Abortion rate highest ever - I'm sorry I just don't buy the reason suggested for this...

[CountessDracula]

"But pregnancy advice groups said the figures probably reflected poor access to contraceptive services"

What utter tosh

You can buy condoms in many loos in clubs and pubs. In any chemist or 24hour shop.

You have access to family planning clinics and doctors with free contraception

You can buy the morning after pill over the counter ffs

Shouldn't people take a bit more responsibility and get themselves to these places and get some bloody contraception?

Aloha, thank you. My life is just one of the many reasons why a woman should never be forced to have a child, no matter what circumstance bought about it's conception.

That said, I am not unhappy & am 'at peace' with what happened. I have a wonderful daughter who makes the loss of my own mother-daughter relationship less painful.

Sandcastle, when I was born with my cleft lip and palate the Doctor insinuated to my mum that she must have tried to abort me (I was born 1970), she was devastated that he thought that.
The face builds really early in pg, between 5-9 weeks or so, and I know that, at the time when my mum had me, she probably wasn't even aware yet, that she was even pg at that early stage.
Expat, you are right, there is more to a cleft lip and palate, it's not just about a bit of surgery and all is well...but, it isn't serious neither, iykwim.

3andnomore, I imagine your mum was livid!!

I know my mum tried to abort me & she did say that she may have felt differently if she hadn't had an 'imperfect' baby. Although I wasn't wanted, she said she could have grown to love me if not for my face....We'll never know.

I think she knows it could have been her fault, she certainly insinuated as much, maybe it was guilt? Who knows?

I had a termination at 16. I was young and naive and stupidly thought that it wouldn't happen to me. We didn't use contraception.

I regret the stupidity but don't regret the termination. It wasn't easy but it was absolutely the right thing for me. My body, my bundle of cells, my decision.

To answer to question directed at me last night:totally outlawing abortion would not be my desired outcome.

The extreme examples stated of women who were raped, abused, with mental health problems, children who are pregenant and babies with terminal diabilities I would view as (very sadly) still needing access to abortion.

However I think that those of you arguing in favour of abortion do your argument a great disservice in using only these examples. If you think the rising abortion rate, and the majority of abortions are done for these reasons then I think you are deluding yourselves.

The majority of abortions are likely to be a lack of contraception, let's not kid ourselves. I also think that freely available access to abortion undoubtedly reduces the absolute necessity for contraception in peoples mind. There is a 'get out clause' if the worst happens. That is a natural and understandable and logical (if not conscious)thought process.

I also think there are many other sociological reasons for the rise also, which have been eloquently considered further done the thread by Aloha and Lulumama. I also agree with all of these reasons.

I think we need a sea change in the way we view abortion. It should not be available as a get out clause. I think this as I beleive abortion to be wrong. My feelings on the rights of women issue, is that once a baby is involved there are two people with rights to consider and I beleive the baby has rights also, and the right to life is (usually) paramount.

I admit to being unclear in my own mind about when it is a baby or a person, and at the very least would want a significant reduction on the time limit for abortion (don't panic I'm not going to get it soon).

I do see some discrepancy though, when women proudly show off thier 12week scan photos of their 'baby', and yet know that many when it comes to abortion wil not use this word to describe it. Also when pregnant women are damned for drinking and smoking due to potential damage to the baby, and yet when it comes to abortion this baby has no rights, only the mother. She has the right to kill it if she chooses but not to damage it's health if she chooses. I think there is much intellectual wooliness and avoidence of real debate on this issue for fear of causing offence or being 'misogynistic.'

I think think the throwing around of extreme examples such as suicidal adopted children and Magdalene laudries is also pretty fascile. See my earlier post on the positive outcomes of adoption if you're interested, and to suggest anyone would want a return to 1950's Irish catholisim treatment of unmarried mothers would be insulting if it weren't ridiculous.

A signifacnt limitation on access to abortion as I would favour would undoubtedly lead to some women having to go through with pregnancies that they did not want. I think part of the answer to this would be that there would be ALOT LESS unwanted preganicies, but those that would still occur, should be given every support, financial and emotional by society to keep their babies and cope or to give them up for adoption.

The idea that babies should not be given up for adoption because this will cause them issues, I find bizarre and abhorrent, as if a life is not worthwhile if it has some difficult circumstances. (see Sancastles post on her lovely realtionship with her own daughter). I think this also fits with Fio's post about late abortions on children with non terminal diabilities. Why do we as a society find it acceptable to judge whose life is worthy and whose is not?

I feel that abortion is wrong. In some extreme situations it is the lesser of two evils.

So to summarise (if you're still reading) I would signifcantly limit the access to abortion. I would also want all the other issues addressed which are causing unwanted pragnancies, to signifacntly reduce the amount, and therefore demand for abortion. I would want extensive support for women who did find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy.

At the very least I would want the time limit signifacantly reducing.

Hope that claifies my position.

In answer to the thread question......Poor education and bad parenting is my suggestion, what else could it be?

Wow Sandcastles, your mom really doesn't sound a nice person.
I know my mum had problems coming to terms with my cleft lip and palate, and well, to be fair, if it hits you unexpectedly (and in the days before scans that was always the case), then well, it's only a natural response ,she actually told me , if it hadn't been for my older sister, she would have jumped out of the window. Which is probably not the nicest thing of a mom to tell ya, BUT, it was just her initial reaction to the shock, so, shall not hold that against her.
But the situtation between your mum and you is obviously very different. Luckily you seem to have grown into a lovely and caring adult dispite all that.

great post smileyspeople !

we do not agree on everything, but i think a lot of what you said is absolutely true

esp re late abortions for non terminal disability

"I would also want all the other issues addressed which are causing unwanted pragnancies, to signifacntly reduce the amount, and therefore demand for abortion. I would want extensive support for women who did find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy."

absolutely agree with that too....

it is quite bizarre that in 2007, the same myths re getting pregnant still abound, education is a massive part of this, both at school and at home...

nappiesgalore, the rate of abortion is not irrelevant to the tax payer! Abortions are expensive procedures that cost the NHS lots of money. I also heard from a senior NHS early pregnancy nurse that there are a number of women who have multiple abortions who end up a few years later in the NHS needing expensive fertility treatment. Should individuals not take any responsibility for anything like this?

I believe abotion should definitely be available to avoid unwanted pregnancy. But I don't think it shold be taken lightly because of the cost to the women's body and to the NHS. What I find hard to understand is the significant number of women who have multiple abortions. Why doesn't one abortion make this group more careful? The nurse I spoke to said these women can be amazingly blaze and just don't listen to warnings about the dangers of multiple abortions. I find that very strange.

I agree Ipanemagirl, the blaze attitude is disturbing.
I can understand one accident, maybe even 2, but thereafter....hm....!
Also, and I know this is a blunt categorisation, those women often don't have a problem using contraception, i.e. side-effects to bad or whatever, but just aren't to bothered about it, and see abortion as a perfectly acceptable reaction to unwanted pg, therefore those women do NOT take responsibility for contraception.

I'm not arguing in favour of abortion actually, I'm arguing in favour of women being absolutely in control of their own bodies. Not a doctor, not a priest, not a politician, not a lover or a husband, but the woman herself.

The reason the term mysogynist is being bandied about, I would hazard, is because anyone who doesn't believe in a woman's right to physical self-determination, is generally expressing a mysogynist world-view. Most people would be shocked by the suggestion that compos mentis adult men should have someone else make decisions about their bodies. You can bet your life that if men had babies, there would be absolutely no question that the interests of the adult male would of course take priority over those of a foetus.

The only way you can reduce the number of abortions is either by treating women as less sovreign beings than men, or by changing society. Personally I'm not in favour of the former, but anyone who believes that someone else than a woman has the right to determine what happens to her body, in effect is supporting the lower status of women in our society, whether they admit it or not. Our sovreignty over our own bodies has got to be an absolutely non-negotiable political demand, imo; any restriction of the right to a legal abortion is an attack on that concept, however subtle.

And I don't even like the idea of abortions and would never have had one myself, at any stage of my life. But frankly my demand for me and all my sex, to be regarded as much of a mature human being as a man, overrides my gut response.

I agree Caligula with the spirit of what you said but however we like to put it - our society has basically given women the right to abortion. But that right has lost its sense of value to the point that it is clear many women think nothing of it at all. I honestly think that it has gone too far in that direction. Abortion should be available but it should be taken really seriously. The problem is because it's free it's taken for granted like so much in our society. I agree with the welfare state completely but it infantalises people when they think all their problems will be paid for by someone else - i.e. the tax payer - doesn't anyone else slightly resent that attitude? I do - despite believing in abortion. I believe even more strongly in the responsible use of contraception!

I understand this view Caligula, and would entirely agree, if the issue were only about women and their bodies. To those of us who regard a foetus as a person with rights of their own, the issue is not a straight forward womens right to physical self determination one. I would agree with this up until the point another life is involved, but then, to me this life also has rights of it's own.

We will never agree on this issue because all my arguments are based on a belief that life is scared (and I use this in the sense of reverence and respect,and not 'owned' by a particular religion, so it's a viewpoint a moral yet non religious person could hold), if not from the moment of conception, at least early in it's development within the womb.

You do not believe this and therefore understandably place a womens choice as paramount. We will therefore never agree.

I do however think the debate valid, as depite never agreeing, understanding another's viewpoint usually brings about some measure of empathy with that persons point of view, and avoids the all too easy labelling of others who do not share your opinion as either 'nutty misogynists' or alternatively 'baby murders'. In fact both sides are usually approaching the issue with the desire to help others and do the right thing, but possess a fundemental difference in core belifs which means their views will never coincide. That is why it often becomes such a bitter debate.

I do believe however that a fundemental belief in the sanctity and worthiness of life starting from babies in the womb to the oldest geriatric, and including all sexes, disabilities, races, sexualities, as all having equal worth, would actually create a more caring and mentally and morally healthy society.

I follow your logical and intellectual argument, and respect it's integrity. I however start from a differnt fundemental basis and therefore draw different conclusions.

Well I agree that a foetus has rights as well, tbh. Where I part company with you, is that I believe that the adult compos mentis woman's rights, must always weigh heavier than the foetus's. Anything else reduces a woman to a baby-carrying vessel.

And the thing is, whenever I speak to most people who are anti abortion, when you probe a bit, it's not that they believe life is sacred. Many anti-abortionists are pro the death penalty. Many of them accept that in a just war (or even an unjust one) the loss of human life is inevitable, regrettable but justifiable. I don't really see how people can accept the necessity for death in war, and yet be outraged by the necessity for death in upholding women's equality.

Thanks, Caligula, that 14:46:09 post was excellent!

are you sure you are not generalsing there Caligula?

Why would she be generalising?

'many anti abortionists are pro the death penalty' thats why

Of course I'm generalising.

You can't have a debate without some generalisations.

Many anti-abortionists are pro the death penalty. And many aren't. If you caveated every single generalisation you ever made, no-one would ever start to post, it would be too long and boring.

My point was that smileyspeople's starting point, that human life is sacred, is a perfectly understandable and rational one if you consider all human life sacred. It isn't if you're pro death penalty and/ or accept war as a justifiable activity.

i am firmly opposed to the death penalty and an active anti was campaigner

i am not anti abortion but do not condone these figures

There are lots of Americans who are are anti abortion but pro death penalty (also true of other countries I'm sure) They make a distinction between 'Innocent' life and 'guilty'.

FWIW I'm pro choice but anti death penalty. pro choice because banning legal abortions just make women have risky illegal ones. I am also in favour of people minimising their risk of ever needing an abortion by using contraception in an appropriate way.

well put MB

I am not a fan of the death penalty or of war. Its not fair to generalise on this. People just could easily say that most people who are pro-abortion are also the ones that protest against war because of the loss of life involved. Its just as odd.

I think most people would be in favour of minimising the risk of needing an abortion, I've got no beef with that. But there's a simplistic argument being vociferously put forward on this thread, that the way to do that is to restrict access. Which in my view, legally and politically infantilises all women, whether they need or approve of abortions or not. And I'm agin anything that does that.