to be completely confused - pro/anti choice

[ScarletFever]

I have ALWAYS considered myself pro-choice

and then this - remember that person Josie who is on the daily mail a lot, with her nhs boob job etc who has made a career of annoying people... who said

"i would have aborted my baby if it meant i could go on Big Brother"

Right - so I was like "oh you evil cow" etc......, but then it was pointed out somewhere, if you are pro-choice, then what difference does it mean if her reason is crap?

So, how do i get my head around it being 'ok to abort a disabled child, or if you are not ready for children, or even it is the wrong time (re career) to have a child' but not ok to abort a child for a 'celebrity' reason??

The pro-life stance is really very simple. It is that the unborn baby is a LIFE. Anyone who has sat and cried at their 12 week scan as they have seen their baby for the first time is surely not able to seriously say that it is just a blob of jelly. The pro-life lobby does not expect women to die rather than have an abortion.If their life is at risk genuinely then their is a valid choice between the life of the mother and the life of the child. Some mothers have chosen the life of their child but the mothers life would always be prioritised by the medical team.
That we have reached a situation where it is so minimised that people can say that if a woman wants to have an abortion every few weeks for the rest of her fertile life then that is okay is desperately sad in my opinion. Why are the rights of a woman so important that the rights of an unborn child are worth nothing. I have a friend who fell pregnant last year unexpectedly.Her other 3 kids were 18 years+ and a baby was the last thing on her agenda,but she was pro-life. She struggled through an unwanted pregnancy and had a baby girl. That baby girl has changed her life for the better and she is really enjoying her unexpectedly. It really should not all be about convenience for the woman.It needs to be a very serious decision with the understanding that a baby is a life and it should never be something that is just a womans right without some moral prerogative coming with it.

vdb So the right to life has less value when the person removing it has thought seriously about the decision to do so? Whereas if you do it frivously, you are the worst kind of person?

I never get this about the pro-life lobby, that the right to life is sometimes sacrosanct (when the woman doesn't want a child) and sometimes disposable (e.g. when the woman has been raped), that it can be disposed of by the right kind of woman (one who has made a hard and guilt-ridden decision in certain circumstances).

I mean, it's almost like the baby's right to life isn't the primary right in this scenario. Who'd have thought?

I am pro choice - I would never force a woman to continue with a pregnancy that she didn't want. But morally, I think that the right to terminations comes with the responsibility to limit the need as much as possible - so use contraception or be sterilised, if condoms split get yourself the MAP etc. having said that, if women didn't make these choices then I still wouldn't force them to go through with a pregnancy, but I do believe in a balance of rights and responsibilities in a moral, if not a legal, sense.

An important thing to remember is that there is a difference between what you, personally, would do, and your general standpoint.

I am strongly in favour of free, easily available abortion for all women. I struggle with the concept of late term abortion (who doesn't?) but that's my problem. The principle stands.

For me, personally abortion would not be an option, apart from in a few very extreme circumstances. But that is my own personal choice. Which has nothing to do with what I think should be available to other women.

I've said up-thread that I'm prochoice but not pro unlimited choice, my views are more around the way a baby/foetus develops in utero and becomes capable of independent life outside the mother. I've been genuinely surprised how many posters think that abortion up to the point of birth is ok. This thread and the one about father's rights to be present at the birth have got me thinking. Would those who think that abortion to term is acceptable feel that if the baby's/foetus' father wanted to raise the baby then induced labour rather than termination should be carried out in preference. I do think that women should have autonomy over their bodies but pregnancy is a unique state and I think if the baby has the capability to survive independently from the mother then abortion seems wrong. I'm not trying to shit stir here, I think this is an incredibly emotive and complex topic, as I said I've been surprised that people think abortion to term is ok so I'm genuinely interested to hear what people think.

I've said up-thread that I'm prochoice but not pro unlimited choice,
I'm sorry, I know this isn't the main point of your thread, but I can't get my head around this "not pro unlimited" viewpoint.
I know I keep banging on about it, but I never want children. I've had a termination where contraception failed and while I will be as careful as is humanly possible wrt contraception, I would have as many terminations needed to keep me childless. The last time I enquired, my doctor refused to even discuss sterilisation due to my age and "I might change my mind."

How many abortions should I be limited to?

Would those who think that abortion to term is acceptable feel that if the baby's/foetus' father wanted to raise the baby then induced labour rather than termination should be carried out in preference

So you'd force a woman to undergo labour against her will?

When I say not unlimited prochoice I mean that I think there should be restrictions on very late term abortions because of the physical and cognitive development of a baby/foetus which makes them capable of sustaining independent life. My personal view is that abortion should be more freely available in the earlier stages of pregnancy and I'm not making any judgment about numbers of abortions or reasons behind them.

I think there should be restrictions on very late term abortions because of the physical and cognitive development of a baby/foetus which makes them capable of sustaining independent life

At no point in gestation or even a good while beyond it is a baby capable of independent life.

And anyway why does the ability to live independently present a key threshold in the abortion debate? It's a convenient one, for sure, but still arbitrary. Never understood that one and never seen a robust defence of it.

MaidofStars, I just can't get my head around the idea that a fully developed, term baby could be terminated in utero because their mother doesn't want them. I think when pregnancy has got to that stage the baby has some rights too. I don't really know what I think, the idea of forcing a woman to undergo labour sounds awful too though, is late term abortion not essentially induced labour though (not a rhetorical question)?

At some point the baby is capable of life independent from their biological mother, not independent from any carer. I agree the ability to sustain life is gradual but I can't see the difference between a full term baby in utero and a new born save for a couple of inches of skin separating them from the outside world.

So whether or not a baby is capable of independent life is a key criteria for some people? Does that mean that aborting babies with severe disabilities at any point is ok, but not babies without disabilities?

As I said- I too struggle with the idea of late term abortions- but I know that there is no logical way to restrict. So if you think that women should have access to abotion, then it has to be unrestricted.

Obviously, everything should be done in terms of education, availability of services, contraceptive development etc to reduce the need for abortion at all.........

But your missing g the point that there are very few late term abortions. And they are usually for medical reasons.

It's 24 weeks because the 20 week scab happens between 18-22 weeks and parents need time to process the information given to them.

I think you are misconstruing what I mean by independent life, a 12 week old foetus cannot survive outside their mother's womb, a 38 week foetus/baby can. Of course I don't mean life independent of anyone to care for them. I think a number of posters have tried to dictate that either you are prochoice and that means you support abortion in any circumstances or that you are prolife/anti-choice and do not support abortion in any. I think this is grossly simplifying a very complex area, I agree that there are no absolutely logical ways to draw the lines in this debate but I don't accept that means that we have to accept that women have an absolute right to have an abortion up to term.

I'm not missing the point (or at least not missing that particular point), I'm arguing that I could not support abortion to term on demand not about how the law stands at present.

Anyone who has sat and cried at their 12 week scan as they have seen their baby for the first time is surely not able to seriously say that it is just a blob of jelly. My wanted, planned pregnancies were always babies to me, from the moment I knew I had conceived, they were wanted & much waited for.

My unwanted pregnancy was a parasite. Simple. Something I had to get out of me, as quickly as possible.

That we have reached a situation where it is so minimised that people can say that if a woman wants to have an abortion every few weeks for the rest of her fertile life then that is okay is desperately sad in my opinion Very extreme example, imo. No one I know is having a termination every few weeks...

Why are the rights of a woman so important that the rights of an unborn child are worth nothing Because a woman has the right to decide how many children she raises & is responsible for. No one is throwing money at me, I cannot afford to raise several children & I don't want to. Why are my rights not important to YOU?

She struggled through an unwanted pregnancy In all fairness, if she continued with the pregnancy, it wasn't unwanted, it was unplanned. Believe me, when a pregnancy is unwanted, you do not want to continue with it.

That baby girl has changed her life for the better I am so pleased for her, but that isn't the experience of all women who find themselves pregnant! I was unwanted, and I wouldn't; want any child to go through what I did (not adopted, I stayed with my family, because dad wanted me, he left when I was 5 & having to be with a parent who so tangibly didn't want me has left devastating effects on me)

It really should not all be about convenience for the woman. So who is it about then? Are YOU going to raise all these unwanted children? Are you going to pay for their food, education, health care, do the nigth feeds? The woman is the one carrying the baby, having to give birth, having to spend a life time raising that child...how the hell can it be about anyone else???

Maidofstars, in my perfect world,abortion would not happen,unless the womans life was genuinely in danger,particularly after 12 weeks gestation,I think it is barbaric if you actually read about the processes involved. I think it has become sanitised and acceptable in a way that was never intended. I think our current law has been twisted in a way it was never intended to be either. As I said previously, if a man on a one night stand has to accept that his actions may result in a baby he has to support for the rest of his life financially, then women also have to accept that if they have sex it could result in a baby.
I realise that contraception fails and I realise that some people just do not want kids,or more kids but I think abortion has become so accepted and minimised that it has become acceptable to say 'I don't actually want a baby this year as it is not convenient,I want one next year so I will just terminate this one.' If I had to categorise my objections,it is the 'it's not convenient at this time' reason that I find most difficult.
I realise that safe abortion is better than back-street abortion and think that anyone who would attempt to abort their own baby would genuinely fall into the category of being at risk of severe emotional distress if forced to continue a pregnancy.I accept the current legislation but think it should be reviewed regularly to reflect advances in medical practice so that if the survival rates of 22 week babies improves,the cut off point for abortion should be adjusted accordingly.

But it's unbelievably arrogant to think that if everyone facing unwanted pregnancy would just struggle through, they'd all be happy and everything would be for the best. Amen!

But just because they survive at 22 weeks doesn't mean accepting resuscitation or treatment is a decision to be taking lightly. Whether they should try and save a baby that young is a whole other debate.

no one likes the idea of a woman having a late termination

what pro choice supports is that women have full autonomy over her own body and is able to make that choice. is that choice ever made well I think you will find it hard to show any evidence that it does happen

but that is what pro choice is about, there are no limitations to the number of abortions a woman has, her reasons why or how far into her pregnancy she is

its not an easy stance for many to take but it is that simple it is not full of grey areas what is is the moral or emotional stance you attach to being pro choice which is understandable but again I repeating myself pro choice is just that , the choice is there with no limitations

But as we have seen in Ireland, it is up to doctors, who either may not be correct, or are too scared of being prosecuted if they make a mistake to decide if the mothers life is in danger or not. Then a woman dies unnecessarily, often with the unborn baby.

Babies surviving at 22 weeks is incredibly rare, as is abortion after 12 weeks. They are mostly done on babies with severe congenital disabilities who would not have survived at 22 weeks, or sometimes even at 40 weeks, or if the mothers life is so chaotic that she would not be in a fit state to bring up a child.
I am pro choice even though I don't think I personally would go through an abortion. I think the anti abortion lobby are incredibly insulting to women if they really think that most women who have abortions are so stupid or frankly evil that they would just decide halfway through a pregnancy that they couldn't be bothered to have a baby. All that idiot Josie woman has done is given the anti abortion lobby ammunition to support this view.

so use contraception or be sterilised, if condoms split get yourself the MAP etc

I don't know how I got pregnant...honestly! The condom didn't appear split (when I asked dh once we got the + on the test, although it is possible I guess) & I was on the mini pill (dr said that the pill must not have worked anyway, so when the condom failed, I had no protection from the pill) So I didn't even know I needed the MAP (which also fails, btw. I know SO many MAP failure babies, it's surprising they can still call it what it is)

My dr had refused to sterilise me several months before my unwanted pregnancy.

My consultant refused to sterilise me during dd2s section.

What else do you suggest I could have done?

Then there are pregnancies that are not the result of condoms splitting, or pills being taken incorrectly, but other contraceptive failure & rape.

Or men who have tricked their partners into getting pregnant (taking condom off, wrecking condom, saying they have been sterilised)

Should women now have to ask their rapist to use a condom or hurry off to get a MAP? I apologies if that is offensive, but that is what YOU are suggesting. That we somehow ALWAYS choose to get pregnant unexpectedly & it can be 100% prevented.