Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

General health

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

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

875 replies

CountessDracula · 08/02/2007 11:39

"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?

OP posts:
HeartOnMyGreensleeve · 11/02/2007 15:47

Well, I think a very large number of people believe that abortions should only be allowed in situations of extreme necessity, such as medical necessity or a woman/child being raped. And paula's view that life begins at conception is debatable too.

I've met people with much more hardline views than this. Plenty of them.

paulaplumpbottom · 11/02/2007 15:47

If sex is concentual then yes.

Monkeytrousers · 11/02/2007 15:47

I'm not stopping her expressing her opinion Greeny- but I cannot agree that is 'just as valid' as others which are based on evidence and not ignorance.

I am always very careful to address my comments to the comments and opinions not the person.

BassMama · 11/02/2007 15:50

yes you agree it is insensitive??!

We are making progress here then Paula!

paulaplumpbottom · 11/02/2007 15:50

Great I'm bonkers and ignorant.

My views are not based on ignorance. You don't ahve any evidence that its not a life.

paulaplumpbottom · 11/02/2007 15:51

I meant if the sex was concentual that I think the pregnancy should be allowed to continue.

Snaf · 11/02/2007 15:52

Suicide was the leading cause of maternal death in the last CEMACH report...

expatinscotland · 11/02/2007 15:52

So in other words, if contraception fails, the woman must be punished by being forced to have a baby.

Monkeytrousers · 11/02/2007 15:55

I have never said you were - the things you post on here about abortion are however.

I'm not shallow enough to think you are the sum of your opinions on abortion

Monkeytrousers · 11/02/2007 15:56

There is huge evidence - it's called biology

paulaplumpbottom · 11/02/2007 15:58

I don't think someone should be punished, you accept that a pregnancy might happen every time you have sex. Its not about punishment.Its about saving a life. You would have a baby punished by death.

paulaplumpbottom · 11/02/2007 15:58

Show me where it says that life is not official until its born

lulumama · 11/02/2007 16:00

"You don't ahve any evidence that its not a life."

well, actually there is plenty of biological evidence and the fact that babies born before around 23 - 24 weeks gestation cannot survive....cells in a petri dish, or cells dividing as they go down a fallopian tube are not alive in a sentient way ,or even the definition you used before, as they are not consuming or sentient

Monkeytrousers · 11/02/2007 16:10

Show me where it says that it is

Monkeytrousers · 11/02/2007 16:12

Paula, I don't want you to feel bullied so I'm going to retire from the thread. There is really no point in debating this with you as you are unwilling to be swayed by any evidence that contradicts your 'belief'. But it has to be said that you are entitled to your opinion but is is not a valid one by any stretch of the imagination.

SmileysPeople · 11/02/2007 17:01

Those of you attacking Paula focus on the weakest area of her belief, that is that a few day old embryo is life. I grant this is not an easy psition to intellectually sustantiate, but is a valid belief.

However to those of you who do not beleive this is a life. When do you believe a foetus is a life then?

Would it be at birth?

Would it be when the baby is 'viable'? Which is an ver decreasing number of weeks. And if so why are we so fixted with the idea of viability? As if being dependent on another makes a life worthless.

Very premature babies are often entirely dependent on technology to keep them alive. There is a professor in the US (can't remeber the name) who argues that these babies should also be legally and humanely killed, and that profoundly disabled babies even born at term should be able to be legally killed also.

This he argues is logically consistent with abortion law as it stands.
Of course this also fits with infanticide recognised in some cultures for the same reasons many of you use to justifty abortion.

Of course this deals with abortion at the very late end of the spectrum, when alot less, but still a large number of abortions take place.

So what about a 12 week foetus? Surely the not a life and just a clump of cells opinion does not apply here? Or does it?

How many of you pored over your 12 week photos, marvelling a the little fingers and nose and how beautifully formed they were? Is this not a life?

Bassmama told PPb that she should not express her opinion as it causes hurt to women who have had abortions, and that women who've had abortions go through immense depression and hurt. You will find if you look back through the thread that others earlier were disagreeing with PPb when she was expressing the hurt abortion causes women, and claiming this hurt was a myth and they felt nothing but relief about thier abortions.

Of course if women do suffer depression and hurt following abortion ( and I know some who have and some who haven't) we need to consider why that might be??

This is a painful topic, but in order to have an adult debate, certain facts and opinions need to be heard.

Certain opinions against Paula, have been much more ludicrous than anything she has said.
E.g.

'don't you take antiobiotics?' I would have thought anyone following this deabte would appreciate the life is sacred attitude is refering to human life, and either that was willful misunderstadning or plain stupidity.

Also 'cancerous tumours are alive should we kill those?' er yes. Surey we all agree on that? (and comparing foetus to cancerous tumour..nice.)

Anyway just wanted to highlight that the arguemnts against Paula are not as logical and well constructed as you may be thinking.

Try to argue away from the extremes and the whole debate gets tricker. Let's not discuss the 4 cell embryo, or the women with such severe mental health problems that she might commit suicuide. They do exist but are the minority.

What about a 14week foetus with a mother who has a boyfriend and job, but who does not want a child at this point in her life due to career and lifestyle?

I understand Caligulas point of view (but obviously disagree) that womens rights are paramount, and therefore her, I don't care if it's a life comment fits with that and is consistent.

Paula and I care whether it is a life or not, and those of you arguing on this point presumably do also?

Monkeytrousers · 11/02/2007 17:03

No one is saying it isn't 'life' - but not alive, sentient and conscious

lulumama · 11/02/2007 17:06

great post again smiley....

lulumama · 11/02/2007 17:08

i think i posted earlier about the waters being muddied by the ability of doctors to sustain the lives of babies born very early,,
i am not sure at what point i say , life is a life, but it is where the baby can survive ex utero, and that number of weeks changes as medical science progresses...

Blandmum · 11/02/2007 17:08

But even Paula agrees that the 'life' should be stopped if the mother was raped.

THis isn't realy consistant with 'all life is sacred' is it?

I think her attitude on this aspect shes real compasion for the mother. I would agree with here. There are circumstances where to continue with 'life' would be inhumanine to the mother.

Which is what most of us have been arguing. While the number of rape cases needing a termination is low, so are the numbers of shallow, callow women, who have an abotions withoug a second thought. For the vast majority of women a termination is done, when the outcome of a pregnancy would be worse. Ppb may set the criteria differently, but we all agree that the life of the mother does take prioity.

SmileysPeople · 11/02/2007 17:08

So when do you believe a foetus reaches these criteria?

and how are we defining conscious?

Monkeytrousers · 11/02/2007 17:08

There needs to be some constancy here Smiley.

If you are saying 'life' is sacred then that includes non 'self-aware' animals - as a foetus with rudimentary nervous system, in capacity to think, feel and be aware is about as 'alive' as a..well take you r pick. Maybe MB can be more specific here.

There is a debate to be had re the issue of suffering after the nervous system is mature within the foetus. But Paula is adamant the issue is not about suffering. It's about a principle and that's where it will always fall down.

HeartOnMyGreensleeve · 11/02/2007 17:10

Oh, of course a foetus is 'alive'. I'm not against abortion either, but really, these facile pedantic statements don't help.

lulumama · 11/02/2007 17:11

i think constancy is all very well, but with debates such as these it is rarely black and white, and if we ask for constancy,there can be no change of view point then !

Blandmum · 11/02/2007 17:12

I'm not an emryologist, so I can't give you catagorical facts without a google.

On a personal basis I feel that anything up to the end of the first trimester fits in with our basic biology. Miscarriages tend to occur most often within the first trimester. I think there should be more easy access to termination whithin this period, and better use of contraception to reduce the need in te first place.

In reality banning abortion only stops safe abortion. They would still occur, but with far greater risk to the mother.

will google for info on the development of the brain