Deary me, did anybody read this piece about abortion by Caitlin Moran?

[emkana]

Dare I post this link

But it's not about what's right for you at any one time - it's about allowing other women the right to control their bodies. You can be as vehement as you like that abortion wouldn't be something you could contemplate without seeking to impose your own choices on others.

i coulndt agree more edam, women have the right to control their bodies, ie: use appropriate contraception - its not rocket science! This thread was about an artical that claimed abortion is about being a good mother, i dont think you can argue this. Its not relevant, so the artical is badly written in my opinion. I do not think any decent woman who has had to make this difficult decision would appreciate the blase attitude towards something that she must have agonised over. I live in the real world, i know that there are times when abortion is the only/best option, but it should not be hi-jacked as a feminist issue about womens choice. The intelligent choice is to not cock up contraception in the first place. Says the mother of two unplanned pregnancies Abortion is not a late contraception, that is what the morning after pill is for, or am i being niave?

I do not feel that posting, my admittedly emotional opinion, on a thread that invites opinions on this topic is imposing my views on others, do you?

Lucyellensmum, are you saying that if you have an abortion but do not agonise over it then you are not "a decent woman"?

Well said Lucyellensmum.

I don't think you are imposing your views on others, but I think those who would ban abortion or support imposing stricter limits are imposing their views. IYSWIM - I can believe, I dunno, fishing is cruel without trying to ban it. My belief isn't imposed on others if I don't actively join a campaign to ban fishing.

I do think you are in the camp of 'women must feel ashamed in order to have an abortion' though, which is worrying. Who are we to dictate how other people feel? Why must women feel bad about it? If I make a decision about how I run my life, really, it's nobody else's business how I feel about it.

Imposing your views on others is not always a bad thing. If the sufferergettes hadn't imposed thier veiw on others, we women wouldn't have the vote today.

The idea that it is 'tough luck' if a woman has an unwanted preganancy and that she should have the baby anyway is repulsive, IMO.

Throw into the equation the 'there are lots of people who would love to adopt that baby' defence and we will have reduced women to incubators.

Giving up a baby for adoption must be agonising. Why make two human beings suffer?

Blu, the traditional catholic stance is much earlier, so early that the morning after pill which kills the child is as immoral and murder as a termination at 39 weeks.

" believe that the soul enters the body 120 days after conception"

Xenia. The catholic stance is even earlier, IIRC.

The coil causes 'abortion' as the embryonic cells can't implant.

True. I never used the coil or pill. Although actually I don't have a very Catholic stance on abortion. I have more of a father's rights view on it more than the rights of the child view.

When does the baby get rights? I personally disagree with abortion. At the very least the legal abortion limit should be 12 weeks. After that you can't really deny that a baby is being destroyed.
I know it is an unpopular opinion, but I can't find a way to see it differently.

Depends which country you're in. In the UK a mother can abort right up to 40 weeks on various grounds legally. So assuming those grounds apply the child gets its rights once it's emerged from the womb in the UK. I think Bush is trying to prohibit the kind of late abortion where the baby is sucked out and then killed after, brain smashed or something rather than injected and killed inside. If I were a doctor saving the life of a premature baby at 23 weeks in one room whilst a colleague aborts a 23 week year old in another must be hard. Increasingly UK doctors are just finding it easier to refuse to do abortion work. It's never been that popular with doctors anyway but if too many opt out women will lose their choices.

How about the woman with three children whose (previously supportive of a fourth PG DH/DP) ups and leaves her after 12 weeks? This is a common scenario.

What to do?

Ann Furedi of BPAS has said that....

'Abortion should be provided as early as possible and as late as necessary.'

I agree with her.

oh Xenia please don't tell me things like that.

[not a criticism just so awful to hear]

Up until 2 years ago BPAS provided '2 stage' late abortions. On day one the woman would have a GA and the cervix would be dilated, the umbilical cord cut (killing the fetus/baby.) Laminaria (seaweed 'tents' which expand) would be placed in the cervix. On the second day she would return to theatre and have a further GA. The baby/embryo would then be removed via the cervix.

Not sure how it works now, I think medical induction (labour) is the norm.

Message withdrawn

'Late' meaning anything after 19 weeks of pregnancy.

Bubble99, I think women should have more choices available than to abort or not abort. In the situation you describe it would be tragic if a woman had to abort a wanted baby due to financial difficulties. That is the kind of situation where abortion is wrong and the woman is as much a victim as the baby as she feels she has no chioces.
Xenia, what you describe is horrific and precisely why I think abortion is not right.

Pruni, up to 23 weeks and 6 days a woman can have an abortion in a private clinic in the U for non-mediacl reasons. The usual reason is that 'continuing the PG would adversely affect the mental health of the mother.' Two doctors need to sign.

Beyond that it will be in a hospital and yes, I think that medical need is the norm there.

Bambi. I wish the pro-life movement would fund, publicise and formalise lifelong sponsorships of the babies that they urge women not to abort.

Not much of that going on in Brazil, is there?

Bubble, I wish they would do that too although it would not really be feasible.
Undoubtably the fate of unwanted children is sometimes far more brutal than an abortion.
IMO on some level there has to be an absolute right or absolute wrong. That is how society has to work. I don't think that moral choices should be based on the good of the majority, as the minority (in this case the unborn babies) will inevitably suffer.

But, Bambi, if the lives of babies born to women who were not permitted a wanted abortion is worse, on the whole (think Romania, Brazil, Columbia etc) then surely the 'good of the majority' rule has to apply.

I agree that in the UK, with our benefits system, no unwanted baby will physically starve, but emotional starvation due to being an unwanted child must be as, if not more, cruel.

I also don't subscribe to the 'give the child up for adoption' view as this reduces women to incubators for the childless.

There is a very small number of 'late' abortions and I think they were entirely carried out for medical reasons, last time I saw the statistics.

The age range is interesting too - far more women in their 20s, 30s and 40s having abortions than teeenagers.

Oh, and all surgical procedures are gross, tbh, describe any procedure and it's disgusting. Orthpaedic surgery is really, really brutal, for instance.