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.

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

Medical staff will withdraw treatment when they believe it will prolong suffering or there is no chance of improvement. This includes premature babies, so for some of these hypothetical premature babies they would be (to use your term) 'euthanised' by the withdrawal of life-supporting measures.

Like others, I don't necessarily think late term abortion is a good thing but that is not my decision to make. It is down to the individual woman. I support choice, the choice of grown female adults to do as they please with their uterus and the contents of said uterus. Without restriction, interference, or conditions.

Tell me bumbley, what is your stance on abortion in cases of rape? Teen pregnancy? Severe hypermesis? High risk of uterine rupture?

I hope you don't have daughters if you think so little of their rights to bodily autonomy and to control their own fertility.

Ok bumbly so you dont support abortion legal or illegal that was made clear pages and pages back

However the question I asked you was we all know that a woman if denied access to safe legal abortion can and has resorted to desperate measures, back street abortion online pills and even suicide. Clearly even you can't say this is right, there has to be an alternative because women will always needs and want the choice. What is your solution to this? I know you don't accept abortion in any circumstances BUT it happens. Any rational person would think it better that women are safe no?

Don't worry, Tonberry, bumbley will be along soon to tell you that in her mind switching off life support is completely different because it's not "directly killing", same as denying someone an abortion isn't forcing them to give birth because it's not "directly intervening". Only direct medical action is "forcing". :( It's like arguing with jelly.

Also (correct me if I'm wrong, bumbley), she also disagrees with abortion for rape victims, teen pregnancy, hyperemesis, and pretty much anything short of "the woman is about to die" (and even then she thinks the foetus should be given as much of a chance as possible).

At least she's consistent, I'll give her that.

Switching off life support or any other withdrawal of medical treatment, I should have said.

"Clearly even you can't say this is right, there has to be an alternative because women will always needs and want the choice. What is your solution to this? I know you don't accept abortion in any circumstances BUT it happens. Any rational person would think it better that women are safe no?"

I hope this isn't the case, but I actually suspect that deep down, she doesn't care, because she thinks women who have illegal abortions deserve all they get. Better a few of those selfish women die if it saves more foetuses.

Apparantly abortion in the case of rape makes women into vicims. The best way to avoid it is to eliminate rape.

"because SEE ABOVE RE THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN BORN"

So you're prepared to show more 'compassion' for a foetus than a born baby/child who has a life of suffering ahead? How interesting.

"inducing a live birth is more risky etc. for the woman than a termination"

Remember we're talking about late term abortions here - not early stage abortions.

Again, you can treat a woman as an independent adult capable of making decision to end a pregnancy without having to terminate. Termination is not necessary in order to have bodily autonomy at that stage so what is the reason for supporting late term termination if it isn't 'bodily autonomy'?

I'm not trying to get anyone to 'give up' fei.

nods

Yes, it would be lovely if we had a world where there was no rape, no coerced pregnancies, there was 100% effective contraception, nobody ever made a stupid mistake, etc. etc.

Meanwhile, back in present-day reality...

ton berry - Withdrawal of treatment/turning off life support is not considered euthanasia. Euthanasia is currently illegal in the UK.

"do as they please with their uterus and the contents of said uterus"

Why should they have control over the 'content' of their uteruses when those 'contents' are genetic unique human entitles that are capable of survival without her?

I've said before that I don't agree with abortion unless it is to save the life of the mother and even then I think every attempt should be made to save both. I have no issue with people 'controlling their fertility' with contraception.

leedy, you don't have to take my word for it on the 'euthanasia isn't the same as turning off life support' thing - you can legally turn off life support.

"because she thinks women who have illegal abortions deserve all they get"

Don't be ridiculous.

"what is the reason for supporting late term termination if it isn't 'bodily autonomy'?"

I would support it if it was the option the woman and her HCP decided was the best for her. Just as I would support a decision to continue the pregnancy or early induction if that iis what the woman and her HCP decided was the best for her. The crucial point is that it is not my decision to make.

Why won't you answer my question bumbly? I already stated many times that I KNOW your view on abortion, I don't know why you feel the need to keep saying it.

Missed your question Lucy - what is my solution? Trying to ensure women don't find themselves in that position in the first place - better access to contraception/more awareness of mistakes that can be made when using it/Access to emergency contraception and improving circumstances for women so that they don't feel that abortion is their only option. As I said above, I don't agree with it, so I'm not going to say, 'oh, it's ok in x,y,z situation'.

"Remember we're talking about late term abortions here - not early stage abortions."

I remember quite clearly. It's still more risky if you want a live baby at the end of it.

"So you're prepared to show more 'compassion' for a foetus than a born baby/child who has a life of suffering ahead? How interesting."

FFS, you can keep saying that (I think you've already said it twice: HA HA PRO-CHOICERS THINK MURDERING IS COMPASSIONATE, WHY DON'T THEY SHOW THIS SO CALLED COMPASSION TO BORN PEOPLE EH? EH? INTERESTING, EH? QED I WIN), it doesn't make it true. I don't believe terminating a pregnancy is murder, or equivalent to killing a born person. At most, it's equivalent to switching off life support.

Again, you are assuming that a foetus is EXACTLY THE SAME as a born child, with the same capacity for feeling, suffering, experience, memory etc. and who needs to be treated in exactly the same way.

"Termination is not necessary in order to have bodily autonomy at that stage so what is the reason for supporting late term termination if it isn't 'bodily autonomy'?"

Because, for one thing, induction involves bringing a new person into the equation, against its biological mother's will, in a particularly grim situation, who will then need huge amounts of effort to be kept alive (unless you're suggesting women just give birth and then their micro-preemie baby is left to fend for itself) and may experience great suffering. AS I HAVE ALREADY SAID. TWICE. I know you think that there's another independent life from the moment of conception. I don't. Abortion == no new living human being. Induction == new living human being.

"So, would you prefer to terminate this pregnancy you only discovered at 24 weeks due to being a raging alcoholic, or would you like to give us a really disabled premature baby with FAS and nobody to look after it?"

As I did say upthread, I suspect if there were no time limits and if women did actually want to terminate very late pregnancies, induction would be suggested as one option for pregnancies that are nearly at term. But you're talking about the bare limits of viability being your threshold for "well, you can have it then and that's your bodily autonomy back - see, all fixed! The baby is pretty likely to die, but that's ok, you didn't kill it!".

And as I also said upthread, I respect women's abilities to make the right choices for themselves. Whatever they may be. Even if I don't agree with them.

"I would support it if it was the option the woman and her HCP decided was the best for her. Just as I would support a decision to continue the pregnancy or early induction if that iis what the woman and her HCP decided was the best for her. The crucial point is that it is not my decision to make."

Exactly. This.

"leedy, you don't have to take my word for it on the 'euthanasia isn't the same as turning off life support' thing - you can legally turn off life support."

So would you be ok with a woman just inducing at 20 weeks, even if it results in a death? I mean, nobody did any killing, right?

I had an abortion a few years ago. I was quite young and my ex was an emotionally abusive turd who had just started to turn violent (not hitting me but breaking things in front of me as a threat, smashing my car up etc). in fact shortly after leaving him I had to rescue my SIL from his brother, who was even more violent and abusive. She had his baby and if I had had mine I know I'd be tied to the nutter in the same unpleasant way she's tied to her ex.

I got over it pretty well really; no it wasn't pleasant but it was better than carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. It felt like rape to me, having something in my body that I didn't want there, making me sick, sapping my energy, all the while knowing that if I kept it the child which would be born would have an unstable, potentially violent father and a mother who was too young and financially completely inept. When I awoke from the procedure all I felt was relief.

In the end I married a wonderful man with whom I can envisage a bright future, a person who is an excellent father and incredibly gentle and kind. We have a 6 month old baby and if I hadn't terminated that pregnancy all those years ago, she wouldn't exist. I feel satisfied that I am at a stage in life where I can provide her with not only the material things she will need, but the emotional maturity that she requires of me to be a good parent. I have no regrets about my abortion.

People who think abortion is a huge tragedy have forgotten that a much bigger tragedy is a child that receives a poor start in life due to a sentimental and romanticised notion of human zygotes.

Just a question for those who oppose abortion: do you avoid all products made by Nestle and its subsidiaries? Because if you don't, you're a bunch of raging hypocrites

"It's still more risky if you want a live baby at the end of it."

You know how late term abortions are carried out right? Do you have stats to show that they are more risky? I've asked for this before and people have been unable to produce them.

"I don't believe terminating a pregnancy is murder, or equivalent to killing a born person."

I didn't say it was - unless you're equating euthanasia to murder here? ( I don't think you mean to…)

I'm not trying to 'win' anything btw. Not sure where this obsession with point scoring is coming from.

"you are assuming that a foetus is EXACTLY THE SAME as a born child, with the same capacity for feeling, suffering, experience, memory etc.:

We're talking about late term abortions here - 24 weeks - term. Aside from where they happen to be what do you think the difference is? You think they can't feel pain at this stage? A newborn doesn't have much experience/many memories either.

"it's equivalent to switching off life support" No, switching off life support and allowing someone to die because you are no longer supporting them is not the same as actively stopping their heart.

And what is wrong with bringing a new person into the equation? You can say it is wrong to deny a woman rights over her own body but what is wrong with this? Because it might need support (you seem to be focussing on 24 weeks here even though the discussion is up to term so some babies may not need any support)

"I respect women's abilities to make the right choices for themselves "

Bert, as explained to you over 3 pages on the last thread that doesn't answer the question. You are stating your position - that you"support that decision if it was considered the best option" but you don't explain why given that it isn't for 'bodily autonomy' reasons. You didn't get it after 3 pages so you you're not going to get it.

Yes, I boycott nestle micro.

"No, switching off life support and allowing someone to die because you are no longer supporting them is not the same as actively stopping their heart."

So, as above: if someone was to induce birth at 20 weeks, knowing there was no chance of survival, you'd be fine with that? I mean, that's just "no longer supporting them", right? You're not "stopping their heart"?

" You are stating your position - that you"support that decision if it was considered the best option" but you don't explain why given that it isn't for 'bodily autonomy' reasons."

That's the thing. I don't have to. It's not my decision. It's not my body. And I don't think "but they can just have the baby and it might survive!" just gets rid of the bodily autonomy considerations, as you seem to do.

"And what is wrong with bringing a new person into the equation?"

It's bringing someone into the world "just because", with no consideration of their future or quality of life or who's going to look after them, just focusing on the fact that they are alive and patting yourself on the back because you "chose life!" (or is that Wham?). I think deliberately bringing a child into the world in a situation where they're unwanted, where they're possibly going to suffer, etc. is wrong. More wrong than abortion.

well bumbley at least you're consistent, so many pro- lifers aren't. I don't really fancy a bug debate about the whole abortion thing but I'll out my two cents in: when I am trying to assess a situation like this I tend to judge who stands to suffer more by empathising with both parties. As a foetus cannot think, feel pain, or conceptualise its situation in any way it seems clear to me that it will not suffer if the pregnancy is terminated, whereas both the mother and the child will likely suffer if it isn't. I think the dogma of "but it's a human life!" is meaningless and overstated - human life is important because of our capacity to think and feel, not because of our genomes and DNA.

Everyone's different though I suppose. And at least you aren't anti- contraception too, those morons really get my goat

"Bert, as explained to you over 3 pages on the last thread that doesn't answer the question. You are stating your position - that you"support that decision if it was considered the best option" but you don't explain why given that it isn't for 'bodily autonomy' reasons. You didn't get it after 3 pages so you you're not going to get it."

My "why" is because I think that people should be allowed to make decisions about what happens to their own bodies. I have come to this conclusion after much reading and thinking, and as a result of my upbringing, background and personal philosophy. Is that the sort of answer you want? Because I've tried every other sort of answer.................

The more I read your posts bumbly the more I'm convinced you're a male politician.
I asked a very simple question with regard to illegal abortion and you're answer is contraception?

When i became pregnant it wouldn't have mattered if I had a live in nanny,a million pounds in the bank and every support network known to man.
I DID NOT WANT TO BE PREGNANT.
Luckily i could borrow the money to travel to the uk. I look at my children and it upsets me that i was suicidal at that time and was so close to taking my own life. I can't imagine their lives now if I hadn't been able to have an abortion. Oh but at least no foetus would have been killed just two children left without a mother and my dp left to pick up the pieces

"My "why" is because I think that people should be allowed to make decisions about what happens to their own bodies."

Mine too. Though apparently according to bumbley this isn't acceptable or logical past 24 weeks, as the fact that you could possibly give birth to a very premature baby means you can "get your bodily autonomy back!" and so any decisions you make past that point are invalid. Despite the fact that giving birth is still something that you do with your body...

I'm not going to say that she won't answer questions, lest she jump down my throat, but she certainly doesn't give straight answers.

See above re: arguing with jelly.