To ask those of you who are pro life?

[Anonynony]

How do you feel about friends who have had abortions? Can you maintain friendships with people who have had an abortion and no regrets?

One of my friends has stunned me, talking about another friend of ours who had considered an abortion and my friend said I'm so glad she didn't because I wouldn't have been able to stay friends with her
I'm really surprised, I'm extremely pro choice and vocal about it but this doesn't bother my friend.
But what my friend doesn't know is that I also had an abortion and although I have no regrets I feel a bit strange around my friend now?

theres no stigma whatsoever to having a child outside of marriage round here, never known such a thing in my whole life (and I have a strong catholic family)

There is, however, a huge stigma attached to being a 'single mum'.

How often is it said on MN that a guy risks pregnancy anytime he has sex and so should accept the consequences? Yet a woman doesn't have to.

Usually this is said in response to a situation where the male has taken NO responsibility for contraception. It is up to both parties to accept responsibility for this - not just the woman. In case of contraceptive failure the woman should not be punished by being forced to carry a pregnancy to term and to take responsibility for another human being for the rest of her life whether she wants to or not. If she decides to keep the baby, the father ought to share the responsibility - not disappear off the face of the earth as they often do.

This is what I find so distasteful about many anti-abortioners - their desire to judge and punish.

Dawn, I am aware that my opinions are unpopular which is why I don't get the support that other people would when people use personal insults, bullying tactics or break MN etiquette. That doesn't mean that those things are acceptable or justified. It's a shame that people seem to think it's ok. I have stood up for people before on threads even if I don't agree with their opinion and a few people have previously done the same for me. It says a lot about a person's character if you can set aside differences in opinion because you can see that certain behaviour towards them is wrong.

I do not need to stoop to your level and resort to personal attacks and insults. You are the only one who has done so. This thread has been perfectly civilised with people on both sides expressing the opinions that they are entitled to. You have even tried to censor those opinions despite the title of the thread specifically requesting them. Maybe you should take some of your own advice and 'back down'.

bumbly You are funny, bless you.

LtEve, some children born at term would not survive without medical intervention either. They only survive because of medical progress too.

in fact im not sure i could support anyone through an abortion in any case,unless they had been raped or they round out the baby would never have any quality of life. Then you are no % of pro choice at all.

The thread was about ending a friendship because of a unneccasary (medically speaking) late abortion. The op isn't discussing late terminations.

The thread isn't about *"unnecessary" late abortions at all. Read what the op said. Just in case....

How do you feel about friends who have had abortions? Can you maintain friendships with people who have had an abortion and no regrets? Where is the mention of late, in any of that? Stop twisting words for your own agenda.

*(for fuck sake, NO ONE has an unnecessary abortion at all - even if YOU don't agree with their reasons, to them, it is VERY necessary)

Yes I know that, I said: "It's not an absolute though is it - some will need treatment earlier, some will need treatment later"

differentname for this "The op isn't discussing late terminations. "

The OP's second post: "In the case of our mutual friend, it was a late abortion she was thinking..."

Lt, but should we value someone's life based on whether or not they need medical intervention?

I also said: "I said earlier I support the legal aspect of the 24 week limit because I understand that children have been born and (with a whole load of medical intervention) have lived at that limit. I do not think that is an absolute though, as without medical intervention than a foetus is unlikely to survive - I believe that SToP should be provided as early as possible and as late as necessary"

and:

"It's why we need a legal limit. There are too many variables to take each pregnancy/termination on a case to case basis and the waiting and faffing about time is bad enough as it is. Making a judgement individually would take longer"

are you not reading my posts through?

I just want to pick up a point made way back on the thread about abortion based on financial reasons. Women are still underpaid, underpromoted and undervalued as workers. Study after study has shown that. Maternity leave can have a disastrous effect on finances. For many an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy can tip the financial scales too far and the family end up living below the poverty line. So all these 'financial abortions' lets pretend for a second that they all resulted in a live birth. The welfare bill would go through the roof, taxes would drastically increase and the further knock on effect of over crowded schools, over stretched services, housing. Maybe a campaign for anti choice advocates to sponser an unwanted pregnancy, birth and child until they are 18. Put your money where your mouth is sort of concept.

What makes an abortion 'necessary'? The only way it is actually a necessity is if it threatens the life of the mother.
Deeming any other reason as necessary or unnecessary is putting a moral judgement on it. I don't think it your moral judgement to make. It should be the choice of the pregnant a person and them alone. No reason is anymore valid than another.

Lt, you also said this:

"But only with a whole raft of medical intervention. Personally I do not believe that the term "viable" is helpful. If a foetus was born at 24 weeks, would it survive without medical intervention? If it was wrapped up warm and placed in a cot, but had no other treatment would it live? No. It's only 'viable' because of medical progress."

I'm trying to understand why you would bring that up to argue against someone who thinks the limit should be lowered because foetuses can survive if born before 24 weeks when even babies born at 24 weeks (which is the limit you support) would need those same interventions.

Who am I arguing with?

"Argue' is probably the wrong word. The person whose point you quoted before you made that comment about medical intervention. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make by bringing up the fact that medical intervention would be required.

Twofingers you are correct. Not engaging with you Bumbly as you twist the truth. You know and we all know what you said.

fifi you have a perfect right to your opinion but thank God the law doesn't agree with you or incest/rape victims would be forced to carry babies to term.

I actually don't like to examine the reasons womem have sbortions however as I think it's completely up to them.

The drama of the so called 'pro life* side about seemingly lots of heavily pregnant women aborting healthy foetuses just for the hell of it because that's what women would do if they had free rein is laughable. As a Dawn states the stats are there to see.

The real life agony here is the denial of safe early abortions to millions if women around the world, and including, to its utter shame, Ireland.

Millions of women world wide who die at the hands of back street abortionists and in the birth process itself.

Millions of women whose choices are trodden in by stupid inhuman laws and religions.

If you want real drama protest about that.

Statistically there has been no improvement in the survival of babies born before 24 weeks. None.

I don't think anyone has said anything about "lots of heavily pregnant women aborting healthy foetuses just for the hell of it" . Truth twisting perhaps?

I am very much pro-life. I don't believe in abortion. To me, its murder. Although I understand there are many reasons a woman may choose to abort a child. Rape or not wanting to raise a child they've been told will have a disability, for instance. I find it hard to understand outside those remits.

However thats my view - I wouldn't expect to impose it on my friends, 2 of whom I know have had abortions. Its not my place to preach or lecture.Each to their own view and choice on a matter so sensitive.

OP your friend has an absolute cheek to even discuss your mutual friend's abortion with you, how indiscreet and offensive is that? & to be so judgmental about it too. Who gave her the right to judge anyway? Nasty woman - and whilst listening to her malicious gossip you might like to ponder that if she can talk about your mutual friend in such a nasty and judgmental way then, she is surely talking about you as soon as your back is turned.

Argue is definitely the wrong word.

I was "commenting" on 22honey's post where she asked the question because when does a foetus become 'viable'?

The law was set at 28 weeks originally, because that is the guideline that was given as to the likliehood of a foetus being able to survive at that point. That law was set in 1967, when very few (if any) foetus's would have survived before that point, even with medical intervention. It was changed in 1990 to 24 weeks due to the advances in medical treatment, but even now very few births at 24 weeks survive - Because we are all different, our pregnancies are all different and our survival rates are all different.

It was a musing on my part, explaining my stance and my belief that the word "viable" is misused, because it is only "viable...due to", rather than "viable....in any case"

So I don't believe that the word "viable" should be used when talking about a foetus/pregnancy that may end in SToP. It is immaterial whether the foetus is "viable" because we cannot know whether it is or not. What we know is that the pregnant woman no longer wants to continue the pregnancy - and it should be up to her what she does about that.

Mistress yes well said.

Maybe a campaign for anti choice advocates to sponsor an unwanted pregnancy, birth and child until they are 18. Put your money where your mouth is sort of concept.
This is an excellent idea, FrigginRex.

Fair enough LtEve. Although why are you happy with the 24 week limit then? What makes it an acceptable cut off point for you if you aren't making your judgement on the viability of the foetus?

I am largely, but not completely, against abortion. There are situations in which the compassionate response must be to allow an abortion but I cannot get away from the fact that there is not just one human life involved here: the foetus may not be capable of independent existence and may require much further development but it is still a unique human life. I am not religious but I think that respect for human life is an important moral foundation.

I have friends who have had abortions in circumstances in which I think those abortions should not have been legal; but they are still dear friends whom I respect; and that is because they are people who perceived that there is a complex moral question involved and involved moral judgement in their decision making. I would find it difficult to be friends with someone who just argued "my body my choice" or otherwise failed even to consider the second human life involved.

The question of whether abortion is morally acceptable needs to be considered as the balance of interests between the mother and foetus. In some cases this is easy: if the mother's life is in danger, for instance or if the foetus stands little chance of survival once born; or if the mother is twelve years old but in others it is very difficult. Is it really right to disregard entirely the life of the foetus (at, say, 12 weeks) when the parents have been a bit careless with contraception but they have a stable relationship and material sufficiency? Should abortion in these circumstances really be legal?

I am a feminist; but I find the "my body my choice" mantra morally simplistic and intellectually inadequate. Just as I find the radical "pro life" end of the spectrum morally simplistic and intellectually inadequate: forcing a nine year old victim of incest to give birth cannot be anything other than inhumane. I would find it difficult to be close friends with anyone at either end of this spectrum

Agree with LtEveDallas that "viability" is far too arbitrary a concept on which to base abortion law. It's a useful clinical indicator for premature births, but nothing more.

"Viability" is subjective, it depends on when and where far more than it does on any intrinsic property of the fetus. How can an abortion be legally unacceptable in the UK because we may be able to save a naturally-born fetus at 24.1 weeks, while in (for argument's sake) Malawi, the same abortion would be legal because they wouldn't be able to save the same 24.1 week fetus. Is this how we want to be framing the value of a life? And this is ignoring the premise that all newborns require intervention for survival - are newborns "viable"? And what actually is "viability"? Is a fetus who takes a single independent breath deemed to have been "viable"?

The concept of "viability" is very valid in making decisions about clinical care. It is somewhat puzzling to me that it seems to have entered the abortion debate as some kind of given. Why?