To think the tactics of CBR UK are disgusting? Trigger warning - pro life.

[MistressoftheDarkSide]

I've been seething since Saturday when I encountered the organisation CBR UK on one of the busiest parts of our town centre.

CBR UK are a fundamental pro-life organisation claiming to have the interests of women traumatised by abortion at heart. Actually their roots are in the US and are underpinned by fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

Their way of educating and supporting women is to display 6 x 8 feet technicolor pictures of the aftermath of abortion in full view of women and children to get their point across.

A look at their Facebook page will prove to you I am not making this up. They place a warning sign ahead if the images, and also warn that they live film their activities, but it's obviously lip service.

They hand out leaflets and try to engage people

I challenged one of the very smug beatific older woman and suggested they must really hate women, but no, it's because they love and want to protect us apparently. And "God" - which slipped out as I took my leave and she called out God bless you. To which I responded how dare you bring God into this - and her parry was - why do you hate him that much?

Anyway, I'm posting this to make you aware that you might come up against this while doing your Christmas shopping.

Whatever your views on abortion, (Mine are pro choice and pro it's noone else's Goddamn business except a woman and her doctor) can we agree that this kind of "awareness raising" is almost psychological terrorism and should not be on our high streets in such graphic forms?

Women who have been rated, suffered traumatic medical miscarriages and are possibly accompanied by curious children don't need this shit rubbed in their faces while doing their Christmas shopping - or at any time.

AIBU?

I’ve never regretted my two terminations. One at 16 one at 22. Completely comfortable then and now with my decision to control my own life in a way that suits me. Both weren’t babies just cells.

"my decision to control my own life in a way that suits me"

Yeah, they really don't like that idea. Smacks too much of your body, and your life, belonging to you and only you. In their eyes, Woman's body belongs to God and man, any man, all men that want a say, but not the woman. Even if you are a non believer, their belief apparently should trump yours.

One of the things that also irks me is their moral objections to the morning after pill. All this divine spark = baby bollocks. Does not even have to progress to cells. There was an Irish poster earlier (apologies, not reading whole thread again) who had a heck of a time even getting the copper coil for much the same base reasoning.

Of course there are some women who regret abortions, just as there are women who are glad they chose not to have one. Doesn't mean women shouldn't have the choice or cancel out the very many women who are glad they had one.

Adults make choices about their own lives, they don't always make the right one and that's how freedom works. The idea that people (women) should have their lives controlled so they can't ever make a decision they later regret is authoritarian and never ever truly grounded in what's best for the controlled and restricted person. We don't bring about state-forced marriage because some people marry the wrong person or state-forced jobs because some people choose the wrong career. Many people have sex with the wrong person at the wrong time and regret it; abortion is one way to help correct that regret.

Its a fetus.

It is not a baby.

It is not a human being.

If it has separate genes and is separate from the woman, and its in the womans body unwanted, she has the right to remove it from her person.

As for regretting abortions (which almost none do regret it), more people regret getting married than regret having an abortion. We don't advocate banning marriage because people regret it.

A woman dies every 2 days at the hands of a partner / ex.

Where are their placards against that?

Are they out there with photos of blackened faces and bruised thighs to highlight the epidemic of VAWG?

Are they shoving leaflets into the hands of football fans (VAWG increases around big tournaments).

Of course they fucking aren’t.

Because it’s not about anything other than controlling women.

edit - i missed the word ‘legal’ from your OP but I question if that technicality matters. Either they care about killing or not - and what a surprise it’s not important enough to protest when it’s women being killed.

Thanks for sharing. I found this on there: https://abortionrights.org.uk/the-new-maltese-abortion-bill-is-potentially-worse-for-pregnant-people-than-previous-blanket-ban/

I posted a few days ago about the emergency surgery I had to save my life and remove a ruptured ectopic pregnancy a couple of years ago. Without that surgery I would have died and wouldn't be cuddling my 6 month old right now.

I can't believe how lucky I was to have that experience in the UK. I was in surgery within an hour of the scan. No-one had to seek board approval to act. None of the doctors had to fear prosecution to remove a non-viable pregnancy and save my life.

What a world we live in where people can protest amending abortion laws to allow termination to save a woman's life.

Only if you’re too thick to gather and evaluate statistically significant and robust source material.

As a starting point, may I suggest you look at population level outcomes for women in places where abortion is legal and accessible, and the same for those places where it is not?

I would never donate to such a misogynistic organisation that cannot even have the basic decency of saying pregnant WOMEN.

These places exist? Where?

You accept that an unborn child is human and alive, then state that it can't be harmed, as it is not a person.
The personhood argument is often used to demand arbitrary and subjective definitions of what a person is, prior to removing that person's rights.
If you asked yourself when you became "you", what criteria of personhood would you choose?

What species is it, then? Which non-human genes does it have?

An unborn child is dependent on its mother. People do gloss over this, but ultimately abortion is the choice between the life of the woman who is already here and the unborn life that is not.

The woman is not someone who exists in isolation; what happens to her impacts others who are already here. Bearing in mind that pregnancy and birth pose a risk to health and indeed life that is considerably greaser than the risk of a safe legal abortion, this must be taken into consideration. Beyond that, there are the relationship, social, financial and employment implications to consider. Yelling 'but what about the baybeeee' is not a rational counterargument. Ultimately the decision has to rest with the person best able to take it: the woman.

While you're here, @stopfallingforyou, given that banning abortion kills women, how many dead women is an acceptable number when it comes to "protecting" the unborn?

Stop being facetious

She's not suggesting that it contains non human dna and you know that.

A foetus can grow into a human being but isn't one is a very simple explanation.

It’s not a factual statement. HTH.

Life -alive, from the moment of conception and will continue to grow, develop and live inside the womb and after birth into adulthood, unless killed by a condition or action.

According to who 😂

As I’ve said before this is all just semantics, all of your posts, and it’s entirely subjective .
life or not, the life of women is far more important and trumps that of a foetus every time. The dependent foetus doesn’t and should not have the same rights as actual living women.

You haven’t answered how other women’s abortions affects you?

And I take it you think it was the right that Saavita Halappanaver died? If you think her (wanted) foetus’s life had the same rights as her?

Again this is just semantics. It’s a foetus, ergo it is not born and has no rights beyond what the woman carrying it wants for it.

Whats your practical solution then? To ban abortions? So what about raped children who get pregnant? What about people like Saavita? What about people for whom being pregnant Carrie’s a threat of death? What about women who will inevitably seek back street abortions?

They’ve also been highly criticised for deceiving women over abortions and only providing advice with a view to removing choice from women

Id like to see how they defined housing 12,000 mothers and babies.

Indeed. They remove choice by stealth.

I’m so embarrassed by people who think these are “gotcha” moments. It doesn’t matter what it’s defined as. The woman comes first.

Can ANYONE tell me how abortions that another women have affects them? Anyone?

No one seriously or consistently applies the 'its a fetus not a baby' idea though, do they? Literally no one uses the term 'fetus' of a wanted pregnancy, even at the earliest stages. Women who lose wanted pregnancies early on (as I did at twelve weeks during my second pregnancy) talk about losing babies, not fetuses. 'Fetus' is only used in the abortion debate to put emotional distance between us and the babies involved.

Anyway, I think the abortion debate will stay live as it hinges on the whole idea of 'personhood'. If being 'unwanted' and dependent on another for his / her existence makes an unborn baby a non-person, then plenty of other people are logically non-people too.

It doesn’t matter. Whatever word you use - the woman has more rights. Do you understand how much women would be what in if foetuses had equal rights?

Pro lifers rely heavily on emotive language and semantics and very rarely talk about solutions or logic.

I don’t give a fuck when I became me. It’s irrelevant. When my mum was pregnant she mattered far more than I did

A human BEING is defined as a BORN member of the homo sapiens species. Note: born.

so @stopfallingforyou why is it SO imperative that a baby gets over the finish life? You do know that if abortions were banned foster rates and children in need of social care would sky rocket. When you look at the likelihood of foster children being abused, groomed, becoming criminals, living their whole life in poverty and having major health issues - why would you want that in the name of “ooh life, genes, we start at conception”. Is it REALLY worth plunging so many ACTUAL loving humans into these circumstances because of abstract subjective viewpoint about when life begins? I get that you probably hate women but assuming you don’t hate children - why would you do that to a generation of children?

Simply: it’s growing inside her she can call it what she wants. It’s irrelevant beyond semantics.

If being 'unwanted' and dependent on another for his / her existence makes an unborn baby a non-person, then plenty of other people are logically non-people too.

No. Why do you think that?

The point is unborn foetuses, babies whatever, don’t and should never have the same rights as born living humans.

https://www.firecrestfilms.com/films/young-british-anti-abortion

This film is being shown on BBC 1 at 10.40pm tonight.

I found out about it via the CBR UK Facebook page, where they were crowing about it.

It does sound as though it might be exploring the issues, but CBR UK are positively gleeful, because of course any publicity is "good" publicity. And they clearly admit their agenda is to end abortion according to their promotional blurb.

By a strange quirk of fate, BBC 2 at 9.00pm is showing a documentary about nuclear test veterans and that whole controversy - and I have skin in that game too as my Dad is a nuclear test veteran.

The Universe be trolling me big time.

But make no mistake, there does appear to be an agenda around women's rights and abortion rights, and looking at the escalation of CBR UKs activities on recent months, followed by this documentary, I wonder who is pushing it, and how much influence the US is having on our shores.