Can it be too easy to access a termination?

[LarryLobster]

I've always thought that terminations should be available on demand (within time limits) but recent events have caused me to question this and I wonder what others think.

I live in the most equal country around at the moment. Terminations are available on demand, no questions asked. I thought this was a good thing. But a few weeks ago my daughter went to the GP feeling unwell and was blindsided on finding out she was pregnant. She said she didn't want it and within 2 hours had been given the abortion pill. Now I question the ease of it.

My daughter is a bit vulnerable, she is autistic, and this pill was administered on her say so, so quickly that I don't think she even had time to process the fact she was pregnant. She'd tried to get hold of me, her dad and her boyfriend but couldn't. So she'd had nobody to talk to. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely support her decision either way but my concern is about whether she would have made the same decision if she'd had more time to process it.

I remember the initial panic and terror I felt when I found out I was pregnant and that was a planned pregnancy. So what I'm asking is, is it in a woman's best interests to make such a momentous decision so quickly or should a woman's right to terminate be restricted slightly for her own benefit?

Sorry that's so garbled, I'm just trying to make sense of my thoughts.

(And yes, this would also apply to other medical procedures, especially if life-altering.)

Then perhaps she shouldn't have been allowed to attend by herself?

Drs won't ask their patients if they are autistic, or need extra time. The dr would have been confronted by a pregnant person, who expressed an desire not to be pregnant & acted as quickly as possible to help her reach that outcome.

if the patient is unable to make a decision such as this, then she should have had an advocate with her.

I think if I'd have had my abortion 'restricted' in any way, it would have made me even more depressed than I was during the pregnancy.

As it was, when I phoned BPAS and had my first appointment and saw a lovely lady and just blurted out 'I'm not like 'normal' people, I've got a lovely partner, a very good career and am financially independent, I've got very supportive friends and family.... I just can't do this as I want to kill myself and I've tried and tried and tried to cope, but I can't, I can't go on with being pregnant'

Part of my terror was being 'forced' to do things by the medical profession - give birth vaginally, having X number of injections, coping with the number of Drs and Midwifes appointments.....

... If BPAS had said 'We can't give you one yet....' or 'You'll need to wait', I may very well have thought that it was yet another attempt to 'force' me and my body to carry something against my will which could very well have ended my life (I was at the point of writing my goodbye letters when I finally broke down and started taking anti depressants).

I had 3 days between my initial BPAS appointment and my termination - I was actually surprised it could be scheduled so quickly and I remember saying to the woman 'That's quick', she DID say 'If you would like more time, we could book you in for the following week?' but I knew I wanted it to be over as soon as possible so was grateful I could go to the hospital so quickly (I was 12 weeks so couldn't take the pill).

What I'm trying to say, I guess... is that I had the terror and panic.... and mine WAS a planned pregnancy - However that terror and panic never went away and my depression and moods got worse and worse as the pregnancy progressed. Your daughter may very well have known in her heart that regardless of how long she was pregnant, she didn't want to go through with it.

How is she feeling now? Does she feel guilt, regret? Has she talked to you about it? The feelings I've experienced afterwards have been so much more up and down than I'd have ever thought they would be and despite knowing I 100% made the right decision, there's still a lot of guilt there.

"But if the flip side of some women not being rushed is others being made to wait when they are sure of their decision and don't need time to think about it, that's not okay IMO." Oh I agree. Women shouldn't be made to wait. I don't thinking allowing those women who want to have some time, that space and not railroading women means that other women need to have to wait.

Ease of access should remain for those who want it. So ultimately I disagree with the premise of the OP. Ease of access shold not be reduced. But it sounds as if her daughter wasn't necessarily given all the options and/or the tools to pick through those options. Which is a problem especially for the more vulnerable.

Definitely the problem is not the speed of the abortion, certainly not in wider terms as applied to the female population as a whole. There may well be other times in her life when a medical procedure happens rapidly, you cannot prevent ever experiencing shock. It may help her if you chat over with her feelings and try to seperate how she feels about the abortion (I assume it was wanted, and she doesn't want a baby) and the speed of events (bit overwhelmed, might need a bit of a cry). Try and avoid conflating the two, as they are very seperate issues.

There is a lot of ignorance about autism on this thread.

"within two hours had been given the abortion pill"

But nobody made her take it, no?

She could have brought it home, waited until she talked things over with you & others. If she chose to take it before consulting with family, sure you must respect that choice.

If she is sound enough mentally that you are OK with her consenting to sex, I don't see the problem with her deciding to abort this unplanned pregnancy.

Cote I think the OP said she had to take the pill in front of medical staff. So it was a bit of a now or never moment in a way (although I would have thought she understood she could leave and request an abortion again later).

She could have brought it home, waited until she talked things over with you & others.

Apparently not, as it was required that she take it under the supervision of medical professionals. probably because of possible side effects.

But I agree, if she can consent to sex, she can consent to have an abortion. In Sweden, I would suspect there is more risk of being coerced into having heterosexual intercourse with risk of pregnancy than there is risk of being coerced into having an abortion. (There are places where medical professionals coercing women into having abortions happens - China may have been one, due to the one child policy - but it is very rare, and certainly not a problem in Sweden. If coercion happens, it is more likely to come from the man who caused the pregnancy, and I do think women should be separated from any accompanying male before getting an abortion.)

*WhT about the morning after pill?

Should women be made to go away and have a think about that?*

This comment is the most direct comparison to make imo.

The only difference between the morning after pill and a termination pill is a matter of a few weeks.

If you don't want to be pregnant, you don't want to be pregnant - going away to 'think about the ramifications' only serves to introduce drama & emotion where there needs not to be.

Ah OK. Odd - that's not how it happens elsewhere.

Surely she didn't have to take a taxi to the hospital and take the pills, though. It's not like she didn't have a minute to think.

The only difference between the morning after pill and a termination pill is a matter of a few weeks

I am pro-choice but the difference between the morning after pill when a woman may very well not be pregnant at all and a termination is not just "a few weeks"

True, it could be just a few days.

But the experience is the same - take a pill, have a heavy period.

The morning after pill prevents pregnancy, it doesn't end an existing pregnancy. While the experience is probably more or less the same, it matters when talking to anti-choicers.

Morning after pill is basically emergency contraception.

One should be able go get it fast, because it is for emergencies. Being made to wait for it is about as useful as making an appointment for the firefighters when your house is burning.

"The morning after pill prevents pregnancy, it doesn't end an existing pregnancy. While the experience is probably more or less the same, it matters when talking to anti-choicers. "

Not really. There is an embryo in both cases, which is then aborted. And anti-choicers believe life begins at conception anyway, so there is no difference between abortion at 24 hours and abortion at 7 weeks for them, either.

There is an embryo in both cases, which is then aborted

No there might not be an embryo at all in the case of the morning after pill.

The morning after pill prevents pregnancy, it doesn't end an existing pregnancy. While the experience is probably more or less the same, it matters when talking to anti-choicers

Morning after pill is basically emergency contraception

Only the most hard line anti abortioners are going to argue against the morning after pill. I don't however think arguing the morning after pill and abortion are the same thing will persuade any anti abortion campaigner to change their mind on abortion. But if you want to givr them ammunition for calls for controls on the morning after pill go ahead.

As someone who did want to be pregnant but not under the circumstances I was in ..I agree with the op. If it wasn't for other people suggesting keeping him would be ok I might have gone along with his fathers wishes to abort. It 's not true that everyone knows exactly how they feel about pregnancy.

I think abortion and pregnancy are affected by social norms and fashion much more than we think. I had an abortion back in the 80's because no one had babies in their 20's at uni. Pretty much all of my friends did too. I don 'think regret it now but actually if I was to do it again I would keep it.

"there might not be an embryo at all in the case of the morning after pill."

But you are taking the morning after pill because you think it's rather likely that there is an embryo in there. Not because you feel like having a horrid period.

Still not the same as an embryo actually being there. You cannot know when you take a morning after the pill what the status is.

I don't think it is helpful to the aim of making emergency contraception easily, and quickly available and ideally free to say it's no different from an abortion.

My view is there are 2 logical positions on abortion. Life begins at conception or abortion is permissible to term. Both of those make me personally uncomfortable. I suspect I'm not alone in that given where the law stands , certainly in the UK where pragmatism is used as a fudge between 2 positions the majority would not support.

I expect I'll get flamed for saying that but I don't agree emergency contraception is no different from an abortion.

With the morning after pill there is no way that you can compare it to an abortion. Its a precaution and there is no evidence that the woman is pregnant. If there is an embryo its at the single cell stage and would not have implanted itself in the uterus.

"My view is there are 2 logical positions on abortion. Life begins at conception or abortion is permissible to term. Both of those make me personally uncomfortable. I suspect I'm not alone in that given where the law stands , certainly in the UK where pragmatism is used as a fudge between 2 positions the majority would not support."

People have very strong views about abortion. What matters is that the woman feels confident that she is making the right decision for HERSELF.

I'm a lifelong atheist and staunch pro-choicer, but Lass's post presents such a target-rich environment that I don't know where to start.

"I don't think it is helpful to the aim of making emergency contraception easily, and quickly available and ideally free to say it's no different from an abortion."

I don't say stuff with any aim in mind. - that is intellectual dishonesty. I say it because it is correct, whatever its impact on the end result.

"Emergency contraception" is remembering there is a condom in your purse just as your partner penetrates. It is not what happens 12 hours later, once you have woken up and remembered that you had unprotected sex.

To clarify the terms here: Contraception happens before conception (hence the name) and abortion happens after conception. And conception is the instant when sperm meets the egg, during sex.

For someone who believes that human life begins at conception, morning after pill is also murder. No amount of Newspeak such as "emergency contraception" is going to change the fact that what you are trying to do with the morning after pill is to flush any embryo that might be in the womb down the drain.

"My view is there are 2 logical positions on abortion. Life begins at conception or abortion is permissible to term."

Your view is bizarrely limited. Have you never heard of the term viability?

I'm all for abortion for no reason other than "I don't feel like it" for most of the pregnancy, but would like to see a better reason to abort a 39-week fetus, for example.

"I don't agree emergency contraception is no different from an abortion."

Morning after pill is abortion. Rather, it is either completely unnecessary and useless procedure of trying to abort a non-existing embryo, or it is the abortion of an existing embryo.

Under no circumstances is it contraception, emergency or otherwise, unless you take the morning after pill during sex. Not the morning after.

I thought the morning after pill worked by preventing or delaying imminent ovulation, which is why its not that effective (as some women have ovulated in the 24 hours before sex) and also why it is more effective the closer to the event. So in fact it's not abortion at all.
It may also prevent implantation of a fertilised egg but if you are arguing that's equivalent to abortion well then so is the mini pill and the copper coil.
To me abortion is removal of an implanted foetus, the MAP doesn't do that.

There are different MAPs.

The good ones can cause abortions.

The crap ones you can get in Ireland just delay ovulation

You cannot know when you take a morning after the pill what the status is.

So it's OK to take abortion pills as long as you haven't tested your status to check whether younare still a person in your own right or whether you are now subordinate tona few cells that have changed the hormones in your piss.

I don't think so doin. Unless the good ones also aren't available in the rest of the UK?
Pills that cause abortion of an implanted foetus are taken for that purpose and aren't MAPS.
Info about MAPs and how they work here www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception-guide/pages/emergency-contraception.aspx

Implantation doesn't happen in 24 hours, so of course morning after pill doesn't cause the abortion of an implanted embryo. It causes the flushing out of the proembryo that might be there.

For anyone who believes that human life begins at conception, it is no different than an implanted embryo or a later-term fetus.

I'm a lifelong atheist and staunch pro-choicer, but Lass's post presents such a target-rich environment that I don't know where to start

I have been an atheist as long as I could consciously think about it. I do not see my atheistic views as being incompatible with the fact that at conception there is an embryo which has the potential of growing into a human being. The cells are live.