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?

Thought so.

I have done it myself. There aren’t any. That’s the point 🤦🏻‍♀️

I must be mad - arguing online with a halfwit.

It doesn’t have to be. That’s the point. If consequences that are catastrophic can be prevented then they should be. Or are you against seatbelts?

Please explain how that is punishing women? 20 odd weeks should be more than enough time to pursue an abortion for personal reasons in the UK.

If 24 weeks was initially chosen for reasons of viability at the time, how can you argue that ‘no medical advancements have ever supported a reduction in this’?

As it happens, I do have reservations about lowering the legal limit, but that is purely because of my concern that it would potentially make it difficult for women seeking a TMR after their 20 weeks anomaly scan.

If you want to lower the number of abortions, I agree you have to make it possible for women to have babies if they want to when they have an unwanted pregnancy.

But that is going to cost money. I listed all the things that would be needed, which the UK currently does not have for the most part.

And funnily enough, all those things are things which forced birthers don't want to see happen because they consider it socialism.

I'm all in favour of lowering abortion rates. I'm all in favour of supporting women.
But forcing women to have babies they do not want is not how we go about it effectively. If you deny women an abortion because the sex was consensual, do you really think all of them are just going to shrug and have that baby? They won't. They'll resort to illegal options, just as they did before abortion was made legally available in the UK. And some of them will die. That is what you are advocating for - put away the rose tinted specs and face reality.

Abortion is a necessary evil. Abortion is a choice between the life of a woman who is already here, and all the people around her, and the life of a potential baby.

I will always stand for the lives that are already here in this world.

Seatbelts are more akin to contraception, in that they prevent injury rather than treat it once it’s occurred.

Look of you say you don’t support late term abortions I believe you. But then why are you berating me and calling me every name under the sun for essentially saying the same thing.

What are your reasons for objection to late term abortions? Presumably it’s something to do with you feeling it is inherently/morally wrong? But then you say that a woman wanting a termination for lifestyle reasons at 38 weeks would be no different to a woman wanting the same at 8 weeks?

Don’t you see you can’t have it both ways?

My belief is that if you are anti abortion then don't have one. Just like if you are anti gay marriage then you shouldn't have one.

By having an abortion or a gay marriage or painting your bottom blue you are not inflicting a cost or a harm on wider society so I don't see why other people's opinions matter.

Am I anti-choice?

I think that abortions should be free and easily available to all women, no questions asked, no judgement. I just don’t think that applies past a certain gestation.

Stop expressing opinions for me that aren’t mine.

You are the hypocrite - you call me every name under the sun purely because I have said I object to LATE term abortions, even though you yourself have said the same. Bonkers!

Totally unscientific. Even the most staunch pro-abortion campaigners agree that life begins at conception. They just don't believe the child has personhood yet.

The whole 'what if women want abortions for lifestyle reasons at 38 weeks' is a strawman in any case. The data on late term abortions and the reasons for them is very clear on that.

I agree with you. It's a life.

But personhood is a dangerous concept. Personhood is why there are women in El Salvador serving 30 year sentences for having a late miscarriage. The problem with all the well intentioned ideals of those who are anti abortion is that the consequences of banning or harshly restricting abortion for real living women are unpalatable at best, lethal at worst.

If people are so convinced that not a single woman in the UK could ever want a 38 week abortion for lifestyle reasons, then there is no cause to lift the restrictions anyway, seeing as no woman is being prevented from doing what they want by them. It’s an argument that could go round and round.

Unless it’s just the very idea of a law that prevents women from doing what they want with their bodies that is the problem?

A lot of people prioritise the foetus over the woman.

I agree with you. I think UK abortion law as it stands is fine. What we do not need is to start chipping away at it. Viability in terms of survival with improved ourcomes hasn't moved significantly for decades.

It would be good if we could improve NHS services so that we would have earlier detection of severe abnormalities. My friend who had her termination at 26 weeks had to wait for additional scans, amniocentesis etc. All of that pushed back the date of her TFMR and kept her in horrific suspence for far too long.

But is that not because they are otherwise illegal, rather than because there is no demand?

Ah I thought that because you mentioned abortions shouldn’t be allowed through consensual sex that you meant you think abortion is ok in the case of rape.

I appreciate your honesty and that you’ve answered questions!

still think even in the horrific cases of rape, the baby's life is still intrinsically valuable

Why do you think it’s more valuable than a woman? And do you accept that reality of what will happen to women if abortion we’re outlawed?

And in terms of a valuable life - do you mean quality of life or just the right to pass through the birth can and take a first breath? Even though so much will be at risk to have that one thing happen, including:

• Rise in illegal abortions
• More children living in poverty
• More children in the care system
• Traumatised women birthing babies they have to give up for adkption
• Traumtised women birthing their rapist’s baby
• More maternal and infant deaths.

Is that guaranteed list REALLY worth more children simply entering the world? Whats so great about them entering the world that the world they enter becomes a horrendous place for them and others?

Quite often they’re the same.

A consequence of pregnancy doesn’t have to be birth. Hence abortions. The same a consequence of cancer doesn’t have to be death. Also because of medical treatments.

Or is abortion the only healthcare you object to in stopping dangerous consequences?

It wasn't 5 months. The poster you replied to made that up, presumably because they have an agenda. They acknowledged later in the thread that it wasn't actually 5 months but have refused to edit their original comment.

Human life has value unless you’re a raped woman who’s pregnant?

What if the support a woman needs is an abortion?

At what point does she matter more than an unborn baby?

I said a natural consequence is different to a punishment.

Again, I don’t object to abortions. I object to your warped logic.

These people don’t care.
they don’t care a jot about women and would gladly see more women like your family members die

They also BTW deny that pregnancy can kill women (well some of them)

Sorry - you’re saying there’s NO circumstances in which a woman could die from pregnancy or birth?
Are you absolutely sure?

You’re arguing the toss with me whos had an ectopic pregnancy, which ruptured and was a life threatening emergency and a woman who’s also had an abortion? Who are “these people” who you speak of because they aren’t engaging with you on this thread.

That's what the anti abortion folks think. That there are literally hordes of women who decide at 38 weeks they can't be bothered with all this pregnancy malarkey, and off they would happily trot to get an abortion if they legally could.

Whereas in the real world, women who don't want to be pregnant tend to have their abortions as early as they possibly can, because they know very late term abortions involve going through labour and delivering a dead child. No rational woman would choose that when they can have a pill at the moment they find out they're pregnant.

There have been one or two cases of women applying to have late term abortions without a medical reason. They were denied. The women in question were found to have major mental health issues.

The law works, leave it alone.

It’s punishing women because it’s saddling them with a child they can’t look after when they could have a safe and legal alternative

If 24 weeks was initially chosen for reasons of viability at the time, how can you argue that ‘no medical advancements have ever supported a reduction in this’?

Because they haven’t. 24 weeks is still considered the age of viability. The off anomaly where babies have been born before do not change this.

Or can you show me evidence that I’m wrong?

As it happens, I do have reservations about lowering the legal limit, but that is purely because of my concern that it would potentially make it difficult for women seeking a TMR after their 20 weeks anomaly scan.

So when you say you’d lower it you’d also go back to laws that criminalises late term TMRs? Otherwise what would you be concerned about?

It seems you think k there’s reasons worthy of abortion and reasons unworthy. Why do YOU get to decide the worthy reasons?