Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

To think holding a vigil outside Marie Stopes is wrong? and to wish there was something I could do (may be upsetting)

999 replies

Menolly · 03/04/2014 00:08

The local Catholic church is planning another vigil next week outside Marie Stopes, I am Catholic although attend a different parish (because I disagree with this ones overly judgmental congregation and uncaring priest). I think it is a horrible thing to be doing, I can see the clinic from my flat and at the last one they blocked the pavement meaning that people had to ask them to move to get through, whether they were going to the clinic or up the road (which leads to the high street, train stations, bus stops etc.).

They do move out the way when asked and they are peaceful whilst there, just singing and praying the rosary, however if I was a teenage girl going in for advice or was in some terrible situation where I needed their services I'm not sure I'd be brave enough to push my way through. Ignoring the fact that the clinic also does STD testing, contraceptive advice, smear tests etc, an abortion isn't an easy thing to go through whatever the circumstances and I think adding to that stress is a terrible thing to do, then considering that these people don't know that the woman they are upsetting aren't going there because they've been raped or because of some other horrible circumstance it makes me really angry.

My eldest child was conceived through rape when I was just 15, I kept him and he's beautiful and I have never regretted that decision but I had a lot of family support that other women might not have and there was a time when I did look at my options and having a bunch of judgmental people singing outside whilst I was trying to get advice would have made things much harder for me at a time when I seriously considered suicide, I hated myself for letting that happen to me and felt guilty for all the stress it put on my parents, I felt I was being judged constantly and lost my own faith for a long time because I couldn't stand the thought that God would let that happen or the guilt and judging associated with church and I hate the idea that people would do something so insensitive and could push someone to making the wrong decision or feeling even worse.

I find the vigils upsetting and I could hear them singing from my living room last time, what I went through was nearly 10 years ago now, I can't imagine how much worse it would be for someone who had been through something more recently or had less support.

I just wish there was something I could do to make these people, who I am sure think they are doing a good thing, see how harmful their vigil could be, but so far I can't think of any way of doing that...

So AIBU to think they shouldn't being doing this? Also if anyone can think of a peaceful way of showing my disgust I'd be grateful.

OP posts:
Dawndonnaagain · 08/04/2014 12:15

When you say the baby has rights when it is expelled from your womb - when do you think those rights kick in? When the head is delivered? When the whole body has been delivered? When the umbilical cord is cut? When does it become 'separate' from the woman?
This is an aggressive line of questioning.

Ilovexmastime · 08/04/2014 12:16

"The blastocyst can go on to develop into a foetus by itself in the right environment. "

Can it? What environment is that then? Because this says otherwise:

Taken from the government's Select Committee on Stem Cell Research Report.

(www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200102/ldselect/ldstem/83/8305.htm)

(d) About a week after fertilisation implantation of the blastocyst in the womb takes place. If implantation does not take place, the blastocyst does not develop further: it does not go through the stages of embryonic development, and cannot become a foetus; specific biochemical signals from the mother are required for further development. A substantial proportion of early embryos—many estimates put it as high as 75 per cent—are naturally lost before implantation. At this stage the cells are still relatively undifferentiated and there is no trace of human structure such as a nervous system, and hence there can be no sentience.

ginmakesitallok · 08/04/2014 12:21

Bum, your beliefs are just that, your beliefs. Just because you believe them to be true does not give you the right to impose them on anyone else.

bumbleymummy · 08/04/2014 12:28

Surburban. maybe you missed why I posted about it at all.

Plum "If your reasoning were Catholic (you say it is not), then it would be against contraception and PRO creating as much life as possible and so I expect you to have 10 children (I bet you don't have). "

I was just pointing out that there are family planning methods available to Catholics too. I'm sure it's quite offensive to suggest that Catholics should have to 'create as much life as possible' Hmm

bumbleymummy · 08/04/2014 12:32

Dawn, you're really stretching there.

Ilove, - we're talking about implantation - the 'right envirnoment' would be the uterus in that case and all that it provides. You can put as many sperm as you like in that environment (or any other) and they will not develop into a foetus.

thebody · 08/04/2014 12:36

When the body is delivered. Can't make it any plainer than that.

bumbleymummy · 08/04/2014 12:48

Ok. So once it is outside the body - even if the umbilical cord hasn't been cut?

Ilovexmastime · 08/04/2014 12:50

"Ilove, - we're talking about implantation - the 'right envirnoment' would be the uterus in that case and all that it provides."

But you said:

"The blastocyst can go on to develop into a foetus by itself in the right environment. "

The uterus is part of the mother, therefore the blastocyst would not be developing into a foetus by itself, it needs the help of the mother.

bumbleymummy · 08/04/2014 12:52

'by itself' meaning without having to join with another gamete ie the egg in this case. The 'right environment' is the woman's uterus.

YoniMatopoeia · 08/04/2014 12:53

Bum the uterus is the only environment where it can develop.

personally see no reason thaa a woman should be obliged to provide that, nor continue to provide that.

I am pro choice.

Ilovexmastime · 08/04/2014 12:55

Oh ok, sorry Bumbley, I must have got hold of the wrong end of the stick there.

bumbleymummy · 08/04/2014 12:55

Sorry, not clear. 'By itself' because the blastocyst is already 'complete' in that it has all the genetic information to develop into a foetus. Sperm/eggs do not. The 'right environment' is the woman's uterus.

bumbleymummy · 08/04/2014 12:56

That's ok Ilove.

bumbleymummy · 08/04/2014 12:57

"Bum the uterus is the only environment where it can develop."

Yes.

Are you pro-choice right up until birth?

YoniMatopoeia · 08/04/2014 13:08

I am.

I didn't used to be but various discussions on mn have changed my mind.

Dawndonnaagain · 08/04/2014 13:11

Are you pro-choice right up until birth?
Again, an aggressive line of argument and actually, completely pointless. Being pro choice up until the point of birth means being pro choice. That's all. It doesn't mean anything else, just being pro choice, a choice you wish to remove.

bumbleymummy · 08/04/2014 13:12

Ok Yoni. Thanks for answering. At what point do you think that a foetus gains its rights? I"m just trying to figure out where the 'dividing line' is for pro-choicers who believe in abortion to term.

bumbleymummy · 08/04/2014 13:16

Yes, Dawn, I agree that 'pro-choice' means up until birth. As pointed out earlier, not all people who identify as 'pro-choice' do though. What do you think they should be called?

No more aggressive than asking a pro-lifer if they are against abortion in the case of rape/incest or if they think the MAP/removal of an ectopic pregnancy is abortion (as I have been asked before). Are those questions acceptable in your view because they're directed at me and I wasn't the one who asked them?

bumbleymummy · 08/04/2014 13:17

Yoni - just to be fair becasue I don't know if you've read my posts. The 'dividing line' for me is implantation - when the pregnancy begins. For some people who consider themselves pro-choice it is the 24 week limit that is currently held in law. I'm just wondering what is used as the 'cut off point' if you believe in abortion to term.

Dawndonnaagain · 08/04/2014 13:25

thing is Bumbley what you're trying to do is state that we're all baby killers and we're not, so what you're trying to ask Yoni, is are you willing to kill a baby. That's why you're line is aggressive. You're not trying to establish where the line is, you've done this on many other threads.

thebody · 08/04/2014 13:25

bum can I point out that confuddled did not criticise you for saying MAP is not abortion. She is pro choice so was pointing out the inconsistencies of choosing an arbitrary date and saying it's better than anyone else's.

She can't post as this discussion is bringing up very painful feelings.

ChewbaccasSister · 08/04/2014 13:30

I think I must be very, very thick. I completely understand why theBaby should be able to have her pregnancy terminated now, and that her having to wait a further 12 weeks for her baby to be born, only for he/she to die is tortuous.

But I absolutely cannot get my head around people who think a woman should be able to terminate up to term for non-medical/disability reasons. To terminate a say 38 week old foetus is surely killing a baby? One that happens to be happily ensconced in the womb rather than having been born yet?

I don't understand why people are so angrily defending women's "right" to do this when it's just, to be blunt, barbaric. And the legal system at the present time agrees with that stance too, hence the 24 week cut off point unless there are medical/disabilities/incompatible with life issues.

I agree with Bumble that it does make me wonder at which point when popping out of the womb, you think the foetus is a baby? And I don't think it's aggressive to ask that.

It does seem aggressive to believe in the ability to abort a foetus up to term for any reason whatsoever, and that to me seems far more aggressive than asking questions. The clue is that one is against the law and asking questions isn't.

And whilst Bumble might have expressed herself in ways that other people haven't liked, she is not the poster with the most deletions on this thread. That accolade goes to the person accusing Bumble of being aggressive. Weird.

NurseyWursey · 08/04/2014 13:30

It's absolutely disgusting that women are being forced to carry and birth against their wishes. Absolutely vile.

thebody · 08/04/2014 13:31

Again can I point out yes in my view a woman's body should be in her full control until the baby is out of it whether or not the cord is cut.

I really can't see why you find this so difficult.

The divining time for you is implantation whoop whoop for you and that's great for you and your body, your choice.

Don't seek to change that.

However you seek to interfere and control other women's choices who you don't agree with.

That's the difference here.

Dawndonnaagain · 08/04/2014 13:36

But I absolutely cannot get my head around people who think a woman should be able to terminate up to term for non-medical/disability reasons. To terminate a say 38 week old foetus is surely killing a baby?

And that is exactly the reaction that Bumbley is after.
It's not a reality, but a philosophical question and the answer it all women have the right to control what happens to them and to their bodies. Bumbley would seek to change that and not allow that to happen. Just look at her stance on Baby being forced to go to term. She feels sorry for her, but she'll have to cope, and yet you think it's torturous for her to have to go through that.