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 2012 data says that 9% of abortions occur after 13 weeks and 1% of abortions are carried out on the grounds of disability.
Catsarebastards, I think the assumption was that the parents were not together when arguing for the right of the father to raise the child.
Aphrodites, I completely agree that abortion should not be trivialised but I think the pro-life lobby believe that in alot of situations the process IS trivialised.There has been one person brave enough to come on the thread and say that for her as a youngster,abortion was 'made easy' for her and presented as the best option and she has regretted it all her life. Whatever I believe personally about abortion,I think that women should be told honestly what abortion involves,what an effect it can have emotionally and physically on you and what different options are available. They should then make an informed choice. There are many for whom this IS the experience but also many who feel they were not adequately prepared for how they would feel post abortion.
There are no 'fairy tale' endings here either way. Whatever decision is made can be heartbreaking.

vdb I feel the opposite - there are already many stories out there (especially on TV/in films) of women who have abortions but forever regret it, or (more often) of women who intend to abort but at the last minute change their mind and live happily ever after with their baby and say how pleased they are they didn't go through with it.

I think we actually need more stories of women (like me) who had an abortion and have never once regretted it.

I agree with you of course that everyone considering abortion should be asked to consider the possibility that they might regret it, but it should also be made clear that this doesn't happen to everyone.

If someone is sure they want an abortion and sure that they will not regret it then I don't think the process should be made more difficult for them just as some sort of safeguard.

Whatever decision is made can be heartbreaking. Can be - yes. But isn't always.

I think the word convenience for me is women who argue that an unplanned baby might get in the way of their career progression or mean they could not afford the same holidays they had enjoyed for years etc. There are plenty other things in life that mess up our plans.Divorce,redundancy,ill health of self/partner/child. All of these can affect our quality of life considerably. Sometimes we just have to adapt our plans accordingly.
I am not speaking from complete lack of experience here. I was pregnant 4 months after my first child was born and was devastated.I miscarried at 12 weeks and was actually relieved and traumatised at the same time. I was then pregnant again 2 months later which I felt I probably could cope with but also lost that baby at 12 weeks. So I know what it feels like to not want a baby and I know what it feels like to lose a baby at 12 weeks which is physically very unpleasant. I also know what it feels like to live on a lowish income because of the cost of kids. My eldest is 11 and this year is the first year my kids can remember being bought clothes from anywhere other than a charity shop or hand-me-downs, and even now it is half price sales etc. My kids have to share a room and fight constantly because of it and we just tell them we cannot afford a house where they get their own rooms at the moment.
Life is about choices, but if you have a view that all life is sacred,whilst you have to accept that other people feel differently,you are still entitled to an opinion.It is not valid to say that it is no-one elses business what anyone does.If that were true,there would not be laws in place and these laws would not be reviewed regularly. Public and medical opinion does inform our abortion law. Strong public opinion demanded that abortion be made available and medical opinion is sought to keep the process as ethical as possible within the current law and adjust the law as necessary.

Late term abortion is a difficult subject. I completely agree with ghosty that the fact a 22 or 23 weeker can survive - with intensive medical attention and probably withlifelong disabilities - does not mean the cut off for abortion should be 22 or 23 weeks.

On the other hand DD was born at 34 weeks. She wasn't far off a full term newborn in terms of the care she needed - she needed a bit of extra warmth and tube feeding for a while and that's about it. It would sit oddly with me to allow someone to abort a 34 weeker rather than give birth to it and give it up for adoption.

However,

1. only 2% of abortions are after 20 weeks

2. after 24 weeks abortions can only be carried out for a grave risk to mother's life or health, or for substantial risk of physical or mental disability.

So it's hardly as if there are lots of women out there aborting 24+ weekers on a whim.

I suspect a lot of the late term abortions that do occur are for women who didn't realise they were pregnant, women who have a mental health problem or substance abuse problem which means they didn't get it together to have an earlier abortion, or women who are in an abusive relationship and couldn't get to a clinic earlier. Not really situations where you want to be saying "you MUST have this baby whether you want it or not".

minipie - I suspect a lot of the late term abortions that do occur are for women who didn't realise they were pregnant, women who have a mental health problem or substance abuse problem which means they didn't get it together to have an earlier abortion, or women who are in an abusive relationship and couldn't get to a clinic earlier. Not really situations where you want to be saying "you MUST have this baby whether you want it or not".

Yes, definitely. This is why I agree with removing a date limit on abortion and, thus, with late term abortion. Because it is such a tiny number of women and girls, women and girls who might have been caught out by the 24w cut off point. I strongly suspect that few women would terminate a 32w baby for non-medical reasons without some other dire circumstance. Increasing or removing the date will help women who desperately need help.

vdb

I understand your argument on 'convenience'. I don't agree with the judgment, however. I think where things are within your control you should be allowed to control them. I don't think it is wrong to make a decision based on the children/family you already have and say, "I want to make life OK for the children I already have, and not put this family in very difficult and risky financial circumstances for many years because I'll be unable to work."

I don't see that so much as a decision about convenience, but as a decision about how you want to live your life as a family.

I don't have an issue with people who are pro-life. While I don't agree with it, I understand in theory (if not in practice) how some people believe that life begins at conception and that it has an equal right to life and should not them be terminated.

What I don't understand is many pro-lifers who seem to sit on a rather pointed and painful fence.

Either all fetuses have a right to life, regardless of how they were conceived or any medical problems for either the baby or the mother - or not.

Judgments about the number of abortions a mother has, the reasons for them choosing to have an abortion, the reasons why they fell pregnant in the first place... To me it is hypocritical. You're either for or against abortion, it's that simple.

Either all fetuses have a right to life, regardless of how they were conceived or any medical problems for either the baby or the mother - or not.

Judgments about the number of abortions a mother has, the reasons for them choosing to have an abortion, the reasons why they fell pregnant in the first place... To me it is hypocritical. You're either for or against abortion, it's that simple. THIS Exactly!

I believe late term abortions involve a delivery anyway.

The loudest objection to abortion is that a (potential) baby dies. If it were possible to end the pregnancy without ending the fetus' life, the only possible objections would be woman-hating.

And after 24 weeks you can end the pregnancy without necessarily ending the foetus's life.

But what do you do with the baby?

I think most pro-lifers do believe that a foetus has a right to life fullstop. However, if the life of the baby threatens the life of the mother,you have 2 things with a right to life and a decision has to be made. Unless the mother chooses to prioritise the babys life,her life will generally be prioritised.
Pro-lifers also accept that they do not rule the world and that many many women find themselves pregnant in really difficult circumstances.Contrary to what pro-choicers may believe, pro-lifers are generally caring,compassionate people,who whilst they hold an opinion about the sanctity of life, also want to be there to help people through what can be one of the most difficult decisions of their life, and to be there in a non-judgemental way. It is possible to believe that abortion is wrong and still get involved in the ethics of abortion law. Pro-lifers arguing against late term abortion are not saying abortion is fine up to 12 weeks,but are saying that they think it is wrong in most cases,but surely regardless of religious reasons,everyone can see that these later ones are ethically hard to justify.
This is quite an interesting article about pro-life feminism which raises some really interesting points.
www.gargaro.com/lifefem.html

Definitely not the pro lifers who stand outside abortion clinics protesting and holding banners with pictures of dead foetuses and signs saying murderer, they're not caring or compassionate people.

What a load of nonsense. Abortion is not all about liberating the men who want sex with no strings ffs.

Sometimes women don't want children you know. That is allowed. To not want children. Or are women not allowed to enjoy a sex life at all because contraception fails sometimes so best we don't have sex hey. That will show the men

And rejecting abortion because it uses violence to solve a problem?

You do know that forcing women to undertake medical procedures against their will is assault to right?

you have 2 things with a right to life and a decision has to be made. Unless the mother chooses to prioritise the babys life,her life will generally be prioritised but WHY are women only a priority if they will die why?

can't the woman ALWAYS be the priority and her wants, needs and choices be paramount

David Alton wasn't very kind or compassionate when he tried to run me over with his car ...nor was the nun who spat on me when I was quietly protesting outside the hall he was speaking at

I worked for a charity that support women who had been raped - part of my job was to take them to a health centre for medical support and screening - we had to run the gauntlet of 'pro lifer's' every time - where we where jostled, called murderers, spat on, abused and sworn at - bags and bags of compassion there

I have compassion and empathy which is why I am pro-choice

The more I think about this, the more I don't think I am 'pro-choice' - nor am I 'pro-life' that believes abortions should be banned - i'm somewhere in between.

Pro-choice is about accepting that the woman should have the choice to abort, for any reason, up to any point (yes?)

I don't agree that there should be that much 'choice' - and that there comes a point when choice for the woman is no longer an option. For me it comes down to term, rather than the woman's reason - I cannot resign myself to the fact that to be 'pro-choice' I would have to accept that technically a woman with a healthy baby could abort at 34 weeks (for instance). I don't think it's right, and I think it's completely right that there should be a cut off, which should be a stage at which there is no chance the baby would be viable.

No one's answered the question yet either. There have been two posters who have said that pregnancy can be ended without killing the baby or that the baby's aborted after 24 weeks should be put into an incubator.

So then what. I'm interested to know what they expect to happen then?

and I think it's completely right that there should be a cut off, which should be a stage at which there is no chance the baby would be viable

So when someone has their anomaly scan at 22 weeks and be case it happens between 18 and 22 weeks. Are they supposed to be denied the choice because a medical mix up meant it was discovered a 22 weeker can miraculously survive?

I don't even know how a late abortion takes place - at 25 weeks for instance. Isn't delivery necessary anyway?

If that is the case (no difference to the mum, physically - there's a point where she'll have to give birth/have a csec whether she wants to or not) then I think it's barbaric if the baby once delivered is then left to die.

Once it's separate from the biological mother, it's a person in it's own right, and should be fought for/decisions made the same as any other pre-term birth, if at a potentially viable age.

I'm not in a position to say what anomalies are 'bad' enough to warrant abortion. But in the case of the baby, if there is a bad enough medical problem, then I believe abortion (or no intervention once born) to term is the correct thing. The humane thing, for the baby.

But there should be set guidelines (are there? I don't know) for what comes under this. Things like cleft lip for instance, I don't think late abortions should be allowed for.

But then do what with the baby?

Babies born at that early are usually incredibly sick. Brain bleeds, major infections, if they do survive there are varying degrees of disabilities and brain damage that may well mean that child has no chance of ever living a life without round the clock care. Alive doesn't mean living.

Who are you to decide that it's automatically better that the baby is not aborted but instead delivered and treated.

Mammanat222

That's women presenting for abortion, not all women

Who are you to decide that it's automatically better that the baby is not aborted but instead delivered and treated

I didn't say that.

I said that once a baby of potentially viable age is independent of the mother, it should be treated the same as any other infant of that gestation born.

So decisions on whether to treat or not are made on a case by case basis.

If the mother has requested to abort then once the birth has happened the decisions about what to do with the baby - to make them comfortable but not treat if born very early, or very sick - or to treat them if they are a 'good' (for the gestation) weight and with a decent enough chance of survival, with quality of life - should be made by medical professionals rather than the parents.

You may not agree with a woman's choice, but it's her choice. There is no 'only if I agree with her choice' option.