Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To ask those of you who are pro life?

999 replies

Anonynony · 21/04/2014 14:49

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 Shock
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?

OP posts:
candycoatedwaterdrops · 23/04/2014 10:03

ikea but who looks after the baby once its carried to term and now born?

TheBabyFacedAssassin · 23/04/2014 10:05

I have tried to keep away, I really have. But I can't.

Bumbley - I have 1 question for you. At least give me the courtesy to answer it without deflecting or turning it around.

Why do you believe it is right that a woman should be forced to continue a pregnancy to term when the foetus has abnormalities which are incompatible with life?

thebodydoestricks · 23/04/2014 10:06

Sassy yes of course there were no unwanted babies or back street sbortions before abortion was safe and legal. Yes women were a lot more careful weren't they.????

What a fucking ridiculous statement.

bumbly yours and others solutions is womem if spoken too softly, offered a few £100 quid and told to go away, be a good girl and have your baby, will be fine.

You live in a parallel universe, or should do.

Womem who access abortions have thought it through. They havnt generally been persuaded, coerced, bullied into their decision. They do not want the baby.

They don't want to give birth. That's the point.

You either face facts or you don't want to and weave some silly son stories of a friend of a friend who was marched against her will to have am abortion.

Let me break it to you gently. Women access sbortions be cause they dont want the baby under any circumstances

So we have a moral/financial and ethical responsibility to provide these women with free safe advice and access to abortions.

If you do to want one good. Brilliant. Don't. Your body your choice.

If I want am abortion It's my body, my life, my decision my choice.

Anything less is a violation of my body and my rights.

Anything less will lead, as it did before, in thousands of unwanted children, thousands of womem dying in back street abortions and orphaned children.

They can't all be adopted.

The care system would collapse. The health/mental health system would collapse. There would be an increase of new born mortalities and infanticide.

That's what will happen.

sassysally · 23/04/2014 10:09

Sassy yes of course there were no unwanted babies or back street sbortions before abortion was safe and legal. Yes women were a lot more careful weren't they.????

But back then contraception was not so reliable as it is now.

sassysally · 23/04/2014 10:09

Is Ireland overwhelmed with unwanted babies?

Dawndonnaagain · 23/04/2014 10:10

Sassy
Have a chat with Baby why don't you?

sassysally · 23/04/2014 10:11

If I want am abortion It's my body, my life, my decision my choice.
Anything less is a violation of my body and my rights.

...and what of your baby's rights.Who speaks for him/her?

MaidOfStars · 23/04/2014 10:12

I'm not sure why the ability to survive outside the wombis important to me, I guess I believe everyone deserves a chance and if the mother doesn't want to continue her pregnancy I don't think that should take away the fetus' chance even if it's chance is 1%

What are your basic 'survival' criteria?
What do you consider 'limited' medical intervention?
When does a fetus reach the milestone of 'surviv[al] outside the womb with limited medical intervention'?

In my opinion, you are engaging in an is/ought fallacy, whereby the ought (moral action) is either accidentally or - more worryingly - deliberately presented as a logical derivative of the is (observation), when no such logical progression exists.

Is: babies born at 23 weeks can, in theory, survive outside the womb.
Ought: abortion should only be allowed before 23 weeks.

I see no logical connect, and to move from is to ought requires the application of further qualifying statements. Your 'explanation' simply reiterates the fallacy. It adds nothing. It's a lazy convenient argument, no denying it, but is that really how we should be deciding?

In the UK in 2005, a baby born at 22 weeks had a 5-10% chance at survival. In 1955, that survival chance was 0%. Does a baby born at 22 weeks in 2005 have a greater right to life than one born in 1955?

In the UK, babies born at 24 weeks have a 40% survival rate. In Malawi, that survival chance is 0%. Does a baby born in the UK have a greater right to life than one born in Malawi? If I were 24.1, would you sanction abortion in Malawi but not in the UK?

twofingerstoGideon · 23/04/2014 10:13

what were the 2 methods? Crossed fingers and crossed toes?

Lovely bit of 'women people are so irresponsible' rhetoric there, sassy.

I got pregnant using condom and cap (couldn't take pill), despite the fact that I was 'old' (almost 40) and had almost non-existent periods (around 2 a year).

bumbleymummy · 23/04/2014 10:13

TheBaby, I addressed that in my post to you on the previous thread. As so many people seem to have missed it, I will post it again here.

"I explained my beliefs upthread about disabled foetuses having an equal right to life. However, as baby said, her baby is not disabled, s/he isn't going to survive birth. In this type of situation I can see an argument for induction with provisions made to support her baby (although I realise that he/she will not survive ) That may seem strange to you all given my views but I do not see that as the intentional termination of a pregnancy in the same way as I did not consider the early induction of my friend with pre-eclampsia abortion. (both mother and baby survived)

Baby, I'm very sorry if my posts about disabled foetuses caused you any distress. I do not agree with actively terminating a life but I do not see that induction in this type of situation would fall into that category."

CaptChaos · 23/04/2014 10:13

The foetus has no rights until it is born. The only person with rights is the woman, at least until 24 weeks gestation when those rights are removed from her except in exceptional circumstances.

This has been done already, sorry you didn't RTFT.

candycoatedwaterdrops · 23/04/2014 10:14

sassy who looks after the babies once they're born?

saintlyjimjams · 23/04/2014 10:16

I don't like the 24/birth distinction between apparently non disabled and disabled babies (I say "apparently" because ds1's tests were all normal and nothing would have shown on any test - although he is more severely disabled than many are with conditions that can be terminated to birth). But I think that distinction should be dealt with by allowing termination for any reason up to birth.

It's not always a popular suggestion - but I do believe free access to safe termination is essential, and I do believe the choice should be the woman's. I don't see why it's seen to be okay for some babies and not others.

I don't think there would be a sudden increase in late terminations if it was allowed for any reason.

bumbleymummy · 23/04/2014 10:18

the body, as shown in some of the unplanned pregnancy threads on MN, there are women who would want to keep their pregnancy except for the circumstances that they are in. It does happen and those women do not feel like they have a choice. I think you are being very dismissive of people who find themselves in those situations.

Dawndonnaagain · 23/04/2014 10:22

Baby, I'm very sorry if my posts about disabled foetuses caused you any distress. I do not agree with actively terminating a life but I do not see that induction in this type of situation would fall into that category."
However, an abortion at an earlier stage would have saved baby considerable trauma, don't you think? She is being forced to give birth. How is that morally correct?

thebodydoestricks · 23/04/2014 10:22

Sassy if you think the Irish law is humane I really can't engage with you.

what about the unborn baby who speaks for them er the woman carrying the foetus in her womb does.

The law agrees with that. Catch up.

You anti abortionists/anti women posters are incapable of coming up with sensible practical solutions to real life issues.

It's all the drama and the hearts and flowers with you isn't it, oh the poor babies get into the real world.

Mind you I can see it's much easier to be so lazy in your thinking. Life can be harsh can't it so best not engage.

If you want real life talk to Baby

ikeaismylocal · 23/04/2014 10:23

but who looks after the baby once its carried to term and now born?

Either the mother if she wants to or adoptive parents. We have all agreed the number of women wanting to abort healthy babies after "viability" is tiny or non-existant. There are so few newborn babies available for adoption in the UK despite abortions not being allowed after 24 weeks.

Dawndonnaagain · 23/04/2014 10:24

I think you are being very dismissive of people who find themselves in those situations.
Good grief, woman, are you serious?

bumbleymummy · 23/04/2014 10:25

Capt, the foetus obviously gains some rights at 24 weeks otherwise the law would allow women to abort to term for any reason.

thebodydoestricks · 23/04/2014 10:25

bumbly no sorry don't go there with me.

It's people like you who expect people like them to justify or agonise over a decision that was right for them at the time.

Adult women are more than capable of making decisions for themselves.

Yes as with all decisions there may be regrets but they doesn't mean noone makes one does it.

Dawndonnaagain · 23/04/2014 10:26

That's not actually the case, bum. It was deemed that the foetus was viable at 24 weeks, that doesn't mean it has rights.

thebodydoestricks · 23/04/2014 10:26

bumbly yes that's the law capt stated.

What the fuck is your point?

thebodydoestricks · 23/04/2014 10:28

I think your point is to twist a knife. There is no other explanation.

sassysally · 23/04/2014 10:29

You are saying that delegalising abortions is morally wrong for mothers, but killing foetuses is ok because it is legally allowed
But hang on we are either talking about moral rights or legal rights, you can't have it both ways!!

bumbleymummy · 23/04/2014 10:31

the body, capt said: "The foetus has no rights until it is born"

Those women are already agonising over the decision because they don't feel that they have a choice. They do exist.