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?

basgetti, I don't think that it trumps the right of the foetus. Equal right to life.

gordy "you are the one advocating a return to the mother and baby homes of 1950's Ireland " eh? where? My original post was directed to differentname in response to her post which was why I used the example she gave. If you think there was more to it then you'll have to take it up with her. My point that 'adoption services need to be changed/improved' stands. It wasn't only solely based on my opinion of differentname's friend's vasectomy.

Maid "I've debated with far more extreme prolifers than you and managed to have meaningful discussion."

Maybe you have. I know there have been some very reasonable discussions about different abortion views on MN although I think it may have been a few years ago. There are some people on this thread who would not be capable of that though. Tbh, you have been a bit unreasonable in demanding that questions are answered in specific ways. That does not exactly make meaningful or unheated discussions.

gordy, simplistic and wrong so no, you don't understand. Thank you for confirmation that I've made the right decision in not saying any more about it on this thread.

I don't think I've been remotely unreasonable. Asking a direct question and expecting a direct answer is perfectly reasonable.

I'm a scientist. I don't do hand waving. Do you even see how I might perceive your 'answer' as hand waving?

happy to help you not say anything more on this thread Bumbly :)

At least 13% of rape victims attempt suicide and 30% develop PTSD. Do you think these figures would improve if rape victims were also forced to carry and bear the child of their rapist? You are not giving them an equal right to life in these cases, you are actually saying that the right to life of the foetus trumps the right to life of the mother if you would deny traumatised and potentially suicidal women access to termination.

My point that 'adoption services need to be changed/improved' stands

yet you have no actual real evidence that they are defective now or any idea what needs to change - how valuable and productive

Bumbly leave complicated stuff to the professionals and go back to your simple woman hating

gordy, "in not saying any more about it on this thread." :)

Actually, Maid, I haven't met too many scientists who can reduce their answers to a simple 'yes' and 'no'. It would make a lot less reading for me if they did!

basgetti, I think that illustrates the need for better support for rape victims. Abortion does not remove the fact that they were raped and traumatised.

gordy, so you think adoption services are perfectly fine then and don't need to be changed? You can debate that with differentname if you like.

Like I said upthread: 'barking'. And why I won't engage with the misogynist.

No abortion does not remove the fact that they were raped but it can prevent the further trauma of being forced to gestate pregnancy that results. You would add to the trauma of rape victims and place them at increased risk of suicide and mental health problems because you would put a foetus first. That is horrendous and so are you.

There are some people on this thread who would not be capable of that though.
As this refers to me, I shall take it. I'm a lecturer, I said earlier, Dr. Dawndonna. That makes me more than capable of having a rational discussion. Unfortunately though, as the main (although, not only) contributer to the other side of the argument, as it were, you do not appear to be. You seem unable to engage, to state your case in a clear and concise manner, or to be rational. You continually use logical fallacies in some sort of misguided attempt to forward your views (although we all remain unaware of exactly what those views are) and are obfuscatory when questioned on any part of your apparent views. You continually claim victim status and make rude and crass referrals to bullying by people who ask for clear answers or who dare to litter the thread with facts. And then, when you know you are not actually capable of answering or addressing the points put to you, ignore anything put to you at all. I am the one, of the two of us, who is quite capable of having a discussion.

Precisely, Dawndonna.

We had to make a choice to carry on with a pregnancy where the baby had slim to no chance of surviving when born. Its a very very difficult decision either way, guilt of opting for induction, guilt of continuing and worrying the baby will suffer in some way.

We decided to continue but a few days later the choice was taken out of our hands pretty much and our baby was born at 20 weeks.

My story is much the same as the lady in irelands, pprom, baby still alive and then infection. Except I was lucky enough to live in a country where we had a choice and I was not made to carry on with a pg where the chances of the baby surviving were slim and the chances of me dying were high.

Actually, Maid, I haven't met too many scientists who can reduce their answers to a simple 'yes' and 'no'. It would make a lot less reading for me if they did!

Really, you find that most scientists (scrub that, most people) are unable to answer a clear unambiguous question that requires a clear unambiguous "yes" or "no" answer with either "yes" or "no"? Interesting.

abortion can add to the trauma too basgetti. Not putting a foetus first, putting its life equal to that of the woman.

Interesting how many pro-choicers feel the need to include personal insults/derogatory comments in their posts.

Depends on the question and whether or not they have answered it already.

You are putting the foetus first, please don't fool yourself. And yes, horrendous, because you post vague soundbites yet display zero insight or empathy into the reality of women's suffering and have no interest in their welfare beyond how it will impact upon the unborn.

The rape victim has CHOICE, they and only they can choose if they would want to continue with the pregnancy, which is how it should be. You want that CHOICE to be removed bumbley. You want to force women to carry a foetus to birth no matter what it would do to them mentally or physically. You have no concern for the woman.

Of course some pregnancies damage womans mental health. When i was pregnant with my 3rd i felt like killing myself and that was a wanted pregnancy. I made everyones life hell including my 2 DDs. I was so unhinged and just didn't want the baby or to be pregnant. I begged to be induced early and ended up going overdue. When i fell pregnant again due to a contraception failure i knew i couldn't risk being like that again with 3 kids to look after. After previously having 3 miscarriages, one at 16 weeks i never in a million years thought i would ever terminate a pregnancy. I terminated at 5 weeks and all i felt was relief. I dont want to have any more kids due to that pregancy. That woman who drove her kids into the sea in the US whilst pregnant could have easily been me. I have discussed having my tubes tied which the doctors didnt seem keen on, they actually gave me scenario's which included your only young, what would you do if you meet someone else and want kids, what if i want a son (have 3 dd's) and they also said what if your 3 kids were in a fatal car crash you would probably want more kids. That was 4 year ago and i havent had sex since and am now seperated although we are still friends. If i meet someone else i will probably insist on being steralised as i am now older so they will be more likely to do it this time

When you put the life of a fetus equal to that of the women carrying it you run the risk of damaging the womens mental and physical health, not to mention in some circumstances the risk of death to the women.

Noone should have to continue with a pg that they dont wont or that might do them harm in anyway

LtEve, mismanaged miscarriage and failure in duty of care. Her life was not considered to be in danger at first. They missed the signs that her condition was deteriorating

Bumbly, do you realise that Savita was 17 weeks pregnant and in the middle of a miscarriage when she begged for an abortion. She begged the hospital to put her out of her argony (she was already in pain) and to speed up the miscarriage by giving her a D&C. The hospital refused to do so (on day 1) as the foetus still had a heartbeat at that point. On day 2 the foetal heartbeat stopped and Savita was given a D&C. On day 3 Savita died.

There was absolutely no way that the foetus was going to survive, the hospital have admitted that. All Savita wanted was an end to her pain.

What the hospital did was prolong Savitas suffering for 2 more days, extended the "life" of the foetus by 2 days and KILLED Savita.

2 days.

Because of the draconian laws in Ireland a Non-Sentient being was put ahead of a living, breathing human being. No, the hospital didn't realise that her life was in danger, but they DID realise that she was in pain and they DID realise that the foetus was going to die no matter what.

Why was Savita's PAIN not a good enough reason?

Her parents have lost their daughter. A husband has lost his wife and a woman DIED IN PAIN because a hospital wouldn't abort a dying foetus.

I am very glad that I had my pregnancy in Germany and not Ireland. Very glad that religious do-gooders would have had no say in saving my life (or not).

Depends on the question and whether or not they have answered it already

So you will know that it is acceptable, expected and necessary to ask for clarification on any point, and that any scientist should be only too be pleased to explain, rather than allow something to be misinterpreted. You will know from reading manuscripts that there can be no reading between the lines or necessary assumptions made. You will know from reviewing manuscripts that any ambiguity must be expanded, defined and reworked such that there is no ambiguity. You will know from lecturing that when a student approaches you and asks what you meant by something, you do not direct them back to the lecture notes and tell them that your 8 year old child would understand what you meant.

So if not from one scientist to another, but from one scientific mind to another mind who at least likes reading scientific papers, can you clarify the following:

I would not agree with induction prior to the age of viability where the aim is clearly to terminate the foetus' life

Would you have sanctioned an abortion in Baby's circumstances at 12 weeks? The answers are "yes" or "no".

You know what the current age of viability is and I said that I did not support it under that age

What is the age of viability for the fetus Baby is carrying?

Stottie Prenatal depression is not uncommon.

^ Yy to that LtEve.

Savita's case was just so barbaric, I can hardly bear to think about it. That poor woman, her poor family.

But to bumbley and her ilk, it was just a 'mismanaged miscarriage.' FFS - a woman lost her life.

The sheer lack of care for the women concerned in these cases is palpable in bumbley's posts - it's practically a hatred of women.

The sheer lack of care for the women concerned in these cases is palpable in b*'s posts - it's hatred of women.

Fixed that for you Sabrina

Thanks, CaptChaos