Active discussions

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

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to be completely confused - pro/anti choice

345 replies

ScarletFever · 28/10/2014 12:49

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??

OP posts:
Cotherstone · 28/10/2014 17:01

If it's ok to abort a 24 week old foetus why isn't it ok to abort a 24 week 1 day old foetus

Exactly. And that's where I get my opinions on late-term abortion. Because once you have an arbitrary cut-off it just gets silly. Someone will be 1, 2, 3 days outside that limit, when it really doesn't make that much difference.

ghostyslovesheep · 28/10/2014 17:02

maybe people only willing to look at adopting perfect new borns need to look at their own motives

but it is not really relevant to the discussion - since it's abortion not adoption being debated - and the simple fact is if you don't think abortion is right then don't YOU ever have one - job done

MrsDeVere · 28/10/2014 17:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

DiaDuit · 28/10/2014 17:06

Basically you seem to believe that life as a child who is adopted is somehow worse that never living at all.

Of course it is! Never having lived is of course better than living at all whether adopted or living with birth family. Even birth is a traumatic experience for babies. There is pain throughout life. Nobody has a baby for the baby's sake. Let's be clear here. Nobody can say creating a child is an improvement on non existence.

ghostyslovesheep · 28/10/2014 17:06

just as many of those who bang on about the sanctity of life are also pro death penalty! baffles me as well

ILovePud · 28/10/2014 17:10

Well I wouldn't want to live in a society where there was no legal abortion nor would I want to see full term babies terminated. Maybe you think that stance is not sensible but that's what my heart says as well as my head. I think the 24 week issue is a blurred line and I agree that the idea of one day making this arbitrary cut off either legal and or moral is absurd but I think that's about the best compromise we have at present. I agree with what you've said about the discrepancy over disability too, that does not sit comfortably with me.

dreamerdoer · 28/10/2014 17:22

Never having lived is of course better than living at all whether adopted or living with birth family. There is pain throughout life.

And joy. And wonder. I just... can't even begin to understand you here. Pain is transitory, life is so much more.

Nobody can say creating a child is an improvement on non existence.

I could. For one, I am very glad I exist. It's by far the nicest thing my parents ever did for me.

I think this is one of those things were you and I have such fundamentally different understanding of things on a basic level (i.e. what it is to be alive, the value of life) that we can't agree.

dreamerdoer · 28/10/2014 17:26

just as many of those who bang on about the sanctity of life are also pro death penalty!

For the record, as I am anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-war, anti-violence etc.

Though I suppose I don't really consider life as 'sacred', more... that life is really awesome, and we should generally preserve it as much as possible.

I had no idea it was such a radical position.

Pyjamaramadrama · 28/10/2014 17:32

I find the notion that women with unwanted pregnancies should give the baby up for adoption pretty disgusting for want of better words.

Noone can say that an adopted baby would have been better off aborted as it completely depends on how the child's life turns out, and even then most people manage to find some purpose and happiness in life. But I would like to point out that not all adoptions turn out to be the fairy take ending.

But, two points, if you're in a position to offer a child a home, why focus on babies, there are thousands of children who need loving homes, children who have been neglected and traumatised and need a chance.

And the second point, women aren't incubators for 'niace' couple's who want a baby. Why should a woman have to go through 9 months of pregnancy, childbirth, to then give her baby to someone else, what about the effects on that women's physical and mental health? What if she already has children? What about the effect on them? It can be difficult enough for some women to have an abortion let alone give a baby up that she may have formed an attachment to. But hey screw the woman's feelings I mean she did make the terrible mistake of becoming pregnant.

What if the babies born disabled, and nobody wants to adopt the baby because it's less than perfect.

dreamerdoer · 28/10/2014 17:44

I find the notion that women with unwanted pregnancies should give the baby up for adoption pretty disgusting for want of better words.

Well its good that no one has suggested that then.

queenceleste · 28/10/2014 17:47

I can see both sides of the argument and I can see right on both sides however paradoxically.

I think abortion is effectively, for some women, becoming a form of contraception; I think that is a real shame for the bodies of those women and for the cheapness of life. I knew a woman who was in charge of the abortions at a London hospital and she said she was saddened when she saw young, intelligent working women come back for their 3rd and 4th abortion. She didn't say anything about their rights but it is sad that the first unwanted pregnancy didn't succeed in teaching the woman to be even more careful.

There can be fertility consequences following numerous abortions and the pro abortion lobby keep too quiet about it.

But we need to make sure, in my opinion, that women aren't forced to have babies they don't want.

I think we should start teaching children much younger about some of these issues - but the parents want to pretend their kids are tiny innocent children rather than acknowledging the great festival of bonking that these kids are doing!

Trills · 28/10/2014 17:49

Life is transitory too.

DioneTheDiabolist · 28/10/2014 17:51

The only person I know to have multiple abortions suffered hyperemesis. Her babies were conceived with assistance and very much wanted. She was heartbroken with each termination. I do not judge her.

ghostyslovesheep · 28/10/2014 17:54

what are the fertility consequences of the MAP or the 'abortion pill' then?

I don't know of any 'pro abortion' lobby but pro choice services tend to be very open about any risks

Your friend can judge all she likes - the language you use is massively emotive - and why do we have to 'teach women' doesn't conception usually involve a man as well?

ApocalypseThen · 28/10/2014 17:56

think abortion is effectively, for some women, becoming a form of contraception

As opposed to?

DiaDuit · 28/10/2014 17:57

I think abortion is effectively, for some women, becoming a form of contraception

Again- contraception prevents conception. Abortion is incapable of doing that as conception has already occurred. Abortion isnt becoming anything it wasnt always - the ending of a pregnancy. Abortions have always existed, what you are probably seeing is that abortion is more openly talked about and so you are nore aware of it happening and new social scenarios due to changing times mean that the circumstamces surrounding abortion are changing.

DiaDuit · 28/10/2014 17:59

but it is sad that the first unwanted pregnancy didn't succeed in teaching the woman to be even more careful.

Hmm

Yes because i'm sure they were a just careless each time.

ghostyslovesheep · 28/10/2014 18:01

tsk young women today - careless wenches

Boomtownsurprise · 28/10/2014 18:06

Agreed diaduit. Good post.

For me it works like this, every medical advance is useful. My personal agreement is irrelevant. That a pregnancy can be ceased in a hospital, or approved centre with trained medical assistance, with counselling, with care is a massive massive progression from gin a pill and a knitting needle.

For me, that's it. If I refuse abortion I refuse medical advancement, medical intervention and care. The reason for the abortion is imo irrelevant. Nobody but nobody uses it as contraception. Don't buy that patriarchal bullshit.

for me it's simply about medicine. I will never support an alternative that renders women going backwards medically. Never.

DiaDuit · 28/10/2014 18:07

I could. For one, I am very glad I exist. It's by far the nicest thing my parents ever did for me.

You might have had a wonderful life but you cant say that living was an improvement on not existing. Your parents certainly didnt have you to improve your situation.

I think this is one of those things were you and I have such fundamentally different understanding of things on a basic level (i.e. what it is to be alive, the value of life) that we can't agree.

Nice way of calling me thick Hmm life might be glorious for you, and many others. But for plenty it sucks- the whole way through. There is no way you can predict how that will work out before it has happened. I agree we see things differently. I dont subscribe to the idea of birth at all costs. There is an option that can be better for all concerned.

Boomtownsurprise · 28/10/2014 18:08

I include morning after pills too btw

Boomtownsurprise · 28/10/2014 18:08

Sorry x posted

WalkingInMemphis · 28/10/2014 18:14

I find your pov very...odd Diaduit. It's a depressing attitude to have towards life.

I completely disagree too. Unless an abortion is because the baby/foetus is so disabled that life would be awful for it, for the baby the best option IMO would always be to be given the chance at life. Because at least it's a chance.

Unless for medical reasons, I think anyone that says abortions are the 'best thing' for the potential baby is kidding themselves. It may well be the best thing for the mother...but not the baby.

DiaDuit · 28/10/2014 18:25

It's a depressing attitude to have towards life

Maybe you would feel depressed having a realistic approach to life, i am very happy. Sentimental and idealistic? No, but happy.

I think anyone that says abortions are the 'best thing' for the potential baby is kidding themselves

A guarantee of no suffering from that point onward versus a lifetime that the mother will have a decreasing level of control over and the unpredictability of life. Hmm. Which sounds like the least cruel option for someone who actually cares about the child in all this?

Pyjamaramadrama · 28/10/2014 18:26

But the 'baby' will never know any different. It's not viable it cannot survive without the woman, it is, like it or not a pregnancy.

And why shouldn't the woman's life matter more than the unborn? She is here living a real life, she may have children who will be affected badly. She will suffer far more going through 9 months of pregnancy to give the baby to someone else.

It's a heartless in humane point of view.