To be saddened that anyone would want to take away a woman’s right to safe abortion?

[Balayagequeen]

It makes me sad and angry that there are so many people who believe that a woman’s right to a termination is up for debate/political football.

It’s always privileged men too.

No woman should be forced to continue with a pregnancy that she doesn’t want.

An abortion is a very safe, simple procedure, it’s a personal and private choice, it’s discreet, no one is ramming it down anyone else’s throat or trying to persuade others to do it. The vast majority of the time is done very early on in the pregnancy. Evidence shows that there are no long term negative physical or mental effects on the woman.

As someone who works for children’s services, there are already far too many children in the care system and they can end up deeply traumatised, and having poor outcomes in life, adoptions often don’t work out and even when they do can be extremely traumatic for both the mother and child. That is not to take away from all of the wonderful adoptive parents and foster carers, but please let’s not romanticise it.

Most adoptions are because the birth parents are unable to care for the child, not because the mother willingly gave the baby up. Therefore to force a woman to give birth would potentially be the worse option for the woman, the child and any existing siblings. It isn’t a fairytale ending where a woman willingly gives up her baby to a loving couple to live happily ever after.

There are babies conceived in poverty, domestic abuse, rape, teenage pregnancies, older age pregnancies. These women should not be forced to give birth, it is not the better option for anyone.

If abortion was ever restricted in the western world then I have no doubt that it would result in unsafe illegal abortions, risking the woman’s life.

Women take all the risk with pregnancy and childbirth. They take an enormous toll on a woman body, her mental health, her life outcomes. We are not living in the dark ages, women deserve the choice.

What right does any privileged male who has probably never experienced any of these things and has probably done very little child rearing, who can never conceive or give birth, have to try to restrict a women’s access to abortion?

Are they themselves going to care for the babies born? Or will they expect that someone else will do it?

Yep I asked you - you denied it - but here you are completely contradicting yourself.

Maybe if you made your mind up, you’d be able to come up with arguments that actually made sense.

And, just to twist in your melon man, I'm very pro abortion but anti state sanctioned euthanasia.

It's not as contrary as one might think.

I don't think the state has any business in the being of self.

I was so against an opt out organ donation system. I opted out just because, fuck you! You don't own my body.

I actually feel really uncomfortable about the idea of organ donation. I think it commodifies people in the auspices of altruism.

Similar to surrogacy. I think there is a very difficult ethical conversation to be had around all of this.

It comes down to a very fundamental question of physical ownership and who we are.

Yes I had an abortion in the first trimester, I don’t think any woman needs any justification to have an abortion in the first trimester. I certainly have no desire to restrict or judge women who seek an abortion within the remit of the law as it currently stands in the UK. If you thought otherwise then you haven’t been reading my posts properly. I do, however, think there is a massive difference between abortions in the first trimester vs the third.

I do agree that women who want abortions at 38 weeks for elective reasons would be astonishingly rare. This is often the argument people who want to lift all restrictions on abortions make - that the number of late term elective abortions would barely change. But my opinion is that even if the number was 1 in a billion, I still want there to be a law in place to prevent that.

How do I feel that some people would call me a monster for having an abortion? I couldn’t really care less, as long as these aren’t the people who end up writing our abortion laws.

I am supportive of abortion up to a point but I have to admit that my views have changed since my own pregnancies where I saw a fetal heart beat at 6 weeks.

I find it very difficult to get my head around a late term termination, absent any medical factors. Babies are considered term at 37 weeks. To have an abortion at eg 38 weeks to me is not that different to murdering a one week old baby. I struggle to understand how the former can be ok but the latter is something criminal.

But as to where to draw the cut off point between 0 weeks & birth - I find that very difficult.

And before anyone asks, no, I would not accept a donated organ

And my children are adult or Gillick competent so any questions around that would be entirely their choice.

Yes this is how I feel. I do think the current 24 week cut off is due for a review, I believe when it was originally set it was considered the minimum age of viability, but now babies born earlier than that regularly survive and thrive.

Yes that is pretty much what I’m saying, an otherwise healthy 3rd trimester foetus doesn’t need to be killed before delivery to save a woman’s life

Blimey and I’m the “thick as shit one”?

Who said a healthy fetus does? Where have you read this on this thread? Are you ok?

I think you need to go to bed.

They don’t care a jot about women.

Im not convinced they care about babies either.

But that’s how much they hate women - they see the pain or forced birth, the trauma of either giving up a baby or keeping an unwanted baby, as less of a problem than a fetus momentarily maybe feeling a bit of pain. They hate women THAT much.

What did I deny??

How am I contradicting myself? I said I agree with current laws. Nothing I’ve said contradicts that. Only a simpleton would draw that conclusion.

Convenient your abortion is fine but other women’s abortions aren’t and are “baby killers” and “monsters”. who are you judge? How arrogant to think your viewpoint is king.

I’d challenge you to find ONE woman who wants an abortion at 38 weeks for lifestyle reason. They don’t exist, they’re the mythical monster weaponised by pro life half wits, and it’s futile even talking about hypotheticals. But again, crack on making things up if it makes you happy

The trauma of being forced to carry a pregnancy at age 10 for months would double the trauma of being raped!!

The only reason women ever seek an abortion at 38 weeks is because a doctor has told them he needs to save her life. It’s so rare you’d be able to count on one hand, and it’s devastating.

No woman has had a lifestyle abortion at 38 weeks. It’s like believing in the tooth fairy. Focus on actual real life women who need support rather than fictional women conjured up by misogynists

What would be the benefit of lowering it? What does it save, who does it serve?

DD's friend has never used contraception with any of her numerous boyfriends. She has had at least three abortions. She is pregnant again now with her latest boyfriend, but is delighted and has decided to keep the baby. She already has two, much older, DC.

Another girl I know of struggles with hormonal contraception, and her boyfriend refuses to use a condom. This has led to two abortions.

Surely abortion shouldn't be used as a method of contraception? Although I don't see how things can be changed.

Both these cases make me very sad.

😆
That stale old "close your legs" line. You aren't telling men to stop having sex as a means of putting an end to abortion, are you. I can pretty much guarantee you have never said that to a man.

How would you suggest women who are married/in a long term relationship decide to stop having sex without losing their partners? Do you actually think only single, unattached women get abortions?
Ridiculous post.

Yes. Sickening, isn't it.

The ones worth the bother of answering have been from what I've seen. The criminally stupid ones like "just don't have sex", "just use contraception" and "abortion is the MURDER of an innocent little baby" don't merit debate. Pro-choice people are naturally just going to laugh off such idiocies. What specific points are you claiming have merit which have not been addressed?

This is too pathetically true of so many of them. Some of them do have the some level of analytical ability but their feelings get in the way and cloud their reason. They need to learn to throw cheap sentiment away and be objective.

This whole sorry debate and the recent increase in polarisation is mostly an import from the evangelical US doomsday cult and one that they can keep on their side of the pond. I don't want to live in a theocracy. We have perfectly sound rules in the UK. By the way, no woman would ever terminate for shits and giggles so the whole debate is purely infantilising and spread by the same vile people who'd have us lose our right to vote.

It cannot experience harm. The harm is only experienced after they fetus becomes sentient in the form of FAS or whatever.
The irrelevant noise about surgery has already been dealt with by a PP and you still don't get it, so it's probably hopeless. I suspect you are impervious to facts.

I have already provided proof that that a fetus is not sentient until late in pregnancy. FTFT.
I can provide endless reputable sources all saying the same if necessary, but again, since you are likely impervious, I'll not trouble myself. You can scroll back to a prior post in which I provided two sources. Understand this; you do not know more than the scientists who have studied this extensively, and who have concluded fetal sentience is absolutely not possible until much later in pregnancy. How arrogant it is to think you know more than they do.
I'd not dream of making a claim of fact which I couldn't support, but not being able to support your assertions is obviously not something that weighs heavily on your mind.

You're determined to be entertaining, aren't you.

My first post was correct, I said almost 5 months, which 19 weeks is. And you can't delete posts.

I mean she’s absolutely right - that’s the entire point of many barristers - to argue the grey….

But hey sure go ahead and personally attack her and suggest the legal system doesn’t work because you’re angry. That’s clever.

I mean are you ok?

You can’t operate on a moving patient - but also in the same breath it’s ok to kill a moving patient?

So the cluster of cells / embryo / baby has to be immobile? Where is your evidence?

Babies are operated on in utero frequently. It’s a hole branch of surgery and the cells / fetus / baby isn’t immobile.

Fetal surgery can treat the following fetal conditions:

• Monochorionic twin complications.
• Spina bifida (myelomeningocele).
• Congenital (present at birth) lung malformations.
• Congenital diaphragmatic hernia.
• Congenital high airway obstruction syndrome.
• Mediastinal or pericardial teratoma.
• Sacrococcygeal teratoma.
• Amniotic band syndrome.
• Lower urinary tract obstruction.
• Large neck masses that cause airway compression (teratoma or lymphatic malformation).

So Christianity is the only religion that respects life? Quite the sectarian statement.

Have you considered Hindusism, Othodox Judaism, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, most Evangelical Protestant denominations, and Buddhism.

And what about ethical Humanism that considers the sanctity of life and believes that killing people - ie assisted dying - doesn’t respect the right to life.

We are all dying from the moment of our birth. We spend a lot of time actively dying. I’ve sat with many dying people and watched people die. I’m not clear as to when it would have been best to kill them for any reason. As is no one else. Killing someone isn’t necessary where people are supported in their death processes.