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?

[bumbleymummy]

Ps. I haven't suggested sterilisation to anyone.

[almondcake]

I don't think protesting outside a woman's health clinic is similar to protesting at a funeral.

Protesting outside a health centre - whether it be a clinic for women's health or for men who have sex with men, with the intention of targeting a specific protected group, be it pregnant women or gay men, would seem to be equivalent to each other.

[twofingerstoGideon]

bumbley where you draw the line with women having autonomy over their pregnant bodies then? Are they allowed to take an aspirin, have a glass of wine, drink coffee, go paragliding, have life-saving treatments like chemotherapy, take antibiotics, go skiing? At what point should they lose their autonomy? Who decides this? You? Or is it a time thing? They lose autonomy at a particular stage of their pregnancy?
The problem I always have with anti-abortionists is their utter lack of logical thinking and their inability to realise that limiting access to abortion does not make it go away.

From Wikipedia:
Although data are imprecise, it is estimated that approximately 20 million unsafe abortions are performed annually, with 97% taking place in developing countries.[1] Unsafe abortions are believed to result in millions of injuries.[1][68] Estimates of deaths vary according to methodology, and have ranged from 37,000 to 70,000 in the past decade;[1][3][69] deaths from unsafe abortion account for around 13% of all maternal deaths.[70] The World Health Organization believes that mortality has fallen since the 1990s.[71] To reduce the number of unsafe abortions, public health organizations have generally advocated emphasizing the legalization of abortion, training of medical personnel, and ensuring access to reproductive-health services.[72]
link here

Are you really indifferent to those figures, bumbley? Sadly, judging by your argument on this and every other abortion-related thread I've ever read on MN, it appears that you are.

[DingbatsFur]

I found this
www.theguardian.com/film/2005/jan/06/health.healthandwellbeing
This morning which describes abortion in the UK before there was the option of choice. It is not a world we need to go back to even though in NI we still are. Friends of mine were recently pregnant with a child with a heart defect. They had to go to the hospital every week after the scan picked it up to see if the baby was dead yet. They had 2 months of these scans before the baby died and she was induced.That is not right in a modern society.

[FastWindow]

Wading in late with a question about UK gps.

Are you allowed to ask the gp that you are seeing for a referral to an abortion clinic, their views on abortion? Iirc, you need two gps to refer you.

Would the gp then be honour bound to give you their true view, and then also be able to refuse you a referral based on their personal view?

[bumbleymummy]

"They lose autonomy at a particular stage of their pregnancy?"

They already do. At 24 weeks.

People don't have a problem with a woman having control over her own body until it has an impact on the body/life of someone else. I would have thought that was fairly obvious by now.

Re the illegal abortions - do you know how many of those happen in countries where contraception is also illegal and they have limited/ no access to sex education? Change that and see what difference it makes to those figures. I don't see people making as much noise about a woman's right to those things on this thread - even different completely overlooked it to focus on the fact that the woman's abusive husband disagreed with abortion.

[MaidOfStars]

Yes, you can ask for a referral. Yes, UK GPs are legally required to refer you, even if it's against their personal ethics. I don't think a GP's personal view on abortion is entirely relevant but if they object, they can refuse to be the first doctor to sign off but they must refer you to another doctor (or service) that will do so. I suspect most GPs wouldn't actually tell you that they are not signing it off though - in the whole process, you have very little, if any, idea of which specific medics did the signing.

[MaidOfStars]

I will qualify that ^ is what I understand the legal position to be, but happy to be corrected!

[normalishdude]

everyone's entitled to voice their opinion within the law.

[differentnameforthis]

He doesn't believe in contraception, he doesn't believe in terminations BECAUSE OF HIS RELIGIOUS UPBRINGING.

And you have labelled him abusive. Where in fact, you probably couldn't be more wrong. She speaks very kindly of him. Just makes it clear that due to religion, she is not permitted to do either of those things.

I have a friend who doesn't believe in either of them, neither does her husband. Are they abusive too??

No, it is just their beliefs.

[hunreeeal]

FastWindow that's a good question.

There's a link about it here but I'm not sure what it means in practice.

www.gmc-uk.org/Personal_beliefs_and_medical_practice.pdf_51462245.pdf

If a doctor is anti-termination, I think this should be made clear to all patients at the surgery, so no woman has to waste their time on an appointment with those doctors if they need such a referral.

[hunreeeal]

bumbleymummy Sun 09-Mar-14 19:42:34
"Have you considered sterilisation?"

bumbleymummy Tue 11-Mar-14 09:21:52
"Ps. I haven't suggested sterilisation to anyone."

One of the definitions of "to suggest" is "to offer for consideration". So yes, you have suggested it.

[bragmatic]

Yes, I do see a lot of similarity between the two groups, who harass and abuse people ( sinner, you'll burn in hell, god hates you etc) when they are doing something perfectly legal, and possibly personally traumatic. I'm surprised you don't.

You are aware that the Westbro nutters protest outside abortion clinics as well?

[BackOnlyBriefly]

Comparing them the Westboro baptist church now?

There's a difference? What would that be?

[twofingerstoGideon]

bumbley I asked where you would draw the line on women having autonomy over their pregnant bodies. I'm perfectly well aware that (legally) women lose this autonomy at 24 weeks, but you give the impression that they shouldn't enjoy autonomy at any point in their pregnancy, given how ardently you argue against all abortion.

Your point about contraception is only relevant up to a point. Access to contraception is IMO a very desirable thing. I wonder why these pathetic demonstrators don't expend some energy campaigning for universal access to contraception. Personally, I think these placard-bearers get a buzz out of what they do and are too thick and bigoted to see the broader picture.

[HadABadDay2014]

People don't have a problem with a woman having control over her own body until it has an impact on the body/life of someone else.

So for 9 months a women is not allowed to drink, smoke, take OTC medicine, eat a big juicey rare steak, eat blue cheese and the list goes on.

If at 40 weeks the mother's and babies life is at risk in a hospital setting the mother's life will be saved before the baby.

[AmyMumsnet]

Hi there,

Thanks for your reports. Can we please remind you to respect other people's views and choices even if you don't agree with them?

Thanks.

[MagicalHamSandwich]

Late to the show but: OP, YASNBU!

There was a woman's health clinic next to my campus when I went to uni. Those types were standing there on a regular basis and engaging in what I came to refer to as 'aggressive praying' at women. And I did confront them several times, though I eventually gave up on that after some bloke decided to argue with me about being obsessed by the devil and getting impregnated that way. No use arguing with the blatantly insane. I used to feel awful for the poor women having to walk past those people, though, on what was arguably not the happiest day of their lives to begin with.

IMO, there's absolutely no question about a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices. Even after death we retain the right not to have our bodies/organs used to save someone else's life - surely this is a courtesy we extend to the living even if they happen to be female?

[MaidOfStars]

People don't have a problem with a woman having control over her own body until it has an impact on the body/life of someone else. I would have thought that was fairly obvious by now

It's not clear to me that this is always correct or always desirable.

People often have the right to control their own body, even when it has an impact on the body/life of someone else.

After all, I am not required to donate blood or live organs to a person whose life depends on it. Nor, as far as I'm aware, is a mother required to do the same for her born children.

And that's a thought: If a mother is not legally compelled to sacrifice bodily autonomy in order to donate a kidney to her child, where the child will die without it, why is she legally compelled to donate her uterus to her child, when the child will die without it?

[MagicalHamSandwich]

And that's a thought: If a mother is not legally compelled to sacrifice bodily autonomy in order to donate a kidney to her child, where the child will die without it, why is she legally compelled to donate her uterus to her child, when the child will die without it?

My point exactly - and that's completely apart from the 'when does a zygote become a child' question.

[FastWindow]

Very interesting maid

That said, I've two children and two kidneys. They can both have one, all day long.

Of course, there's not a surgeon that would take the second one out!

[bumbleymummy]

different, so you're making your point against religion then? Do you know what the wife's views are? Presumably she knew what his views were before she married him? Why are you focussing on the fact that he disagrees with abortion rather than the fact that he doesn't allow her to use contraception?

bragmatic, that's fine. You can think whatever way you like.

two, you're still assuming that I think a woman should have no autonomy over her body when she is pregnant. I have already corrected you on that.

BackOnlyBriefly - I gave one difference upthread. There are more if you wanted to see them but you can think they are the same if you like.

HadABadDay, well people do get advised against those things don't they? They are advised against it because it can put the life/health of the foetus at risk.

MaidofStars, in those cases, it is your body that you are making the decision for.

[bumbleymummy]

two fingers "I wonder why these pathetic demonstrators don't expend some energy campaigning for universal access to contraception"

Why don't you? Or different ...or anyone on this thread who strongly supports the right of women to have access to abortion but overlooks the fact that many women don't have access to contraception?

[MagicalHamSandwich]

bumbley it's the woman's body in the case of either organ donation or pregnancy.

How is it rationally tenable that we allow even the dead to deny the living use of their bodies even when the latter's lives depend on it but the same right does not apply to women who are alive and kicking?

You're not obligated to donate a kidney to another person even if their need for a transplant is the direct result of your actions (e.g. they got injured in an accident caused by your careless driving). Not even when when you're already dead.

Someone else's survival depending on you doing a certain thing with your body is simply not considered sufficient reason to negate your bodily autonomy in every other context.

So why are pregnant women different? Think of it as 'denial to inhabit your uterus'.

[twofingerstoGideon]

Sorry, bumbley I'm obviously not awake. I really can't see where you have outlined what autonomy you think a woman should have over her body... Would you mind clarifying?

(Preferably without all the PA 'I have already corrected you...' stuff, if that's okay.)