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?

I'm not trying to compare them. People are pointing out the potential negatives of alternatives to abortion. I am just showing that there are negatives to abortion too.

Abortion is not an option for me. If life threw me an(other) unplanned pregnancy then I would just have to deal with it as well.

I said adoption is not magically happy, meaning that just because someone is adopted doesn't mean they automatically have a happy life. Apologies if this was unclear.
I never said that abortion or being an abortion survivor wasnt sometimes a great trauma. I agree that they can well be traumatic. My point about adoption has nothing to do with that, I'm simply saying that continuing a pregnancy term and having the child adopted is not always the fantastic solution some people think.

Whether a termination happens 'on a whin' matters in the context of the belief some people hold that women who choose to terminate are unfeeling and do not care about the foetus.
I'm not sure what your point is regarding murders.
My comment that late terminations rarely happen was in the context of most terminations take place before twenty weeks. My comment that terminations past 24 weeks for non-medical reasons never happen is a completely seperate thing, I haven't changed my stance at all.

If life threw me an(other) unplanned pregnancy then I would just have to deal with it as well.

Good for you for having the physical/mental/financial resources to do that. Not everyone does.

Maid, interesting point but if you go down the route of 'psychological autonomy' (not really sure what we can call it! ) then surely abortion also has the potential to impinge on you psychologically. Without knowing how you may be affected either way shouldn't we err on the side of caution wrt another life?

"your genetic makeup is subject to privacy laws"

Actually this is a very current issue wrt genetic testing etc. There are question marks over whether or not your genetic info should be available for the sake of research etc but then there are issues over whether it not insurance companies/employers etc could start using your info to make decisions about whether or not to offer you insurance/a job etc.

"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'."

Yes, but whether you can cope with something does not entitle you to end its life. If your child/partner becomes disabled, you can't decide to end their life because you can't cope.

Choosing an abortion because your child would be disabled when you would not have chosen the abortion otherwise means that you are making a judgement on the value of the life of that disabled foetus.

Bumbley I have a couple of questions, and I'd be grateful if you could answer them in a straightforward manner:

Do you support abortion in the case of rape?
Do you support abortion in the case of anencephaly?

Or do you think women in both the above cases ought to be forced to carry to term?

Choosing an abortion because your child would be disabled when you would not have chosen the abortion otherwise means that you are making a judgement on the value of the life of that disabled foetus.

Not necessarily.

It's more likely that one would be making that judgment based on a number of things, which may or may not include 'value of life'. We are not all cut out to sacrifice our daily lives, careers, finances, other family members, in order to give a severely disabled child the care it needs and deserves. We may not have good health ourselves, we may be physically incapable of giving that degree of care, we may have incredibly demanding careers that involve extensive travel, we may already have other children with disabilities who need our time, love, patience and other resources.

Unfortunately, our society does not treat disabled people or their carers well. If I found myself pregnant with a severely disabled child, I would be taking a number of things into consideration when considering whether to terminate, not just gaily saying 'oh this child's life has no value to me because it's disabled.'

Anti-abortionists are, I have found, very good at insinuating that women have abortions for 'frivolous' reasons. That would be their misogyny coming to the fore.

Janine good luck with getting a straight answer...

Speaking for myself, if either of my DDs had been diagnosed as severely disabled in utero, I would have terminated. Not because their lives were worth less but because DH and I would not have been good enough parents to cope. Feel free to judge me for that.

A friend has a severely disabled sister who is an adult, her parents are very elderly and can no longer look after her. My friend is quite open that she thinks her parents have been unfair on her as the sibling. She spends a lot of time making sure she is okay, taking her out and liasing with the carers. She ahs chosen not to have children as she says she has enough responsibility caring for her sister. Her sister can never live independently and is very very vulnerable.

Having a severely disabled child affects everyone in the family. You find it hard looking after your children when they were toddlers or infants? Imagine giving that level of care for the rest of your life to a fully grown adult, with little or no outside support.

Women have a right to choose not to take this on.

Also 1 in 3 women in the UK have an abortion at some point in their life. That is a lot of women who do think they have a right to choose over this issue.

Also 1 in 3 women in the UK have an abortion at some point in their life. That is a lot of women who do think they have a right to choose over this issue

Take that fact. Add to that: the earliest abortions can be traced back 2500 years. Add to that: women are prepared to risk their lives and health to access abortion against any relevant law, to criminalise themselves to access abortion. Add to that: women are prepared to accept societal shaming to access abortion outside their cultural "norms" and they are prepared to lie to partners, to parents, to friends where necessary. Add to that: they are willing to invest resources and time in travelling to places where they can access abortion outside of their immediate location.

It is clear that many women want to be able to have abortions. You can tell them that the fetal right to life to life supercedes their right to choose as much as you want but here's the rub: a significant proportion of women don't agree with that statement, they don't believe that statement, and they will still, as they did 2500 years ago and as they do in various countries around the world today, continue to risk life, health and happiness to access abortion.

"I'm simply saying that continuing a pregnancy term and having the child adopted is not always the fantastic solution some people think. "

I'm simply saying that abortion is not necessarily without its problems either so you can't dismiss alternatives simply because they may have difficulties.

"I'm not sure what your point is regarding murders." I'm not sure which point you mean. If you mean them being carried out 'on a whim' I'm questioning whether you think that makes them any more or less acceptable. If it is in relation to the laws - it is whether or not you think the laws are necessary even though murder may not occur that often.

"My comment that terminations past 24 weeks for non-medical reasons never happen is a completely seperate thing, I haven't changed my stance at all." In the UK they are illegal. In the US, a doctor performing late term abortions for non-medical reasons(so they do exist) was convicted of murder.

two fingers,

"Good for you for having the physical/mental/financial resources to do that. Not everyone does."

I think you've misunderstood me. My stance on abortion is not dependent on my physical/mental/financial resources.

Janine, the rape question has been answered above (a few times now) but I shall repeat myself again.

The situation under which the foetus is conceived does not alter its right to life.

RE anencephaly. I have discussed this previously on another thread. I understand that it is a very sensitive issue. The foetus may not survive until birth or may only live a very short time afterwards. In any situation where the foetus' condition is incompatible with life, I can understand the reasons for considering a termination.However, I still don't think we have the right to actively terminate a life. If you start down that slippery slope - where do you stop? You would not think terminating a life due to a disability was justified if the child was born disabled. Why should it be ok to do it just because you find out a bit sooner? I know you don't agree and I'm fairly certain that you won't even attempt to understand but there it is anyway.

BTW I don't appreciate your tone (wrt 'straightforward manner') or pointy's snidey comments (again). Get over yourselves, seriously. I have been nothing but polite on this thread despite the endless questions coming at me from all sides. I may not be giving you the answers that you want in the way that you want them but I am answering them.

"We are not all cut out to sacrifice our daily lives, careers, finances, other family members, in order to give a severely disabled child the care it needs and deserves. We may not have good health ourselves, we may be physically incapable of giving that degree of care, we may have incredibly demanding careers that involve extensive travel, we may already have other children with disabilities who need our time, love, patience and other resources."

"twofingers, firstly, that comment was part of discussion with Maid.

If your child becomes disabled it would not be ok to terminate their life even if you couldn't make the sacrifices necessary to care for them. A life is a life.

"Anti-abortionists are, I have found, very good at insinuating that women have abortions for 'frivolous' reasons."

More sweeping generalisations. No one has done this.

Maid, contraception became available much more recently than 2500 years ago.

The reason I asked for a straightforward answer, bumbley, is that I find your obfuscations ('some people think') and your style of posting almost impossible to follow. It's not about tone at all, it was a genuine question.

So, you think that in neither the case of rape nor anencephaly should the woman be permitted an abortion. You didn't answer my third question - Should she be forced to carry to term?

bumbley you do invite snidey comments though, because you never, ever give someone a straight and simple answer. You always hedge, obfuscate and write endless paragraphs when there is a simple answer contained therein.

Janine asked: 'Do you condone abortion in case of rape?
Your response: The situation under which the foetus is conceived does not alter its right to life.
Why couldn't you just have said 'No' flat out?

Janine asked: 'Do you condone abortion in case of anencephaly?'
Your response: RE anencephaly. I have discussed this previously on another thread. I understand that it is a very sensitive issue. The foetus may not survive until birth or may only live a very short time afterwards. In any situation where the foetus' condition is incompatible with life, I can understand the reasons for considering a termination.However, I still don't think we have the right to actively terminate a life.
Again, why not just say 'No'?

What are you so worried about? If your beliefs are sincere - and I have no doubt that they are - why can't you just state them straight out in the way other people have done on this thread?

You are opposed to all abortion. Just say so, OK?

The reason I use 'some people think' is because it is not always my opinion that I am expressing.

I'm wondering why you are asking me the third question given that I have already answered your 'couple of questions' and said that I don't agree with termination of a life, even if it is disabled. Is it just because you want to use the word 'forced'? Or are you suggesting something between abortion and carrying to term such as inducing early?

pointy,are you seriously trying to tell people how to post now?

I'll answer questions in whatever way I choose. I am trying to offer an explanation rather than simply give yes/no answers which then invite further questions.

"it is not always my opinion that I am expressing" and/or it is not always just my opinion.

Can someone answer me definitively when does life start? A proper answer with science links, no opinion or some people.

I think Pointy is trying to illustrate that your posting style is prompting a lot of questions from other posters because it is quite waffly and hard to follow. You could, for example, use a yes/no answer and go on to qualify it with an explanation, rather than hide the yes/no amongst a lot of quotes and references to previous posts/threads.

Also a lot of 'I corrected you on that' type comments and 'I know you don't agree and I'm fairly certain that you won't even attempt to understand but there it is anyway' is rude and prompts a tone from other posters.

These are some of the reasons I posted earlier to say you were derailing and, if I'm very honest, also the reasons I've reported some of your posts to HQ. You read as being quite goady, for want of a better word (that won't get me deleted).

It's a shame because you could be a very passionate poster who wants to try and help people understand their point of view, but it isn't how you come over (to me at least) and I think your point invariably gets lost. Anyway. Just my opinion, I'm not telling you how to post, just offering a viewpoint on it.

Apols if I have put words in your mouth Pointy.

Surely that depends on when you define life?

A six week old fetus will have a heartbeat but will be a 'blob of cells' in a vague prawn like shape in terms of appearance. It has no recognizable human features and nourishes itself on womb mucus.

You're entitled to your opinion Katy. I shall continue to post in the way I see fit. As I pointed out earlier, I am replying to people's questions so I am not 'derailing' or at least not on my own. I could also find a lot more reason that something 'being quite goady' to report several posts. I think you are singling me out because you don't agree with my opinion.

pomme, "It has no recognizable human features" - its genetic code distinguishes it as human.

"nourishes itself on womb mucus" Where have you read this?

"Connection Once the cells of the trophoblast have dug deep enough into the lining, the chemicals begin to rupture blood vessels within the uterus. When this happens, the trophoblast develops into a tough membrane called the chorion. The chorion will provide support and nourishment to your baby throughout the remainder of the pregnancy, and it is the inner layer of the placenta. The chorion grows small fingerlike extensions that branch out and tap into the ruptured blood vessels within the uterus."

Not at all. Sorry if I've upset you, perhaps I shouldn't have tackled a hunch head on (that is what the report button is for after all). It just occured to me that you might be genuine and benefit from a perspective on how you come over.

I assure you it has nothing to do with agreement or disagreement. That would be very childish.

I guess it's also when does the person begin as much as life, the thing that makes you who are you are. One thing that I always ponder on is the amount of babies lost during pregnancy, what happens to them all? If they are the person from whatever stage... In a way (despite being someone who believes in life from conception) it makes more sense that life begins much later. Maybe not quite from birth, I've had babies at different gestations covering the definitions of "extreme premature", "very premature" and "premature", I've also known my babies' personalities in the womb so I don't think you can say birth as it could be any time.

I'm not upset. I have a much thicker skin than that. I'd need to! :)

"the thing that makes you who are you are" your genetics play quite a big role in that and they are present from conception.

Epi genetics are vitally important too and at 6 weeks the exposure to that is pretty minimal.

Kate no, you've summed me up perfectly. I think in a discussion on a board like this, people should give their own opinions and then go onto 'but some people think/believe'. Not to do so feels to me as if the poster doesn't want to state their position openly because they know it isn't popular. That is just my personal perception, however.

I tend to be up front about what I believe and I find it irritating when other people are not.

So in the same spirit here's another question:

bumbleymummy do you consider the MAP a form of abortion? Just curious to see where you draw the line.