###### YOOOOHOOOOO ###### K I T T Y L E T T E ######### OVER HEEEERE!!!

[yorkshirelass79]

Message withdrawn

It was a good question Blu. I wish with all my heart someone had asked me that when I was waiting for my abortion.

I think people should live up to their responsibilities, too.
But I don't belive that it is a responsibility for a woman to go ahead with pregnancy and motherhood because contraception fails or she has fought against unprotected sex...or simply doesn't want to be a mother.

Heavens, enough of us struggle to think we are good parents when we wanted nothing more than to be pregnant with our children. Seething resentment against having a child at all isn't gpoing to lead to good parenting! It's all very well haveing beliefs like that but are they practical in the real world?

QuootiePie - yes, you were clearly badly advised, and it shouldn't have happened to you like that, and it has been devastating for you. Very very sad.

well, i have never seen motherhood as a punishment, but i am pro choice....children , if unplanned, can devastate lives..if you are in a precarious mental , physical or mental state..if it is not correct to dismiss all abortions as a question of convenience....

is bringing a child into an abusive relationship mature and responsible, for example

it is all very well looking at this in black and white, but life is a million shades of gray

I happen to think it is practical.Mostly what you are saying is that in todays world people have no self control and that they shouldn't have to have any so abortion is sadly a neccessity?

I think there is an important debate to be had on this topic, but sadly this does not appear to be it.

I think the discussion (not just on here, but in society as a whole) suffers from the fact that the terms of the debate are so poorly defined. So I'd guess all of us would agree that infanticide of a newborn is morally wrong, and pretty much all of us would agree that what the Americans call 'partial-birth abortion' is wrong. And I suspect that the overwhelming majority would have very grave reservations about third-trimester terminations, even for apparently very compelling reasons such as major abnormality of the foetus or serious mental illness of the mother. But I would also guess that most posters here (though clearly not all) would accept, as do the vast majority of the British public, that a first-trimester embryo does not have the same status, and would support properly-controlled early termination.

Yet unless and until there is a compelling evidence base for the point at which a single fertilised egg becomes a proper human being, it is impossible to have a productive discussion on the ethics of termination because everybody is arguing from a different starting point. And the Catholic church has done itself no favours by conflating the morality of contraception with that of abortion, when there are clearly very different issues at stake both intuitively and logically.

I am a Catholic, though by no means an uncritical one, and I think that there is a continuum between the single cell and the newborn baby, which leads me directly to being deeply uncomfortable with the idea of abortion. I sincerely hope that if I were in the position of being pregnant under catastrophically unsuitable circumstances that I would have the courage of my convictions, though I know one can never be sure until in that position for real. I am also aware that my position springs at least in part from a Catholic worldview (not just because the Church says so -- I have no probs with contraception, it's a separate issue), and that one can construct perfectly valid arguments against my position. So I would in no way be seeking for my viewpoint to be represented in legislation, since it's one that most people don't share.

I'm very frustrated by the way the debate on this topic usually goes, both on here and in RL, particularly the way that many Catholics quickly dig themselves into a viewpoint that is all too easily characterised as bigoted and reactionary, while the people who make sound logical arguments for abortion get side-swiped by the fact that there are clearly individuals out there who are irresponsible about contraception and inappropriately cavalier about abortion in a way that does the cause no favours.

It is an important debate -- I'd be interested to hear eg. the pro-abortion people's views on what the cut-off point should be for abortion. And how you think access to terminations should be controlled, assuming you don't think it should be available on demand? And in return could everyone accept that Catholics can hold strong views on this topic without necessarily wanting to come over all southern-Baptisty? [quizzical but mildly hopeful smile]

I thank you.

Because if you are a southern Baptist you must be unreasonable??

ppb, you know what I mean -- actually your comment a pretty good illustration of the tit-for-tattishness I was trying to get away from.

Let me rephrase my last sentence so as not to offend any southern baptists:

And in return could everyone accept that Catholics can hold strong views on this topic without necessarily wanting to come over all like banner-waving abortion-clinic picketers? [still holding out a quizzical but mildly hopeful smile]

Better?

no one has said abortion is the ideal way to deal with lack of self control

we are talking about women who have taken responsibility but their contraception has failed..

no-one at all has simplified this to the point of it being a self control issue with abortion an easy answer.

clearly, we are looking at this from two totally divergent view points, and we are not going to meet in the middle

there needs to be a safe legal option for women, when they are pregnant and cannot continue for a myriad of complex emotional, physical reasons

frogs..your post is very eloquent and admirable and thought provoking

but this is the sort of debate where it is inevitably going to crystalize into pro and con.. and unlikely to meet in the middle

PPP....i really take exception to the way you are making out that the pro choice posts are about an easy way out....

Frogs, having recovered a little from your opening assertion that there is little value of anything said thus far, I would like to answer your questions .

I think you are right about the impossibility of a discussion where everyone comes from a different starting point, and the lack of compelling evidence for life starting at any given moment...and the equivalent difficulty for pro-abortionists to identify the moment at which termination does becoame unacceptable.

this is what i was trying to get at in my post some way below about the difference between an 'absolute' belief and a 'pragmatic' view, and admitting that, because of lack of compelling evidence, I am muddied about where my own personal threshold comes. CERTAINLY before the child would be able to survive independently outside the uterus. And before the feotus could feel pain or discomfort, or consciousness.
But that we don't know, do we?
But in the first trimester, althoiugh the building blocks for complete functioning organs and lims are there, they aren't comeplete or functioning yet.

Actually, I DO believe in abortion on demand in the first 10 weeks, say. I don't think termination should be refused for any woamn who does not want that embryo growing in her body, and i think it confuses the issue enormously and rather dishonestly, to have doctors required to make ludicrous claims that the woman would be at risk, etc.

I have deliberately used you term 'pro abortion' because in certain circumstances i, personally, amd pro-abortion...as has been proved by my decision to have one, and i have deliberatley used 'embryo' for 1st trimester, 'feotus' for later, and 'baby' for when it can survive independently.

see..tit for tat from me now!

i should bow out now,

I understand what you are saying but surely you can accept that contraception is not 100% effective. Its not a big secret. So when you have sex you still have to accept that a pregnancy might occur.

I wasn't trying to be tit for tat. I'm sure you would not be best pleased if someone made a derogatory remark about catholics.

Blu, I think my post took so long to compose that I missed quite a lot! I certainly didn't mean to imply that no-one had said anything of value -- just that unlike eg. the Saddam Hussein threads or the one about the surgery for the disabled girl, abortion threads don't seem to involve engagement with other people's arguments so much as increasingly vigorous repetition of two diametrically opposed viewpoints.

Actually, I think your position is an entirely rational one, although it's not one I agree with. But since it's one that probably most people in the UK would support, it would make a better basis for legislation than the current legislation which seems to please nobody but which apparently can't be altered without interest groups in both directions screaming blue murder.

not sure if that was addressed to me ,,,

anyway, i can;t really add more..

i know contraception is not 100 % infallible

i know that for some women, an unplanned pregnancy wold be devastating

you are suggesting abstinence if the woman is not wanting children at that time

i cannot agree...

Paulaplumpbottom: I don't see motherhood as a punishment either. However, I'm finding pregnancy a slog, and the only thing that keeps me going is the fact that I want a child. Why are embryos worth more than living, breathing women?

Frogs, I think the comments one could construe as anti-catholic below were just exasperated responses to kittylette's rather antagonising posts.

But PP, that's ok as an ideal, if it is what you belive, but once someone who may well be deeply irresponsible and immoral and inadequate in many many ways, HAS become pg, and really really doesn't want to proceed, then you are suggesting that she should nevertheless be forced to proceed against her will - which is very much like 'you've made your bed now lie in it' which is closely related to a punitive position.

Frogs - I agree with you about the general route of abortion discussions, and certainly appreciate your very considered plea for people not to retreat to 'mad' positions of any kind! Yours was a good post.

Speaking as someone raised as a Methodist, that is [smile}

I can see where you are coming from paulapb. However, the great joy of living in the 21st century is that women are actually allowed to enjoy themselves. So, even though no contraception is 100%, we can allow ourselves to enjoy having sex for the plain and simple fact that it is FUN rather than thinking, every time we jump into bed, that we'll be having a baby.

frogs, thanks for your post. I do find debates like this to be mostly frustrating and fruitless experiences, as each side becomes more and more entrenched in their positions.

I do want to take up one of the points you made:

"Yet unless and until there is a compelling evidence base for the point at which a single fertilised egg becomes a proper human being, it is impossible to have a productive discussion on the ethics of termination because everybody is arguing from a different starting point"

I can't see how there will ever be compelling evidence for a precise point at which a fertilised egg becomes a human being. In any case, I think the human/not human distinction is unhelpful here. I think it's more helpful to think in terms of the foetus' ability to feel pain; whether it is conscious; whether it experiences emotion such as fear or happiness. All these attributes make us "human" but equally, you can be human and none of them apply - the example of a patient in a persistent vegitative state, for example.

The ethics of termination, as I see them, are about balancing the rights of the foetus against the rights of its mother. Even if it were determined that a foetus become human at, for example, 6 weeks, I would still argue that any rights it can be said to possess are contingent upon whether they conflict with the rights of the woman who is carrying it.

As for the cut-off point for abortion - it's a v. difficult question. I think the current law is about right, and that the focus should be on making access to early abortions - pre 12 weeks - less fraught with buerocracy, so that less abortions are carried out at the point where a foetus might now be able to survive outside the womb - currently 22 weeks, as I understand it.

frogs, presumably the confusion of the abortion/contraception issue was borne out of a situation where many babies died in infancy, so having large families was to be encouraged.

I too am a Catholic but pro-choice (so obviously a pick n mix one), so where does that leave me? the chromosomal abnormality we thought dd2 might have could only be detected halfway through my pregnancy - so termination could only be an option then which would have been very very difficult for me to go through but I would have rather than had a child with a severe, life-limiting condition. I don't know where I'd draw the line exactly but am strongly in favour of access to safe (preferably early) abortion for any women who want it.

sorry Blu - I've been eating my dinner and seem to have unwittingly repeated much of what you've already said!

Foxinsocks, I'm not anti-fun, But sometimes that bit of fun has serious consequences.

Lulumama, I'm not saying its an easy descion, but I do think people use it as the convienant way out.

I agree paula but if you worried about the consequences every time you had fun, you'd hardly be enjoying yourself.

You see, I think that being responsible means you've done your bit for contraception - whether you take something yourself or get a man to use a condom. I think that's as far as responsibility goes (wrt having sex). Should you fall pregnant while taking those precautions, then I see that as unlucky not as a likely consequence (iyswim).

I don't know bundle not sure where it leaves me, either. I was careful to say that I have v. deep-seated problems with the notion of abortion, rather than that I am 'against' it. I'd hate to be involved in legislation for that reason too Catholic MPs seem to get torn off a strip for sectarianism if their vote follows their religious views, or slated for hypocrisy if they abstain or vote against it. Most of the catholic medics I know seem to take the opt-out clause of refusing to participate, which is fair enough for hospital medics, but arguably not entirely fair on your patients if you're eg. a GP. There is no easy answer, cos there are compelling arguments at both ends -- it's just that when the argument starts from either end it never seems to meet in the middle.

I think Blu's argument for pretty much freely-available early termination (presumably with improved ease and speed of access) is the most pragmatically compelling. I know there can never be an exact definition of when the cells become a person, but I think there is a strong argument for regarding the first trimester as qualitatively different from the 2nd and 3rd.

And I don't know about mid-term abortions for abnormality, I really don't. I'm the wrong person to have an abstract opinion on it anyway, as it's too close to home my sister had a baby with Trisomy 18, and yes she knew beforehand and went to term anyway, on the basis that she couldn't see how an induced labour at 20+ weeks would be any easier than going to term knowing your newborn would have a very limited lifespan. That's not a criticism of anybody else's decision to terminate for abnormality just that having seen it in close-up, I also can't see that either option is necessarily preferable to the other. I do think there is scope for medics to be more honest about the purpose of antenatal testing, though I think a lot of people have the tests on a purely routine basis, thinking they will get reassurance from them, without having it spelled out to them what decisions they might have to make on the basis of the results. Me I took the cowardly option and had no testing at all, and I was surprised by how many times I had to defend my decision in the face of medical incomprehension as if refusing testing was somehow tantamount to putting in a special request for a substandard baby. Very odd, and not entirely evenhanded.

Anyway, thanks for these views -- I normally avoid posting on these threads for fear of being shouted down for towing the (catholic) party line, which i don't really. It would be helpful to see the (very real) grey areas being debated more honestly in the public arena, rather than each side refusing to give an inch in case it might give the other side a toe-hold to topple their argument. A pretty cast-iron way of ensuring bad debate and legislation, really.

Not sure if this has already been mentioned as this thread got so vast in such a short space of time. But I just wanted to say this......in my studies I did a module on this and was stunned to learn of the different methods of "terminating a pregnancy" around the world. In some cultures in South America, for example, an unwanted pregnancy is "terminated" by smothering the child at birth. In fact, the baby is not viewed as human being until approx 6 weeks of age meaning that, to them, it would be acceptable to smother up until that age.
Now I know that in our society this is NOT acceptable, but the point is that we all have to realise that culture dictates different things across the globe. I would NOT DARE to try and tell an age old tribe that their beliefs/rituals, etc were wrong in the same way as I would not dare to tell a woman in our society that her beliefs were wrong (either way, by the way, and anyone who has read the original post knows my own personal opinion). But what I would dare say is that it disgusts me that anyone can be so full of themselves that they feel it acceptable to say some of the things that have been said. We are all people and we all have souls and feelings and it is not up to any of us to deliberately hurt other peoples feelings in such a blunt way. It is always possible to express opinions without being harsh or hurtful, and once you have said your peace (particularly when it blatantly causes outrage) then it is surely best to just shut up.
Just like I'm going to do now.....