening article this one:

"The only moral abortion is MY abortion"

mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

New posts on this thread. Refresh page