To think there are a lot of misconceptions about terminating a pregnancy

[fiveacres]

Obviously, about abortion, which is a contentious issue for some.

I am approaching the third due date of the pregnancy I terminated in the autumn of 2011 at 9 weeks.

I was a very pious sort once, who believed that abortions were morally wrong. i admit that freely. I still do feel that the best option is not to be in that position in the first place.

However, although I do sometimes think about it, I don't regret it. I've been pregnant twice since so it hasn't affected my fertility.

I paid privately. I did not have any counselling - I was undecided when I went for the initial appointment but I have to say it was very much 'assumed' that I wanted to terminate. The record of the abortion is not in my medical file.

You don't have to give a reason, although they did press me to have the implant, which I refused. They did do a scan, which was a bit upsetting.

It did not hurt. I was warned I would bleed a lot but I didn't. My periods came back in 6 weeks.

You are in a room with a LOT of other women after the procedure, which is upsetting.

Other than that, I felt good after having it done, relieved, happy, mainly relieved.

I do have the odd flash of guilt. I wouldn't do it again.

But, I was reading another thread and it crossed my mind a lot of people do not really seem to know what having a termination is like. My experience may be typical or it may not be, I don't know, but it would be interesting to see what the experiences of others are to try to dispel or to address some of the myths that surround this difficult but sometimes necessary issue.

ton this is a very hard thing to consider but in almost all countries, cost does have an influence I think.

it's unacceptable to say this in the UK but the reality is that there is only so much money available. It is incredibly sad, and I am so sorry for people who loose a baby.

Where I live, below a certain point the very premature babies often do not receive intervention. A consultant said (compassionately) that 'they let nature take its course'.

Again, I do not say this to be cruel and I am very sorry for people who have lost a tiny one. I say it because sometimes things do have to be paid for, that's the pragmatic reality even with things that strike into the core of us, and because living with a very severely disabled person is extraordinarily hard. People crumble under that ... And there are a lot of people who are unable to communicate who live in sometimes very poor conditions, same as old people.

It's a bit away from the main discussion about terminations maybe. But the financial cost of unwanted children (or even wanted!) is very high and massively more so with severe disability.

Meerka has summed it up very well.

And it brings us back to blame, shame, and punishment. These women will, collectively, becomes targets for negative rhetoric about public spending, the care system, NHS funding, and more. It'll all be the fault of these feckless women getting themselves pregnant and then foisting their unwanted babies onto the state. Then female rights begin to be eroded further with some, then all, being forced to raise their unwanted child instead of "just" giving birth to it.

Once some rights are removed, it becomes easier to remove more and more rights. Little by little everything women have fought for and bargained for and lobbied for can be chipped away, our rights chipped away, our status chipped away.

But who cares, so long as no one is killing babies.

Yeah, winter paraphrased what I said really well there. Obviously you're going to interpret it as "I don't really care very much" but what I actually said was that I"m never going to support abortion because I don't agree with it - whether it's legal or not.

Tonberry - it's been in the news a lot over the past couple of years - a quick google of 'Abortion limit should be lowered UK' will bring up a load of news articles for you - take your pick.

Yes, I'm aware there are still risks of long term health problems but they certainly aren't inevitable and actually, seeing as more premature babies are being born and surviving, treatment and outcome should improve because of experience and increasing knowledge among medical professionals.

"there would be a huge increase of premature deliveries"

We were talking about this in the context of an alternative to late term abortion so that the mother can exercise her right to bodily autonomy and end her pregnancy while the foetus still has a right to life. Pro-choicers have frequently said that these late-term abortion scenarios would be 'vanishingly rare'/never happen so I'm not sure why you think there's going to be a flood of premature babies introduced into the system.

These women will, collectively, becomes targets for negative rhetoric about public spending, the care system, NHS funding, and more. It'll all be the fault of these feckless women getting themselves pregnant and then foisting their unwanted babies onto the state. Then female rights begin to be eroded further with some, then all, being forced to raise their unwanted child instead of "just" giving birth to it.

You only have to read comments in the online newspapers, especially the Daily Mail, to see this is so very true.

First sentence I mean, the second is the consequence that will come.

ttc - from my post "We were talking about this in the context of an alternative to late term abortion so that the mother can exercise her right to bodily autonomy and end her pregnancy while the foetus still has a right to life. Pro-choicers have frequently said that these late-term abortion scenarios would be 'vanishingly rare'/never happen so I'm not sure why you think there's going to be a flood of premature babies introduced into the system."

bumbley in the context of how many premature babies are born each year, the increase would be huge and there would be plenty of women who would choose to be induced at 24 weeks to end the pregnancy if that was the only option open to them which would increase the numbers further.

Abortion should be done as early as possible and as late as necessary.

Bumbleymummy- presumably under your idea of women being forced to wait for the edge of viability for induction rather than having an early abortion, there would be a huge increase in 24 weekers.

Bumbley, we're not talking about people who would have otherwise aborted post-24 weeks. Clearly...

If all women who would've otherwise aborted - even in the first trimester - are forced to carry EVERY unwanted pregnancy to term, you've got a hell of a lot more antenatal care on your hands, much of which will be made of up on women who go into labour earlier than expected, delivering premature babies.

"the increase would be huge"

We're talking about 'vanishingly rare/this would never happen because women don't wait until post 24 weeks to terminate situations here. It's an alternative to abortion in 'as late as necessary' scenarios.

If abortion was banned but women had the option to deliver at 24 weeks instead because the baby is then viable, there would be an increase in 24 week babies. Why are you not understanding this?

Also, a poll published today by Buzz feed and IPSOS shows that the majority of people actually support unrestricted access to abortion.

This Is How 23 Countries Around The Worl... www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-23-countries-around-the-world-feel-about-abortio

FeijoaSundae Plus a lot more infants in care afterwards and traumatised women.

You're talking about this in a different context. Induction was brought up as an alternative to termination post-24 weeks. Termination post-24 weeks came up because people were saying that they think abortion should be available to term for any reason (Woman's right to choose whenever/for whatever reason) this apparently wouldn't result in an increase of abortion post-24 weeks anyway because it would be 'vanishingly rare' etc. Yet somehow even though termination post-24 week would 'never happen' there would be an influx of premature babies putting a strain on the NHS if induction was offered as an alternative to termination in those cases.

I understand what you're saying Tonberry - but that's not why were discussing induction. See my above posts.

"We're talking about 'vanishingly rare/this would never happen because women don't wait until post 24 weeks to terminate situations here. It's an alternative to abortion in 'as late as necessary' scenarios."

So you're talking about a situation where pre-24 weeks there's still abortion available? Obviously the numbers will be vanishingly small if you're only suggesting it as a possible option for women who want to abort healthy pregnancies post-24 weeks.

And even then it's a terrible idea to deliberately induce a baby that long before term for no good medical reason - as various people said above, low risk of survival, risk of long-term disability, possible huge amounts of painful medical intervention, massive cost in terms of hospital stay etc. (my cousin had her eldest at 26 weeks - mercifully now a completely healthy 7 year old - but he was in NICU for MONTHS and there were times when it was very touch and go whether he'd survive). There's a huge difference between "possibly viable" and "full term". Unless, of course, you believe in "life at all costs", regardless of possible suffering, which I suppose bumbley does.

leedy, People are saying that they support abortion to term and yes, there is a big difference between 24 weeks and full term but apparently that doesn't matter to pro-choicers - woman's choice above all else. Why are you all of a sudden concerned about the welfare of the foetus if it is born prematurely? You support terminating its life as the alternative.

some pro-choicers that should say. Not all of them support abortion to term.

Oh FFS bumbley will you stop bleating on about "but I don't understaaaaand, I neeeeeeeeed you to explain why you horrible women who support abortion to term don't support my brilliant idea of offering women a chance to have dangerously early inductions instead because LIFE, it's so incredibly relevant to most women's lives and it is clearly the most important thing to talk about on this important topic, and if you don't agree with me you are INCONSISTENT AND WRONG QED".

Yes, I do support a woman's right to choose abortion, to term if necessary. No qualifications. I don't have to like it, and I suspect it never happens or will happen, but should it arise, and if a woman and her doctors make that choice, then it should be legal. I don't think the only alternatives after a certain point should be induction or going to term, though they should be options (and actually, I don't think non-medically-required induction before a certain point should be an option at all).

And yes, I'm concerned about the welfare of premature babies BECAUSE THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN BORN at that point. And, under some circumstances, I think it's better not to be born at all/to die than to be born into a life of suffering. Unlike you, I don't think a foetus in the womb is exactly the same as a born person, I don't think terminating a pregnancy is the same as killing a baby, and I don't think "life!" should be preserved at all costs.

Now. Do you understand now. Can you stop asking the same questions over and over again under the guise of "just exploring the topic, I'm so interested" in the hope that we will all go ACTUALLY BUMBLEY WE HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT, WE ADMIT THAT YOU'RE RIGHT AND WE'RE WRONG, and let people get on with discussing the vast vast majority of abortions that happen before 24 weeks.

"will you stop bleating on about "but I don't understaaaaand, I neeeeeeeeed you to explain "

See, that's the kind of crap that's completely unnecessary. You're a grown woman - can you really not get your point across without resorting to this nonsense?

You haven't explained why you think it should be abortion rather than induction other than it being a 'woman's choice' but it 's not necessary for bodily autonomy so why should she have the choice to terminate?

I don't neeeeeed you to explain. I don't think you're able to explain because it makes no logical sense whatsoever. "Abortion or nothing (which is what the current position is after 24 weeks)".

"I don't think "life!" should be preserved at all costs."

So do you support euthanasia of babies/children who face a "life of suffering"?

And just a reminder that we came back to this post-24 week argument because TONBERRY referred to it in her above post - saying that I was suggesting that I said 'all these early-induced babies should be put up for adoption' when actually , we had only been discussing induction in the context of it being an alternative to post-24 week abortion for any reason that some posters said they support (and which currently does not exist) and which apparently 'would never happen' anyway.

"So do you support euthanasia of babies/children who face a "life of suffering"?"

No, because SEE ABOVE RE THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN BORN.

" I don't think you're able to explain because it makes no logical sense whatsoever. "Abortion or nothing (which is what the current position is after 24 weeks)"."

I'm perfectly able to explain, and I'm perfectly logical GIVEN THAT (unlike you) I DON'T THINK A FOETUS IN THE WOMB IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS A BORN BABY. I believe women should have a right to choose abortion, to term if necessary. I believe women should also have other options where appropriate, so I don't think "abortion or nothing". I do not believe that induction at micro-preemie levels of gestation should be an option because it results in bringing a possibly very unhealthy new life into the world with poor prospects and very little going for them other than "being alive" (for now). I believe the closer a woman gets to term then induction could be recommended as a possible option, but again, it should be up to the woman whether she wants that option. The fact that the situation is almost definitely unlikely to happen ("Oh hello, I am 8 months pregnant and I have just decided to have an abortion") doesn't mean that I think there should be legal restrictions on it.

Your deliberate (or possibly just obtuse) misunderstanding is amazing.

"You haven't explained why you think it should be abortion rather than induction other than it being a 'woman's choice' but it 's not necessary for bodily autonomy so why should she have the choice to terminate?"

Because it brings an entirely new person into the equation who will need care, with possibly very complex needs and who may have a frankly terrible life. Also inducing a live birth is more risky etc. for the woman than a termination.

And before you say "but the foetus is a person too! I'm thinking about that person!", I DON'T THINK A FOETUS IN THE WOMB IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS A BORN BABY. I DON'T THINK TERMINATING A PREGNANCY IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS KILLING A BABY. Repeat ad infinitum.

And (before I give up completely) no, I don't like the idea of women terminating late healthy pregnancies. You don't either. The difference between us is that I don't want to stop them doing it because I respect their right to make their own choices (w/ medical advice).

dear me, leedy. Treating women as independent adults capable of making their own decisions.

Whatever next?

Please don't give up completely, leedy! It's her modus operandi, and she relies on others doing just that.

She'll just stop talking to you soon. That's what she's done to me.