To really want to say something to these abortion protestors?

[Crocodileclip]

Firstly, I know I will probably never say anything as I appreciate that the protestors have the right to protest but it really pisses me off.

A small group of people have been protesting outside the Marie Stoppes clinic in Belfast since it opened in 2012. They stand outside the door on the days it is open holding anti abortion posters and trying to gather signatures for a petition. I pass them on my way to get to the station at home time and every time it annoys me. I can't imagine how offputting they would be if you were young and scared and just wanting some advice. Lots of pics of aborted foetuses etc. I find it intimidating enough myself and I am just walking past. I actually put my head down and walk quicker so that nobody asks me to sign the petition.

I'm currently pregnant with my second and am lucky never to have been in a position where abortion was an option but am of the opinion that there are situations in which it may be the best option available.

The clinic itself operates within NI law so only offers abortions up to 9 weeks and as far as I know is the only such clinic in Northern Ireland. I think I would be ok with the protestors doing their stuff elsewhere in the city centre it is the fact that it is just outside the only entrance to the clinc that makes me irrationally angry. Does this happen at other Marie Stoppes clinics elsewhere in the UK?

bumbley do you not feel that abortion protesters are shooting themselves in the foot by passing off late term foetuses as 'this is what abortion looks like' in general? Why do they feel that misinformation of this kind is acceptable?

I'd also like to know what they are hoping to achieve by protesting outside clinics - they must know that they will cause distress to woman already in a very difficult situation.

If they are so opposed to abortion, they should lobby politicians to get the law changed, not harass people. Although they would probably say 'if we get one woman to change her mind and have the baby that's worth it'...

If they are so opposed to abortion, they should lobby politicians to get the law changed, not harass people

The clear problem with this strategy, as I'm sure the protesters are aware, is that in western countries, the law on abortion moves only in one direction.

Maid, after a certain point, the woman has to give birth anyway. The foetus is terminated prior to delivery but if they did not terminate the foetus it could be born alive. There is nothing additional that is impinging on the woman's autonomy. In fact, it would be less invasive because the steps required to terminate the foetus would not be required. In that situation, if the primary aim was simply for the woman to no longer be pregnant, the foetus would not be killed. That is not the case with abortion.

Maid, you are objecting to "Although given that you have recognised that abortion aims to terminate the foetus rather than maintain its right to life" I have not said that you think it is its 'primary aim' but you are recognising that abortion terminates the foetus rather than allowing it to be born - that was the point I was making. If you merely believed it was a secondary outcome then you would support the above situation. Do you?

"your government"

You're presuming I live in Ireland.

The 'depends on when you think life begins' response was given to you earlier. Many pro-lifers think it begins at implantation so an ectopic pregnancy would not be considered abortion. It could also kill the mother and she has a right not to be killed by her pregnancy (even if one's belief is that life begins at conception). IIRC you thought implantation was just some arbitrary point to pick and I asked if you thought it was any less arbitrary than choosing 24 weeks as the time limit for abortion in the UK (medical reasons aside). I don't think you replied.

"Why do they feel that misinformation of this kind is acceptable?"

I haven't said that it is.

pointy, I guess that they want women to change their mind and some do. They think those few lives are worth saving.

"If they are so opposed to abortion, they should lobby politicians to get the law changed, not harass people."

The ones I know do that as well.

"the law on abortion moves only in one direction"

I actually wouldn't be surprised if the limit for abortion is reduced. It is what the majority of people.

want*

Alsi, iirc, Poland has moved in the direction away from 'pro-choice' and the majority of young people support the idea of a complete ban so not always the case that "in western countries, the law on abortion moves only in one direction."

bumbley you do know that Poland is a very, very Catholic country and that since the Iron Curtain came down, the Catholic Church has really exerted its influence? Give it another couple of generations and I think things will be different again, Poland is still in anti-Communist backlash more.

It's worth looking at Spain, where you have a conservative government imposing severe restrictions on abortion which are not supported by public opinion.

mode, even.

you are recognising that abortion terminates the foetus rather than allowing it to be born - that was the point I was making

I, I, don't understand this. At 9 weeks, what does "allow it to be born" mean?

If you merely believed it was a secondary outcome then you would support the above situation. Do you?

I have already been clear that I am unsure of my feelings surrounding (or my logical progression through) the issue of "allowing a fetus to be born" when viability is possible. This is not least because I am not a mother, and have no personal experience of how impactive a birth may be or what it would feel like to be a genetic mother - I do not know if I would consider this an impingement of my bodily autonomy. I have acknowledged that in it's most basic form, the "bodily autonomy" argument as I perceive it perhaps begins to fail at this point, unless it is adapted.

On this issue, it would therefore be more interesting to hear from those who have clear positions on abortion to term on their hierarchy of rights and under which circumstances they apply.

I will clarify that my points made above apply to "elective" abortion only. I support abortion beyond 24 weeks for the usual exceptions.

they will not actively kill the foetus but they will treat the mother.

That's not always enough, sometimes the body needs to not be pregnant for treatment because pregnancy changes the way you respond to things. Do you think frying a baby with chemo is better than inducing it first?

laws around abortion in Ireland for confuddled

Only Confuddled wasn't making any point about law.

...tuition at schools about what to expect from unprotected intercourse

My stepson was conceived with a condom, my triplets were conceived on the pill and my youngest baby was conceived without even having sex.

Are you Janine? if you only want the person you're talking to to reply don't post on a public forum, send a PM.

I'm wondering about the late term stats, do they include where labour was induced because of fetal demise? In which case they're probably heavily skewed. It's not the same as stillbirth either.

Not wanting to get even more controversial, but regarding the stats for people supporting death penalty who are opposed to abortion, there are similar interesting stats for people supporting RIC.

I find it interesting that I am a Christian with strong views, I believe in life from conception, but am also pro-choice in all things personal. I would hate to live in a country ruled by the church! I don't agree with it because my beliefs don't always match that of other Christians (yet to meet two Christians who believe in everything the same!) and we can probably both use the Bible to support our beliefs (as I said before, some Christians believe in life from 5 weeks with Biblical support, I believe in life from conception, I could go on with examples) and because as much as I wouldn't want to be dictated to about my personal morals I wouldn't wish that on anyone else either.

pointy apparently 76% of Poles aged 15-24 favoured a total ban on abortion. So it might take longer than you think. In any case, I was only using it as an example of a Western country where the law moved in the other direction unlike what Maid said.

Maid, we were talking about 'after a certain point'. Please read the comments in context. I don't see how being a genetic mother impinges on your bodily autonomy. I think you have to at least recognise that at a certain point, your body does not come into it anymore.

"I support abortion beyond 24 weeks for the usual exceptions."

Out of curiosity (because it came up on another thread recently) do you think the current law is disabilist?

confuddled,

Some types of chemotherapy can be used during pregnancy (moreso the second and third trimester)

"Only Confuddled wasn't making any point about law."

You stated that 'woman can not be treated during pregnancy' in Ireland. I was correcting you because that is not the case.

Why would they include stillbirth rates or induction due to foetal demise with abortion figures? Neither of them are abortion.

"I think you have to at least recognise that at a certain point (even if it is when the baby has been born!), your body does not come into it anymore."

bumbley that demographic doesn't surprise me at all, since it's the generation born immediately after the fall of the Iron Curtain so the one that has been most heavily influenced by a resurgent Catholic Church. It's a common pattern - repressive regime crumbles, faith steps in. It's happened in Russia too, only Putin and his ilk have very cleverly formed an alliance with the Russian Orthodox Church.

IIRC Russia was one of the first countries to legalise abortion for any reason and it has the highest abortion rate in the world.

I didn't make any point about Irish law at all. As usual you're just twisting things people say.

I didn't say a stillbirth is an abortion. Another twist.

I think you're wrong about an induction not being counted as abortion, but what would I know, eh? Only been hanging around the baby loss forums for the last 8.5 years.

That wasn't the point I was making, bumbley. Just pointing out the political power of religious organisations - hence the imprisonment of Pussy Riot.

But people do turn to faith in times of uncertainty, and churches do use this phenomenon to increase their power. Going back to Spain - the Catholic Church has most definitely used the turmoil of the financial crisis to increase its hold on politicians, hence its return to repressive abortion laws.

Once the financial situation in Europe settles down and a different regime comes in, you'll see a change back towards the way abortion laws used to be in Spain.

Even in the US the trend is towards secularism - look at the way gay marriage is taking off over there.

I'd like to live in a world where contraception is 100% and where women can enjoy sex for pleasure. We don't live in this world, so the best we can do is keep abortion safe, legal and rare.

Intimidating women outside abortion clinics isn't part of that.

"I didn't make any point about Irish law at all. As usual you're just twisting things people say."

Confuddled, I did not say that you made a point about Irish law. In your post on Saturday at 15.58, you said, "Or Ireland where women die because they can't be treated during pregnancy"

I was clarifying for you that they can, in fact, be treated during pregnancy under Irish law.

"I didn't say a stillbirth is an abortion"

I didn't say that you did.

pointy, I only mentioned it because Maid said things only moved in one direction in western countries. Clearly this is not the case in Poland and Spain and I wouldn't be surprised if the abortion limit is decreased in the UK.

Maid, we were talking about 'after a certain point'. Please read the comments in context. I don't see how being a genetic mother impinges on your bodily autonomy. I think you have to at least recognise that at a certain point, your body does not come into it anymore

Oh my golly, have you READ what I've written on this? If I couldn't be any clearer, here it is AGAIN: I think that after viability, the bodily autonomy argument I've framed it starts to fail. Whether it can be extended to include things like genetic autonomy (or whatever it might be called) is not something I've given great thought and definitely something that could be discussed.

Do I think being a genetic mother impinges on bodily autonomy? Probably not, as I understand it in it's 'purest' sense. But I recognise as legitimate the role of preservation of mental health as an expression of bodily autonomy, so it seems I may be contradicting myself, because I can understand that being a genetic mother may truly be a psychological problem. Hence my desire to hear from others who have thought this through properly, rather than from someone who demands I recognise something as true because they say so.

BTW, your tone is noted but unappreciated.

Out of curiosity (because it came up on another thread recently) do you think the current law is disabilist?

No, but am happy to hear your reasons for suggesting this. I don't believe it falls under my working definition of 'disabilist'. I think the law in the UK is pragmatic and empathic.

Maid, You've taken two comments together there when I meant them to be read separately. Sorry, I should have made that clearer.

"Maid, we were talking about 'after a certain point'. Please read the comments in context. "

was in response to:

"I, don't understand this. At 9 weeks, what does "allow it to be born" mean? "

"I don't see how being a genetic mother impinges on your bodily autonomy. I think you have to at least recognise that at a certain point, your body does not come into it anymore."

was in response to:

" what it would feel like to be a genetic mother - I do not know if I would consider this an impingement of my bodily autonomy."

I was questioning how a child could continue to impinge on your autonomy after it has been born and is no longer a part of you. Obviously you have said that you have not given this a great deal of thought/are undecided about it so it wasn't necessarily a direct question, more of a general wondering really.

I'm not sure what 'tone' you are talking about. None was intended.

Re it being disabilist, I think saying that it is ok to abort if your child is going to be disabled puts less value on the life of disabled people. I'm not the only one who thinks this and it was actually pro-choice people who were talking about it on the other thread.

Some people find having their baby adopted highly, highly traumatic.
For some people being adopted is a shitty thing that ruins their self-esteem.

Neither of these are simply 'my opinion' but are facts. You saying they are simply 'my opinion' doesn't make them any less factual. Nor does your (correct) point that some people have non-traumatic adoptions/happy adoptive lives. The two scenarios exist, I never said otherwise.

And bumbley you REALLY think the only reason women almost never terminate a pregnancy late is because of the law? Despite the FACT that 90% of terminations take place before 13 weeks and 98% take place before 20 weeks. Does that not suggest to you that most women who terminate do it as early as possible?

And your answer no doubt will be 'that is your opinion' which seems to be your standard response when you have no valid one.

NobodyLiveshere,

A crucial word that you missed from your previous post some. You simply stated "And adoption is also far from a magically happy life for a child either."

For some people having an abortion is highly highly traumatic. What sort of impact do you think finding out that you were a survivor of an attempted abortion has? Of course then there are the majority who don't survive - what sort of life did they have? None. Not all 'wanted' children have the happiest lives either. Should they all have been aborted?

Also, you answered my previous question re mothers murdering their children,

"We don't just assume that no woman will ever do that so we don't need the laws. Or do you have enough faith that "women have the sense and decency to make good decisions" to get rid of those laws?"

by saying that late term abortions 'on a whim' do not happen. For a start, why does it matter whether it is 'on a whim' or not? The murders could have been committed on a whim. Does that make any of them justified? WRT abortion, assuming that you mean for 'non-medical reasons' rather than 'on a whim' yes, there are. So that's why we have the current law. Your faith in woman kind, though naive, is touching.

I see you have now changed your position to 'they rarely happen'. So does murder but we still have laws.

bumbley - my mum doesn't like the fact she knows she was an unplanned mistake. Kids get fucked up for lots of reasons - the world is a bit of a shitty place. I think arguing adoption vs attempted abortion survivor in terms of misery comparison is a futile discussion.

I do hope that you never have an unplanned pregnancy that could jeopardise your health and children. It's a shitty enough place to be when you do believe in choice! As per most things it can happen to anyone unless you practice total abstinence.

I was questioning how a child could continue to impinge on your autonomy after it has been born and is no longer a part of you

Physically, I agree. Psychologically, not so obvious. The idea of being a physical mother has little attraction for me, the idea of being a genetic mother is no better, if not worse. Based on my gut feeling, I could argue that being forced into genetic motherhood is a pretty horrific concept but I wouldn't use that as a basis to create a formal argument. On the opposite side, I can see how someone's right to life might be more important than my right to be psychologically comfortable, so that's a confounding factor. But how can we make value calls on psychological comfort?

Are there any other situations where your genetic 'legacy' can be considered to fall under rights surrounding bodily autonomy? Certainly, in medical ethics, your genetic makeup is subject to privacy laws and your right to bodily autonomy. Whether that could extend to your genetics outside of your own body, who knows? It's only information, after all. But then we have the right not to pass on 'bad' genetic information to offspring, so why not 'all' genetic information?

Which leads neatly to your second point...

I think saying that it is ok to abort if your child is going to be disabled puts less value on the life of disabled people

My own personal position, which is reflected in UK law, is that the health and happiness of the existing family has the right to be preserved. I don't think anyone is saying 'It's OK to abort a disabled child because they're less valuable', I think we recognise the very real impact a disabled child may have and understand that not all families can cope with that. I've never really understood the conflation between 'I cannot cope with a child with XYZ' and 'Children born with XYZ have less value as people'.