Abortion ...genuinely interested if you are Pro life.....

[Foxy333]

I was undecided, not sure. Then I read this article with example ( pro-choice article) of how to tell if society really does/ or should/ value the life of an embryo the same as an adult or child.

It said imagine you are in a burning building and gave to get out . Next to you is a 2 year old toddler and a small fridge in which 5 embryos or test tube babies post-conception are stored. Building could be an IVF clinic. You can climb out the window of the building but only time to save either the toddler or save the small fridge with embryos in.

Which do you save and which more important?? Those embryos would be massively wanted by some couple going through ivf, could be their last chance at parenthood. Which is more important for you to save.

It made me think. I think the unborn baby does have some rights but a born living child.....Not sure you can say they are equal. How many people would save the fridge with more potential living people in it and leave the 2 year old. I know its hyperthetical but am genuinely interested in others views.

Force a woman to give birth because it will save a life.
Force a woman to donate a kidney because it will save a life.

Whats the difference to 'pro-lifers'?

Fairly obviously, I would have thought, 'pro-lifers' don't want to force a woman to give birth, they want to prevent anyone from killing a foetus, which they believe to already be alive. They are not trying to save the foetus' life, they are trying to prevent it being killed. In the latter example, nobody is under threat of being killed, just of dying. These are not the same thing.
Whether you agree with 'pro-lifers' or not, I find it very odd how many people don't seem to grasp the basic concept that they believe that a foetus is alive already and has a right not to be killed.

No one is faced with choosing between a toddler and an unborn baby are they?

It depends on a woman's reason(s) for terminating the pregnancy. Can't afford to feed/clothes/house another child, got to put the 2yo's needs above those of the unborn baby. Health issues that mean a pregnancy would be risky to life/long-term health, got to put the 2yo's need for a living parent ahead of the unborn baby. 2yo has a disability/high care needs, got the put the needs of the 2yo ahead of the unborn baby. Not ready to mentally cope with the care of another child, got to put the care of the 2yo first.

There's a massive difference between frozen embryos in an ivf cinic and forced abortions.

I'm sorry for what happened to you Forced abortions should not exist, pro-choice means freedom of choice which includes the choice to continue a pregnancy of that is what the woman wants.

How about this scenario? An adult is in a burning building with a toddler. Both can be saved but there may be some risk of injury to both and maybe reduced quality of life following escape, however, if the adult kills the child it would guarantee that their life would carry on as before with no threat to health or quality of life. What would the choice be? Now that scenario should really provoke some thought!

Under no circumstances would it be right for an adult to kill a child. For goodness sake....

I’d love to know what the pro-Birthers think about IVF, if they agree with it.

I'd identify as pro-life and I'm not a huge fan of IVF. It is possible to have IVF without creating additional embryos, and I think that does avoid most of the moral issues. However, in general, with a growing population, helping people to have children isn't something I think we should be devoting a lot of resources to. I would much, much rather we as a whole society worked harder at providing good care and resources to children and their families now, than at finding ways to increase even further the numbers of children born. But I freely admit that I am massively idealistic and hopelessly unpragmatic about things like this.

Absolutely bonkers scenario not even relevant to the pro life debate. You are asking if you'd let a child die over something in a test tube. It's ridiculous. Abortion isn't about letting a 2 year old child die?

I don't know whether to describe myself as pro-choice or pro-life. I disagree with abortion except where the mother's life is in danger, and personally am not sure I would want one then. But I don't want to ban abortion - I want good sex education, free contraception, excellent antenatal care, free/low cost childcare, etc so that women are less likely to have an abortion.

I would save the two year old, because I do think that people who are already born take priority over embryos. I would save my own child over another child, because my DD takes my priority. I still see value in embryos and in other people's children.

This is so stupid. We've been through ivf and even if that fridge was full with guaranteed embryos which would 100% result in a baby and I didn't know the 2 year old I'd still obviously save the 2 year old. Anyone who answered differently needs help.

Surely a better question would be if you were early stages pregnant and were diagnosed with cancer would you save yourself with chemo or put off the chemo to save the embryo even though it may kill you or cause you harm?

Although, I don't know why we need a question at all really. Why do some people feel the need to have opinions on other women's lives? I couldn't care less what other women do with their bodies, it doesn't harm me.

"I disagree with abortion except where the mother's life is in danger"

Why? Would you adopt a child from someone who went through an unwanted pregnancy? If not, what would you suggest the mother do?

So then what if it's that same baby a few months previously? Why should she no longer have the right to life? What if she were fully viable? What if, as there are some horrific stories of, she were aborted but survived the abortion? Should she be killed then or have the right to live?

92% of all terminations in the UK are carried out before 12wks and 98% of all terminations at any gestation are carried out on the grounds that continuing the pregnancy would cause harm to the mother either mentally or physically. The remaining 2% are for medical reasons relating to the foetus and 1.9% of these are carried out prior to 24wks and 0.1% after 24wks. Late term abortions are not the norm and the majority are for the saddest of reasons.

ILikeMyChickenFried

I hate the way people generalise the opinions of pro-life supporters. Some of the attitudes on here are revolting.

• absolutely agree with this. The inability of people to try and take into account someone else's point of view without hurling insults or making sweeping generalisations is depressing.

Abortion never will be a settled issue. I think people who show they cannot comprehend anything outside of their own opinion makes them seem foolish.

My argument in support of abortion is that no women should ever have a back street abortion. That alone is my reason to say that safe abortions must be available, no questions asked.
But I see it has a huge tragedy that they are required at all.
I've known a friend commit suicide after a late abortion and the horror of that will never leave me.

98% of all terminations at any gestation are carried out on the grounds that continuing the pregnancy would cause harm to the mother either mentally or physically.

Yeah legally speaking, but realistically no

Sorry, missed a bit off.

So the question of, would you save a viable baby over a living person is moot as most terminations carried out around/beyond the age of viability are for babies who are very likely not going to survive.

Yeah legally speaking, but realistically no

Being forcibly made to continue with an unwanted pregnancy and deliver the resulting child won't have an impact on a woman's physical or mental health...?

Why? Would you adopt a child from someone who went through an unwanted pregnancy? If not, what would you suggest the mother do?

I'm interested to know the answer to this too...

"My argument in support of abortion is that no women should ever have a back street abortion. That alone is my reason to say that safe abortions must be available, no questions asked."

This ^^ with bells on

"But I see it has a huge tragedy that they are required at all."

And I agree with this ^^ as well

Yep I think the "mental health" is often spurious in this case.

98% abortions are carried out under grounds C but to say that all 98% of those women would come to physical or emotional harm if they continued their pregnancy is simply not true. Surely every one of us knows one, if not several people who have agonised over whether to terminate and have decided to continue the pregnancy and have been eventually glad they did. My mum did all she could to try and miscarry my baby brother but now the sun shines out of his backside! My mother-in-law, my best friends mum, a friend of mine, all 3 fell pregnant unplanned more than 10 years after last child, all eventually continued with pregnancies and all our now the typical 'babies' of the family. many would choose to terminate in the same circumstances and cite catagory C but many could continue and come to no real long term harm, just a few more years of inconvenience maybe

Why do you care what the reasons are? All that matters is that the woman doesn't want to be pregnant, and thankfully, nobody in this country has to be pregnant if they don't want to be.

I don't understand all the people on here saying I'm pro-life but I wouldn't ban abortions. You are pro-choice. That's what pro-choice means, that personally, you may not feel you could have an abortion but that other people should have the right to choose.

Very pro choice. It's someone else's life and body, not yours. Why should anyone else be able to make that decision for them?

I would very easily abort a child now if I became pregnant. I can't afford a child, have no life to offer a child, am sick myself with no idea what's wrong with me and I am in debt. Why should I bring a child into that? It's not fair on the baby.

I fell preganant in my early 20’s in a relationship that was only a few weeks old (and wouldn’t go on to last), living hundreds of miles away from my family, sharing a flat and in a job that paid 14k a year.
I wasn’t irresponsible, we’d used a condom which split. I then got the morning after pill. Hey ho still got pregnant.
I’ve never wanted children, and I would have massively resented the child. Not a nice thing to say, but it’s honest.
I don’t, and have never, regretted my decision. I’d have been a terrible mother to an unwanted child.
I don’t know if that falls under that my termination was for ‘mental health’ as it would have been incredibly debilitating for me to continue a pregnancy I didn’t want. My EMA was at 6weeks and 6days, the embryo wasn’t even a fetus.
So in a way I suppose I’m one of those wicked women who did it as a ‘lifestyle choice’ 🤷‍♀️

Constance, I probably fall into that category- pro-life but agreeing there is a need for legal abortion.
Ultimately I think abortion as it is, is a symptom of wider societal issues, rather than the "solution" it's hailed to be- something which I find sad.

many would choose to terminate in the same circumstances and cite catagory C but many could continue and come to no real long term harm, just a few more years of inconvenience maybe

Why should they be forced to gamble their health and mental well-being? They very well may be one of the ones who is categorically not fine therefore the choice of whether to take that risk lies with the woman carrying the pregnancy. I was incredibly ill in pregnancy, had a very complicated delivery, and then topped it off by coming incredibly close to dying. The effect on my mental health still shows now. None of it could have been predicted or prevented but those are the risks of pregnancy and childbirth. Women absolutely should be able to terminate under Category C if they don't want to risk harm to their physical and mental health.