Anti-abortion acitvists do rather represent the worst of human beings,don't they?

[SolidGoldBrass]

Dishonest, ignorant, supersitious, woman-hating and sexually dysfunctional. What's not to despise?

If you don't approve of abortion, don't have one yourself. it's fair enough not to like abortion. It's not fair enough to actively involve yourself in removing other people's human rights for your own stupid malevolent faulty reasoning.

(Yes I am posting this and going to bed. I will be back tomorrow...)

"It's a fairly standard feminist position that women should have the right to make her own decisions abuot what happens to her and her body."

Slug, I absolutely agree. But the question is whether the foetus is actually part of her body or not. In my view, the foetus is contained in her uterus but is not actually part of her body. There is no 'magic' in the cutting of the umbilical cord or the delivery of the placenta.

The smug comment was referring to people who use 'pro-choice' as a simple term to describe their beliefs when they are not actually as pro-choice as they think they are.

And "Pro-Life" is not a smug term that totally ignores the fact that what these people are doing is, in fact, trying to deny choice?

I don't follow your logic about the smug comment, I really don't.

They're both stupid, shorthand, simplistic terms imo.

While the foetus is under 24 weeks and doesn't really have independent feelings of its own, I think it could be seen as part of the mother's body, so 'woman's body, woman's choice' could apply.

Once the foetus becomes a more separate being with proper feelings of its own, it doesn't seem so much part of the woman's body, it seems like another person. So then you would be making a choice about a separate person's life, which they have no say in.

So I think I would be pro-choice for the first 24 weeks, whatever the mother's reasons.

But for me, it isn't as simple as saying I am pro-life after that. I think each individual case needs to be considered carefully, as to how much suffering to all involved, will be caused by each decision.

I think that aborting foetuses over 24 weeks old should be avoided except in extreme circumstances.

If the mother is likely to die from having the baby, I believe the mother should be saved. I think the suffering of the mother if she died, and all the people emotionally connected to her and dependent on her in other ways as well (eg other children) would outweigh the suffering of the foetus if it was aborted.

If the baby is likely to be stillborn or to live a life of pain and suffering, then it is kinder to abort it.

I don't think people should feel they have to have a simple view on this at one extreme or the other, it is allowed for them to have different views for different circumstances.

...and (sorry, sometimes I can't stop my verbal diarrohea) extreme activists (not the letter writing kind, the 'direct action' kind) are wrong to take action which is likely to hurt people when they don't know the details of each specific situation first.

I think most kinds of extremism are flawed and a middle way always seems best.

I don't think she's saying that's smug slug. Rather it's smug to say 'i'm pro choice' but to actually not be truly pro choice because you don't agree with termination post 24 weeks (you being one) unless the child is disabled.

I agree with her on that point. Either termination post 24 weeks is ok or it isn't - there shouldn't be further categorization. We disagree on whether it is (I say yes because alternatives IMO are not acceptable).

But I understand her point.

"Either termination post 24 weeks is ok or it isn't" - Why?

Why can't conditions be attached to different circumstances?

Surely there is a difference between:

'I don't feel like having this baby as it will stop me going out nightclubbing all the time' (although people probably very rarely think like this)

or, 'If I have this baby I might die giving birth'

If the law is about a child being able to survive independently (with or without support) then late terminations are carried out which definitely break that rule. Future health/expected outcome in terms of health does not currently determine whether a late termination can be carried out.

Ds1 is incredibly healthy and far more physically able than either of his brothers. He's a lot faster than me as well. He's also a separate being with feelings of his own. And he's not in pain. if there had been a test for his condition then no doubt we would have been offered a late termination. I suspect the medical profession would rather have encouraged it. If it is acceptable was fetuses like him, then it should be acceptable for all.

And IMO the alternatives are not acceptable - women should have access to safe medical care if they do not want to continue a pregnancy.

What is your DS's condition Saintly (sorry if you've already said further down)?

What reasons would the doctors have said for offering you a termination for his condition?

You said he is not in pain, and he sounds like he is living a good life.

Would it be hard for a lot of parents coping with his condition and they might not feel up to it? It sounds like you cope with it ok.

Sorry if I'm being too nosey.

Whose going to decide whether you really might die? Women often choose to carry babies to term knowing it might kill them - are we going to refuse them the right to do that?

Who going to pass judgement on whether continuing nightclubbing is a worthwhile activity (I don't really see why a woman should be forced to give up nightclubbing if it's important to her - denying her safe termination is hardly going to magic her into wanting the baby). It doesn't make sense to say that termination is ok for one reason but not another. It's the same process and it's either acceptable ot it isn't. Reasons shouldn't come into it.

Ordinary - he's severely autistic. He will require 24 hour care for the rest of his life. In terms of care needs he is much more disabled than any child I have met to date with DS (a reason for which late terminations are offered). His learning disabilities are more profound and his prognosis is worse (full time resi care if we don't do it - for most people with DS the expectation would be for supported living).

He'll cost the state a lot of money which is enough of a reason for sone. But yes with good support (which is essential) he has a very good quality of life. And although ours is more difficult because if him I think we benefit as much as we lose out (from belonging to a ready made community etc).

That's rather off the point. Other than to say applying the medical model to a fetuses right to live isn't always the best way to decide who should be allowed to terminate.

Much better to give free choice to women. Let them decide - they should be trusted to make sensible decisions for their lives. Not denied access to safe medical care because their reasons aren't deemed acceptable.

You are putting words into my mouth saintdamersturnip. I said I understood the argument about the post 23 week limit, not that I agreed with it, and certainly not when it comes to disability. This would be somewhat ironic since disability awareness is a large part of what I do in my job.

I think it's illogical to put a time limit on these things, especially as delays in diagnostic tests may push you beyond the 24 week limit. What I do understand is someone's right to question my choice once I have a potentially viable foetus. However, that choice is still mine and mine alone. It's just at that point I may pay more attention to the medical advice. I shudder at the thought of being reduced to nothing more than a baby making factory.

I'm glad you put that last line in because I was getting confused!

I don't agree with carmen in terms of her arguments about limits but I do understand what she means by saying people are smug when often people are pro-choice only as far as another's choice reflects their own.

So you get threads on here where people have an outcry because someone's sister is going to go for a post 20 week abortion - lots of advice on how to stop her, lots of name calling about the sister, lots of 'irresponsible' branded around. Yes those same people would think it fair enough for disability- even in cases where the child would be healthy with a good quality of life ahead.

That to me - that it's ok sometimes but not others - depending on what happens to make your squeamish, isn't truly pro-choice - if you are pro-choice - then you should be saying women have a right to termination whenever and for whatever reason they want. I know carmen doesn't believe that - she wants limits, but I do agree with her that that position is the only one that is truly pro-choice. It's where I am. I would never have a termination for a disability, but I believe in someone's right to one. Likewise I would never have a late termination of a non-disabled child, but I don't think that should give me the right to tell other women what to do.

I suspect some consider that terminations are OK for disability post 24 weeks, but not for other reasons because the disabled child might suffer - but that's not what the law states- the acceptability or otherwise is no decided on likelihood of future suffering - many terminations currently carried out post 24 weeks wouldn't be allowed on those terms.

Which brings us back to it's either ok or it isn't. And I'll stick (with you!) in the it is OK camp. I'm there because I think the alternatives are worse - you might be there for different reasons.

"My personal viewpoint sees a foetus of a certain stage of development as a vulnerable, viable individual and therefore I feel that foetus deserves protection in law too"

How about the mother? Doesn't she deserve this protection you talk of?

Protection to have a safe legal procedure?
Protection to be able to make up her own mind?
Protection from mental issues?
Protection from medical issues? (as pointed out in my example of my friend who had cancerous cells that needed removing urgently, so was a her life or babies life choice?)
Protection from people who think they know better?

Really, this is very a simplistic example. But say you have a tooth ache. You want the tooth out, but people tell you know, because it is a living object (it has a live nerve supply, so therefore it it known a 'live' and yes....I know a foetus is very very different to a tooth). But you are in pain. The pain makes you cry. It hurts so much you can't sleep. You can't eat. The infection is so bad it makes you vomit. You continue to cry & hope people will see why you need it out of you, but still people refuse.

That is a classically example of someone taking away your right to live a normal life. Just how some would like to take away a woman's right to live a normal life without a baby she feels she cannot raise/give birth to.

As pointed out many many times on this thread, there will not be a sudden huge surge of women wanting 39week abortions. I doubt they happen that late just for fun. I repeat, when you don't want the foetus inside, you want it out ASAP, you don't want to carry it to term, feel it kicking, feel the stretching cramps, cope with the morning sickness...you want it out preferably before (or very soon after) that all starts (obv kicking excepted).

I totally agree with what ordinary said at 10.30

Saintly, thank you for sharing details about your son. I admire you greatly for coping with the hard work and difficulties of having to provide the level of care required for him.

I don't actually know what the law is about late abortions - what conditions they say etc. I'm surprised that it isn't about how much suffering is likely to be caused by continuing the pregnancy! What reasons do they say make it acceptable, does anyone know? (sorry for being lazy as I should really just look this up on the net.)

I think some women would probably think that they couldn't be strong enough to provide the higher level of care needed for someone with your DS's condition, so would be a substandard mother and have a bad effect on their child long term, and they would rather spare them (as well as themselves and possibly their other children) from that by having a late abortion. This seems understandable to me but I don't know whether I could actually go through with an abortion myself if I was in that position.

And thinking about all this, I'm now questionning what I wrote earlier about the reason of 'wanting to carry on nightclubbing' not being as valid, because maybe it has a similarity - the mother feels they would be a poor quality mother because they would much rather be doing something else than looking after their child, so the child would live a miserable life, feeling unwanted, because of this. Maybe the less painful option for everyone is abortion in this circumstance.

So maybe I'm swaying towards being in favour of pro-choice, but I think I would still find it hard to respect a woman who had a late abortion for 'nightclubbing type reasons'.

carmen - I too (for me) see a fetus as separate and viable from very early on- whether disabled or not in my case as well. And I couldn't for example accompany someone terminating for a disability that was compatible with life and be the shoulder to cry on - if I did that I really couldn't go home and look my own son in the eyes. I could quite easily accompany someone for a termination because they just didn't want a baby - my squeamishness comes from my own situation but I still don't think my views on separateness or quality of life should allow me to dictate to others.

Choice has to be there. It doesn't mean you have to like the choices, or agree with other people's choices but I see it as uncivilised to not offer a choice. What are the alternatives? Often rather horrible and unpleasant.

If you look at the wording of the 1967 Act it is interpreted in a rather lenient way. Apparently (this is cut and pasted) you can have a pre 24 week termination if 2 docs agree one or more of the following apply:
(1) the woman's life is at greater risk by continuing the pregnancy than terminating it.
(2)The termination is necessary to prevent permanent injury to the woman's physical or mental health.
(3)There is a reasonable risk that if the child were born it would suffer from serious physical or mental handicaps.
(4)There is a reasonable risk that if the child were born, any existing children the woman has are more likely to suffer injury to their physical or mental health.

But pre-24 weeks people are not interrogated on the risk to their mental health, and many people have terminations where none of the above really applies. I don't think this is a bad thing- just that perhaps the Act needs to be rewritten into one that finally recognises that women have control/choice over their bodies.

You don't have to like people's reasons to still allow them choice though Ordinary.

And I don't need admiration - really I don't. I remember someone coming to work with us last year (paid by social services- these are the sorts of things that society can help with) - she had previously had very limited exposure to learning disabilities and after about a week she said 'you know I didn't know what to expect, but he's just a little boy, he's just a kid' (actually not so little now he's quite a big kid). Some of the best moments of my life have happened because of ds1's disability - and some of the hardest - but that's just life.

I'm afraid I do think that if you're going to have sex you have to accept the possibility of conceiving a life. That is what sex is primarily for. Bonding in relationships is, IMHO, a secondary purpose of sex which helps bond couples long enough to raise a baby. Does this make me dishonest, women hating and ignorant?

Foetuses are viable from 22 weeks sometimes. There is 10% survival rate at 23 weeks and 35 to 40% at 24 weeks.

I would prefer, in an ideal world, for abortion to be unavailable except where the pregnancy is life threatening to the mother and/or foetus would have severe disabilites - not managable conditions such as a cleft palate (which has been used as a reason for late "disabitity" based termination). However practically I would prefer to allow safe, early terminations with counselling and alternatives explained rather than women being forced to go to back street abortionists.

Just a question - why is it such a shocking thing to ask a woman to consider continuing with the pregnancy and having the baby adopted? Isn't another 6 months inconvenience for her worth the life of the foetus? I'm not saying its the easy option or she should just carry on with life and forget it happened, but as the adult in the equation doesn't she have some sort of duty to take more inconvenience / pain than the foetus she's created?

I know it's contentious, but I was very moved by hearing from one of our parliamentary candidates in local hustings. The question of abortion time limits was being discussed. He said he was forever grateful to his mother, because he was an unwanted baby. She could have terminated him, but she went through with the pregnancy and he was adopted at birth. He was so grateful to have been given a chance of life and not at all bitter about being adopted. Why don't more women do this? Honestly, are we being selfish physically and emotionally, or is it better for that child-to-be to die before its born?

ducks

I don't think it's better for a fetus to die but you will never force a woman to carry a fetus. That's what my elderly friend taught me. If your only option is a coat hanger you will use it.

Counselling a good place to consider options like adoption. But there's little available for those who need it.

michaelaS In what way 'life threatening'?

Because if abortion was unavailable to me, I would have driven my car, full speed into something hard.

Probably either - killing myself & leaving my dds motherless, miscarrying but basically OK, or disabled & still pregnant.

You cannot make it unavailable. You are taking away a woman's basic human rights if you do that!

"Just a question - why is it such a shocking thing to ask a woman to consider continuing with the pregnancy and having the baby adopted? Isn't another 6 months inconvenience for her worth the life of the foetus?"

I certainly wouldn't have been happy to continue my pregnancy (many years ago from a double contraceptive failure) and then have the baby adopted. I think a lot of women/couples just don't want to bring a child into the world to abandon them to the state or another couple, and would rather choose abortion over adoption. Obviously some people have a different view, often a moral view and they might have no problems with putting a child up for adoption.

If this pregnancy had been diagnosed as one with Downs Syndrom adoption would not have been an option for me.

"why is it such a shocking thing to ask a woman to consider continuing with the pregnancy and having the baby adopted?"

Because sometimes (with me this was one issue) it is the actual pregnancy you don't want. I had traumatic pregnancies, and 2 section births. Both have left a toll on my body. I am closer to 40 now & I believe that another pregnancy would have created the problems I had to become worse & maybe cause some other issues.

Also, I was unwanted by my mother. She couldn't have a termination & had me, and raised me. Dad left at 6 & from then on, I felt nothing from her. No love, no compassion. Nothing. At 9 she left me to wake up from an operation in a hospital all on my own. I was throwing up blood, asking for her. Nurse called her but she refused to come back, because she had work the next day. At 16 she told me she never wanted me. At 18 (when I left home) we stopped talking.

I have lived a life full of grief over the mother I never had. It has affected many many relationships. So I will not pass that legacy to my child by way of having it & putting it up for adoption. Because in years to come, if it looks me up, it will wonder why, when I have 2 older dds, why I couldn't love it & keep it. And that will hurt more than anyone can understand.

Either that, or maybe it never gets adopted. Maybe it stays in homes all its life, drifting from one family to another. Another statistic. Another rejected baby. No thank you.

The children I have need to be with me. I feel my capacity is 2. I have 2. I won't be forced to have any more.

Oh & when I conceived #3, I was ebf, on the mini pill & using a condom, such was my desire not to have any more. I think that gives me the right to make the choice I made.