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??

DiaDuit - I was not in any way trying to call you thick, I was trying for a 'agree to disagree' end to this conversation, because we view life differently (nothing wrong with how you see it, its just a completely different philosophy to mine so there is no common ground from which we can start).

My life is far from glorious. I still think life has value and we should try to preserve it as far as possible. I'm not saying 'birth at all costs'. I'm saying I feel keeping the number of abortions as low as possible is an inherently good thing, much like keeping the number of traffic accidents low is a good thing (even if some people who die in traffic accidents would have had sucky lives had they lived).

Your parents certainly didnt have you to improve your situation.

They would disagree. They had me to share the gift of life, and I am grateful for it. I understand you don't feel the same way, but I'm not going to try and tell you why your parents made their decisions, so please leave mine out of it.

They would disagree. They had me to share the gift of life

Sharing the gift of life yes, but to improve your situation? That of non existence? No. Unless you had consciousness and experiences as a non existent being?

I consider existing and improvement over non-existing.

Sorry, ^ 'an' improvement.

I'm saying I feel keeping the number of abortions as low as possible is an inherently good thing,

And i'm saying keeping unwanted babies low has higher priority and facilitating this means access to abortion.

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.

Who are you arguing with? No one in this thread is saying unborn lives matter more than the woman's.

For me, pro-choice is the only tenable position.

If we were able to transfer a fetus from one uterus to another or into cold storage, I'd become vehemently anti-abortion (except TFMR with a fairly narrow definition of MR). But we aren't.

If we had time machines so women could go back and not have sex that day or . arrange for their rapist to be arrested before he started, then I'd be firmly anti-abortion.

If every woman who was ever pregnant found out before she was 5w pg, and nobody had a change of circumstances during pregnancy, I'd support a time limit.

If no woman ever found out about life-limiting medical conditions and the precise extent of those conditions on her particular baby later than 20+2, I'd support a time limit on TFMR.

But science has got us precisely this far, andt therefore within the current limits of human endeavour permitting legal abortion for any reason and at any stage up to birth is the very best option.

Which is to say "wouldn't it be lovely if there were no unwanted or medically unsustainable pgies and therefore no need for abortions ... but there are so there is."

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

I just don't get it. Regarding the baby, just the baby, as a being in itself. Not considering the best thing for the mother here at all (in this case, not as part of the wider debate).

You really think that life in general is so awful, it would be better not to have lived at all?

In all honesty the only time I have ever heard that sentiment expressed is in suicidal or pre-suicidal people.

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?

I honestly can't see how that argument doesn't equally apply to snuffing out my teenage sons life with a pillow. It would guarantee no suffering for him, and if I don't do it I will have a decreasing level of control over his life, and be casting him out into the unpredictability of life. Life is full of suffering, and I know he will inevitably suffer, endure pain etc. But I take the risk on the chance that the good will outweigh the bad, and because I fundamentally believe that life is better than not-life.

So I will always believe that minimising abortions (where possible) is a good thing. (I do realise it is not always possible, and I don't believe anyone but the woman involved has the right to say what happens with her body).

Dia duit, I too can't get my head around the idea that never existing is better than life. Life is amazing, even when it's shit, although I appreciate for some that is not the case. Anyway, I still think it's a crap argument against abortion, taking that argument to its logical conclusion would mean that contraception should also be banned as that too has resulted in a lot of people not existing who otherwise might have.

I think it brings in to question the point at which an abortion for reasons other than medical issues where the mother is at risk or there is no chance of survival of the foetus should the pregnancy continue or issues incompatible with life can be taken (and I realise that disabilities identified in the foetus is another discussion entirely) - where babies have been born at 23 weeks and survived to continue with a pregnancy to that point and then change you mind - where there is a slim chance the foetus could survive if born invokes certain arguments or discussions. And why shouldn't we have this discussion - the laws are based on a standpoint created by general attitude/feelings/social acceptance of our society - all opinions should be considered and hopefully we come to something that takes in to consideration all opinions, facts, ideals as a society that the overall and it helps us all to understand other issues from different points of view.

One example is the report from some doctors/philosophers (can't remember which) arguing for full term abortion - our current legislation dictates that after 24 weeks the mother ceases to have control of her body as it does not permit abortion past this point so the argument of pro-choice means you accept a abortion for any reason is invalid - we accept it up to a point and that point is dictated by at what point you deem that foetus to be a potential child - for many religions this is at conception, and for some preventing conception is deemed wrong, for our society it appears to revolve around when there is a possibility of the baby surviving after it is born at that stage - so 24 weeks when I believe the chance of survival goes over 90% or there abouts - and I think that this also takes in to account potential of sever disabilities. However medicine has improved and infants as young as 23 weeks have survived so perhaps it does have to be questioned and that can be done without being anti choice. The philosophers/doctors argued that if abortion is allowed it should be allowed at any point up to live birth as only at that point was the baby a potential human being. I believe there is a group that agree with the idea of full term abortion - I couldn't stomach that so whilst I am pro-choice I don't accept that full term abortion should be allowed and generally agree with the limits though I think that more should be done for babies pre-24 weeks (often hospitals refuse to attempt to save a dc born before 24 weeks) and maybe the understanding of the survival of babies born at earlier gestations which may mould the limits in the future.

I am pro choice but I feel this woman's attitude is irresponsible and evokes a massive emotional response hence why it leaves you with conflicting feelings - it is disrespectful to say the least to both her responsibilities , the foetus she aborted and to the women who have taken this decision very seriously and to the debate.

You really think that life in general is so awful, it would be better not to have lived at all?

Oh no, you are misrepresenting my posts an ignoring that i have actually said i am very happy. I have not said that life is so awful. I have said that life is not an improvement on not existing. It does not benefit something that doesnt exist to then exist.

I honestly can't see how that argument doesn't equally apply to snuffing out my teenage sons life with a pillow

Not comparable at all. Obviously.

taking that argument to its logical conclusion would mean that contraception should also be banned as that too has resulted in a lot of people not existing who otherwise might have.

Not sure what you mean by this.

I am pro choice and believe that any woman who wants an abortion should be able to have one for any reason right up until the moment of birth.

Anyone who doesn't support women's right to do so doesn't, actually, support women's rights to be full human beings with bodily autonomy. Because it is fuck all to do with you if another woman chooses to end her pregnancy because she doesn't like the colour of the hospital wallpaper and would rather go to the pub instead. Birth has to be the point at which a foetus becomes a person, otherwise setting limits on abortion are still insisting that the woman's body is the property of the state/her partner/sentimental bucketheaded foetusworshippers (who never seem to have a problem with women dying because they have been denied abortions that were needed for medical emergencies...).

Birth has to be the point at which a foetus becomes a person, otherwise setting limits on abortion are still insisting that the woman's body is the property of the state/her partner/sentimental bucketheaded foetusworshippers

I'm not sure how that follows. Surely you can believe a foetus becomes a person before birth, but that that person is not more important than the woman (she is a person too, and she's been one for longer...)

My grandfather, in World War II, was in a sort of SF role and killed hundreds and hundreds of people. I asked him once, when I was about eight years old, how he felt about it. his answer really stuck with me and I think applies in all situations, including this one. He said, "It is OK to kill, as long as you do so with the greatest of reluctance".

I think a woman should have the choice not to be pregnant up to birth but the fetus should be removed and put in an incubator at Around 24 weeks .

Killing a post. 24 weeks fetus inside one woman then saving one from another makes no sense .

For the record solid do you agree with abortion on demand if it is the "wrong " gender ?

I think a woman should have the choice not to be pregnant up to birth but the fetus should be removed and put in an incubator at Around 24 weeks

And then what happens to this likely severely disabled or brain damaged baby?

Adoptive parents are just queuing round the corner for them.

Why would you do that to a baby by choice.

For the record solid do you agree with abortion on demand if it is the "wrong " gender

if that baby is going to be rejected or live with its parents disappointment their whole life. Or be damaged in u term be case it was a boy and mummy didn't care then maybe it is better that it's aborted rather than live so unwanted. It's better than neglect

Damaged in utero

I think the next interesting debate is going to be whether gender selective abortion is acceptable.It is apparently on the rise in the uk, generally girls being aborted and I guess if you follow the letter of U.K law, it is not legal, but if you follow what most women on this thread are saying, a woman can have an abortion for any reason she chooses, then you cannot argue with it being because she wants a boy baby not a girl.

www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-lost-girls-illegal-abortion-widely-used-by-some-uk-ethnic-groups-to-avoid-daughters-has-reduced-female-population-by-between-1500-and-4700-9059790.html

I personally feel that abortion should not be seen as an acceptable form of birth control and there should be far fewer than currently occur.The law was created to ensure that womens lives were not put at risk and that they did not suffer severe emotional trauma. The law has since been totally abused to the point where doctors presign agreement so they don't have to faff around with 2 signiatures at the time.
What I found really interesting on a recent thread about men paying maintenance for their children, was that there were lots of women very adamantly stating that even if a man had a one night stand and contraception failed and the woman got pregnant and decided to go ahead with the pregnancy , he should accept that from the moment he decided to have sex,it could result in a baby and so he should either not have sex or accept that he may have to be responsible financially for a baby should a pregnancy occur. Why does this not equally apply to women? I was surprised at how vehement women were being about men and their need to take responsibility,and yet not applying it to woman and pregnancy.
I am also horrified that people think it is acceptable to abort up until full term. When a baby is aborted late in the pregnancy,the doctor injects the baby with digoxin to kill it with a heart attack and then they have to induce labour.If a pregnancy has progressed that far,and the baby is viable,why not just induce labour,without killing the baby first. If the mother does not want the child,it can be adopted but what is the justification for inducing a heart attack just because the mother has decided she does not want the baby?

it's legal - I wouldn't do it personally but it is acceptable in law

and yes people know about late termination thanks for sharing - many late terminations are for medical reasons and generally heartbreaking for the people involved - please do keep finding ways to keep that hurt going

I hate the idea of it being used for gender but if a woman wanted a termination I would support her regardless of her reasons - because that is what being pro-choice means

oh and your man woman thing - it applies differently to women because they have to be pregnant ... surely you get that bit

But presumably the woman who has an abortion because of gender,intends to keep getting herself pregnant until it is the right gender,in which case I am not sure the 'health risk' argument would be relevant.
No...I don't get the difference between a man and a womans responsibility. What the woman were saying is that if a man does not want to risk being financially responsible for a baby,he should not have sex,because mistakes can happen.Why does this not apply equally to women?