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?

Me? I personally think a woman should be allowed an abortion.

But I can still empathise with my christian friends who feel otherwise. That’s all Im saying lol.

Yes, it's about belief. Some people have silly beliefs which are not supported by fact. Laws should not be written based on such beliefs. The reality is that you can't murder a "potential" person, you can only murder an actual person. Potential doesn't have human rights or have need for human rights. Only people do.

Me too.

Cross post @TeaAndMuffins

This seriously upsets me so much I will have to opt out.

Those poor wee ones.

Well just the it's independent when born thing is hard to understand. It isn't, whether it is dependent on a mother in utero or dependent on any adult when born a baby and fetus require an adult. They both count.

Irresponsible people should be advised to use contraception. Enabling repeat terminations is absolutely appalling in a country where contraception is readily available.

I agree. The decriminalisation of doctors who save women was very important and it’s a shame the anti choice crowd have peddled it to pretend that women are getting abortions left right and centre for any reason at 39 weeks. They aren’t, and they can’t

you can't murder a "potential" person

What fresh hell is this??
It's a HUMAN being, flesh and blood.
Fully developed by just 12 weeks gestation.
I'm out.

I genuinely think you and others are barking up the wrong tree here.

The hierarchy is that death (baby) is worse than pain (mother).

There’s anti-abortion and then there’s pro-forced birth.

A woman can be against abortion for herself. Great, don’t have one. Banning abortion for other women is quite another thing. And that is repulsive, and quite stunningly stupid since there is an inverse relationship between the availability of safe, free, legal abortion, and the number of abortions. Scandi countries, free, safe legal, hardly any. Nicaragua, illegal in all case including rape and incense, lots and lots.

With those stats it’s obvious that it’s about hating women, not preventing abortion. Because you can’t actually prevent abortion, just prevent safe, legal free abortion.

I know someone who had 3 abortions. 3! Just because they cba to use a condom or take the pill.

Abortion should be in extreme circumstances only.

I should add.

I can understand that if you are religious and you believe that life begins at conception, that it’s very difficult to reconcile with abortion.

But what absolutely baffles me is that you rarely hear pro lifers campaigning for better services for women and children. There is so much sadness and wrongdoing in the world. Poverty and starvation, wars, gun violence, domestic abuse. All of these issues impact women and children the most and yet some people rather than campaigns and fight against these atrocities. Their focus is on restricting women’s right to safe abortion.

It simply doesn’t add up. Unless of course deep down the simply despise women and want to keep them bottom of the pile.

But why does it come first? And to what avail? To lead an unhappy life with a mother who doesn’t want it or worse, in the care system? How is that better? Why is passing the birth canal and taking a breath the ultimate goal, and why is the life and safety of women and the quality of life of vulernable children the two things that are sacrificed for this Ultimate Goal?

How do you know that, were you there at the conception?

Somehow forgot to mention - when abortion is restricted women seek backstreet abortions and their risk of dying is huge.

Why does she matter less than an unborn baby/fetus/whatever? Why is that risk worth it?

**The science conclusively establishes that a human fetus does not have the capacity to experience pain until after at least 24–25 weeks. Every major medical organization that has examined this issue and peer-reviewed studies on the matter have consistently reached the conclusion that abortion before this point does not result in the perception of pain in a fetus.i, ii, iii, iv, v

Rigorous scientific studies have found that the connections necessary to transmit signals from peripheral sensory nerves to the brain, as well as the brain structures necessary to process those signals, do not develop until at or after 24 weeks of gestation.vi Because it lacks these connections and structures, a fetus or embryo does not have the physiological capacity to perceive pain until at least this gestational age.**

https://www.acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-important/gestational-development-capacity-for-pain

**The question of when the human fetus develops the capacity for sentience is central to many contentious issues. The answer could and should influence attitudes toward IVF and embryo experimentation, abortion, and fetal and neonatal surgery. For the fetus to be described as sentient, the somatosensory pathways from the periphery to the primary somatosensory region of the cerebral cortex must be established and functional. Fetal behaviour is described and the development of the underlying anatomical substrate and the chemical and electrical pathways involved in the detection, transmission, and perception of somatosensory stimuli are reviewed.

It is concluded that the basic neuronal substrate required to transmit somatosensory information develops by mid-gestation (18 to 25 weeks), however, the functional capacity of the neural circuitry is limited by the immaturity of the system. Thus, 18 to 25 weeks is considered the earliest stage at which the lower boundary of sentience could be placed. At this stage of development, however, there is little evidence for the central processing of somatosensory information. Before 30 weeks gestational age, EEG activity is extremely limited and somatosensory evoked potentials are immature, lacking components which correlate with information processing within the cerebral cortex. Thus, 30 weeks is considered a more plausible stage of fetal development at which the lower boundary for sentience could be placed.**

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/14767059209161911

Let me know if two sources are not enough for you.

Why is pain the only consideration for the mother?
I've had 3 children, the pain was a piddlingly short part of carrying, birthing and raising them. So why is pain the only only consideration for you?

'But what absolutely baffles me is that you rarely hear pro lifers campaigning for better services for women and children'

Better services? What like GPs, and contraception?

There is no need to have an abortion. Use contraception or take the MAP. Unless in rare, extreme circumstances where the mother's life is at risk.

I can see why you’re upset. I know someone who has now lost three babies at between 12-16 weeks and she’s had to deliver them all. They look like perfect tiny humans, have fingerprints, different looks, can see their sex. She is pro life and a christian so believes they have been full people sincr conception so I can completely see why it’s so upsetting for her. I dont agree with a lot of what she says (im not religious myself) but she loves babies and children and always puts them first. Her three miscarriages have been girls. It’s definitely made me think about it more. And since having my own children.

No they talked quite openly about it. As many women do.

Please explain in medical terms. Which sources preferably. Just because there’s so many lies in the anti choice movement about the medical process of abortions

And why is a fetus perhaps feeling discomfort (a theory that goes against research and science) worse than an actual alive woman going through forced birth and the trauma of having a baby she can’t or won’t look after?

At the end of the day you have to pick which is worse. Why is the fetus the worse situation?

Honestly people need to be careful what they wish for. I worked with MSI in an African country, I've seen the fallout of unsafe abortions, dangerous or unwanted pregnancies and children and adults who have grown up without an able or willing family. It's not pleasant for the mother or child and it's not good for society in general.

That is complete and utter nonsense. Laughable actually.
You're out because you can't support that false claim. 🤷

Edited because I wonder if you actually meant that just having human DNA makes it a person. If so, that's weird.

It doesn't sadden me but it does make me angry to think that anyone can believe they have the right to restrict healthcare to those who need it, for any reason.

In countries where abortion is restricted, women die as a direct result. That is the reality of what happens abortion is not available on demand. It doesn't stop happening, it just becomes far more dangerous to access.

But... pro-lifers/ anti-choicers don't give a shit about that, just like they don't give a shit about all those potential children either. They live in a fantasy world where if you say to a women "you can't have an abortion", that woman suddenly realises the error of her ways and becomes the perfect mother to an entirely wanted child, and we all know that doesn't actually happen.

Really, what it is about is control, and punishing women for being oh so stupid as to get knocked up, regardless of whether they were on birth control or not, or indeed if they were sexually assaulted.

100% and it’s so well researched that DV raises when a woman is pregnant.

God if there was a lab burning and there was a toddler in it screaming and a liquid nitrogen tank with 1000 embryos in it. And they could only save one, by their logic I would expect these anti-abortion people to save the embryos. Would they? I’d love some pps to come on here and say they would. To my mind that’s severely fucked up.