A question for the pro-life members of MN

[SemperIdem]

The biggest argument always boils down to “taking a life away, acting like God”.

So - how does IVF sit with you? Are you anti it, because it is “acting like God”. Are you for it because acting like God to create a life is somehow fine whereas taking one away is not?

Do you understand that many IVF pregnancies are high risk and may ultimately require medical management aka abortions?

I’m firmly pro science and think access to both abortions and IVF is a wonderful thing, for avoidance of doubt.

One never sees protests outside fertility clinics and I wondered why.

My point was that I don't believe that the lives of anyone don't matter.

I'm finding this a bit disingenuous, to be honest. I'm sure nobody on this thread would say that "lives don't matter".

What we're talking about is the point in time where these lives don't exist, never have and might well never. The world simply is how it is, like it is right now. Am I obliged to risk my physical or mental life and destroy myself for the non-existent? Right now?

I think you're oversimplifying in order to make a statement that is indisputable on the surface, but not really relevant, and full of assumptions, within the context of the discussion.

Someone has said that if they had been aborted it wouldn't matter. I am simply saying I don't agree. Anyway, I don't think we will get any further with this, and I don't wish to keep making points if you think them irrelevant at present

What about the life of the mother?

People always seem to say, "oh well what if this foetus grew up to cure cancer" etc etc. But what if the mother would've continued her life to do amazing things, had she not been forced to remain pregnant which led to whatever consequences she was trying to avoid.

But anyway, I find these arguments uncessary because I think right to choose is right to choose, and as soon as you start chipping away on that you're on a slippery slope.

It's not that they're irrelevant at present as much as they don't encompass the complexity of the situation.

I'm curious as to why there isn't newborn domestic adoption in the UK like there is in America? It just seems like it's another choice that should be available to women. Just to be clear, I'm not saying adoption should be used to deny women the right to abortion.

We have domestic newborn adoption here @Cartoonmom don't we?

It's just that women don't tend to choose it (preferring to keep their baby or have an abortion), and SS criteria for removing a newborn is incredibly high.

And I think the difference in women choosing to keep their child here rather than adoption is due to the much higher (though still not great) state support available, compared to the US

In the UK the mother has reasonable access to abortion, so why would she be forced to continue pregnancy? Or are you talking about other countries? It is very hurtful to be an unwanted child. I am surprised how many we seem to have in UK when abortion provision is fairly widespread.

Oh, ok, I didn't know that. In America women don't have to prove anything to social services other than they are voluntarily choosing to make an adoption plan for their baby.

@gnilliwdog - are you saying adopted kids are unwanted by their birth parents? In my experience as an adoptive mom, birth parents love their baby very much. They just don't have the emotional and/or financial resources to give the baby the life they want for it. Abortion is accessible in my area of America so birth moms are not being forced to carry the fetus to term. They choose not to get an abortion and then they choose to make an adoption plan. Choice being the key.

@Cartoonmom oh no, not saying that
I am in UK and we have many young people thrown out of the home, abused or neglected, or on the streets. Parents often offer little to no support etc. Many social factors involved, I suppose

I'm curious as to why there isn't newborn domestic adoption in the UK like there is in America? It just seems like it's another choice that should be available to women. Just to be clear, I'm not saying adoption should be used to deny women the right to abortion.

There is, but very few women and girls choose this option. They could if they wanted to but very few do for obvious reasons.

Oh, ok, I didn't know that. In America women don't have to prove anything to social services other than they are voluntarily choosing to make an adoption plan for their baby.

You don’t have to prove anything in the U.K. either and British women have a far longer cooling off period in which to change their minds. Adoption of new borns was very common here from the 50s to the early 70s.

Both the availability of abortion and the ceasing of any stigma for being an unmarried mother changed things.

@CecilyP - thank you, I didn't know how common it was in past decades. I've read adoption threads on MN but the children are always older so I think I just wrongly assumed newborn adoption was not allowed.

I think @Cartoonmom misunderstood that!

When I said SS criteria was very high for newborns, I meant for forcible removal of a baby from a mother or the decision made whilst she's pregnant.

Basically - few women voluntarily give up their baby for adoption (preferring to keep it or have a termination) and it is uncommon for SS to take this decision out their hands unless conditions are absolutely dire.

WE don't have to accept what YOU think it is, no.

It's not a life.

But it is, though.

From about 13 weeks it’s got a working central nervous system and is conscious.

Yes it can’t survive without its mother, but a newborn baby can’t survive without relying on another human being either.

If the scientific fact that the foetus is alive from about 13 weeks is upsetting to you, then I’m sorry, but you can’t ignore the science by just choosing to label something as something it isn’t.

That’s why the on-demand termination limit in most European countries is 12 weeks.

If it’s medically necessary beyond that, fine, but let’s not pretend that it’s not alive.

It's not a scientific fact, at all. It's an opinion. We all know when life proper begins, it's at birth. You're not a person until you're born. When counting how long you've been alive, you start at birth, not 6 months before it.

We're not pretending its not alive. We're saying its not "a life".

I agree. A lot of the time I hear how it is the woman’s choice because her body is what’s keeping the baby alive - but as you’ve said it’s the same with a newborn - it needs an adult to keep it alive the level of responsibility is the same regardless of whether that’s a baby in utero or a newborn at a few hours old - it relies on another human to live?
The same could be said of pets - we have to look after them they need us to survive and if we don’t then that’s neglect and people are up in arms about cruelty.

But it feels like we are telling ourselves ? Lying to ourselves that a baby is not a life till it’s born that says to me that people know it’s not true and are just uncomfortable with the truth. I think if you are to choice then own that - be upfront yes it’s ending a life but we have the right to do so legally therefore it is what it is ?

I do think as well we have it drummed into us it’s a clump of cells or an embryo / foetus the terminology and facts about stage of development is damped down probably because the idiots waving posters at clinics have taken ownership of the facts to use against women it’s time we said enough is enough. Yes the images are depicting real babies but women who have abortions should know what their foetus will look like and be able to say ‘yes - that’s what I’ve aborted but no I won’t feel guilty ‘ if that was their choice to make

What obvious reasons ? Genuinely curious why people don’t see this as an option anymore

That makes me wonder then why drs perform surgeries on unborn babies and try interventions if there’s a need - surely that’s to save a life ? But then it’s not classed as a life ? Or is it only considered a life if the ‘host’ considers it as such and if not then it’s some kind of ‘parasite’

so a life is not based on scientific facts but more the personal opinion of the person who is pregnant? (I struggle with all of this and am autistic so genuinely asking questions from a perspective of interest)

A lot of the time I hear how it is the woman’s choice because her body is what’s keeping the baby alive - but as you’ve said it’s the same with a newborn - it needs an adult to keep it alive the level of responsibility is the same regardless of whether that’s a baby in utero or a newborn at a few hours old - it relies on another human to live

It's not actually living inside your body, posing all number of risks, trauma and bodily changes, up to and including death.

What obvious reasons ? Genuinely curious why people don’t see this as an option anymore

Why do people feel the need to state that they're "genuinely curious" if it's such a reasonable question?

Because women aren't pods. You don't just grow a baby, pop it out, hand it over and go on your merry way as if nothing happened. Pregnancy and having a child are serious, life changing things and going through it all just to hand the baby over isn't an easy solution that allows the mother no consequences.

God killed his own son, so he really isn't one to rep pro life.

It is an option but not the one that the overwhelming majority of women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant would choose.

If you find out at, say, 6 weeks, why would you want to continue with pregnancy for another 34 weeks and go through childbirth and all the trauma that entails, just to give the baby away.

Or, having decided against termination, and given birth to a baby, why would you want to go through the heartbreak of giving it away.

In the past, many women and girls were pressurised by their families to give up their baby for adoption. These days, that pressure would be quite unusual.

Is it also because America seems quite religious and it’s more common due to that ? I mean I know we have religion but it seems different over there when it comes to this and is adoption seen as the preferred option due to that ?

Sorry - I have autism and I wanted to make it clear I’m genuinely curious and really trying to work out the whole situation so I can figure out where I stand on it all as I do find it confusing