# Abortion - should it be illegal?



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

Should abortion be made illegal? Or does a woman have the right to choose what she wants to do with her body?


----------



## CharleyRogan (Feb 20, 2009)

No I don't think it should be illegal but it shouldn't be used as a form of birth control! Although I think after week 20 it should be as a foetus is viable


----------



## kathateria (Nov 11, 2012)

a friend of mine was sterilised. 
11 weeks later,she found out she was pregnant.
She had to go to hospital,who could of easily just given her the tablet at the early stages.
Instead,they made her wait have a scan,go to another hospital,and left her, for 12 weeks.
they were trying to make her change her mind,by showing her the baby.
The girl was sterilised,its clear she didnt want to keep it
They could of saved the NHS alot of money,by ending the pregnancy with a simple tablet.She went at 6 weeks.
Instead,she had to have a proper abortion,at 13 weeks.

She got compensation,after 3 years.
They took the tubes out,in another op,and had photographic evidence,of how they put the clips on,during the sterilisation.Or rather how they DIDNT put the clips on.


----------



## thedogsmother (Aug 28, 2008)

CharleyRogan said:


> No I don't think it should be illegal but it shouldn't be used as a form of birth control! Although I think after week 20 it should be as a foetus is viable


I was just about to type this:thumbup: reply. I know of a friend of a friend who has had countless abortions, she wants to get pregnant because shes in a "relationship", that relationship breaks up and the baby is no longer needed so she aborts it. However the baby would probably be better off than having her as a mum anyway.


----------



## smudgiesmummy (Nov 21, 2009)

im on the fence with this one... if there's medical evidence that its a danger to both mother and child then im for it but if its just because they don't want a baby im not for it ... if the case was from rape then that's a different matter all together 

accidents happen and i just couldn't kill a baby like that


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

CharleyRogan said:


> No I don't think it should be illegal but it shouldn't be used as a form of birth control! Although I think after week 20 it should be as a foetus is viable


Same as this!


----------



## JAChihuahua (Nov 23, 2012)

I'm pro choice, but with reservations.


Personally I think social abortions (I dont want a baby/its not the right time/not another!) should have a 15 week limit.

parapet time too, I also believe that someone who has had 3 social abortions within say a 5yr period, should have a contraceptive implant fitted as a compulsory measure.


However I support the little known fact that medical abortions (mum/baby sick and at risk) can be carried out right up until the due date.


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

Its a tough one and this is a very emotive subject.

Whilst I personally would struggle to make this decision, I am very pro choice.

I agree with the 24 week limit. Not everyone is able to look after a disabled child (which is why we have the 24 week limit as most are shown at the 20w scan, and you dont always get the scan at 20w). 

I dont agree with people using it as contraception, but we can't just go implanting people we think shouldnt be getting pregnant - maybe after a certain number you have to pay towards it?

I must admit, being 8 months pregnant its hard to imagine someone getting rid of a baby, but surely its better to not have a baby than have a baby that isnt wanted and therefore probably not going to get the best care?


----------



## JAChihuahua (Nov 23, 2012)

WelshOneEmma said:


> Its a tough one and this is a very emotive subject.
> 
> Whilst I personally would struggle to make this decision, I am very pro choice.
> 
> I agree with the 24 week limit. Not everyone is able to look after a disabled child (which is why we have the 24 week limit as most are shown at the 20w scan, and you dont always get the scan at 20w).


Not exactly the case.

The 24 week limit is actually for social abortions.

An abortion for medical reasons (such as severe disability/mums health/babies health/non-compatible with life etc etc) can be carried out at ANY time in pregnancy, right up until due date.

Congratulations on your impending bubba though!!! Not long to go now


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

JAChihuahua said:


> Not exactly the case.
> 
> *The 24 week limit is actually for social abortions.*
> 
> ...


I realise this but most social abortions will take place at this limit due to disability. You arent going to find out your child is disabled and then wait another few months before doing something. And to get one after 24 weeks is very hard (well its meant to be).

I do also realise that some babies born at 24w can survive, but have MANY problems so I do think until it can survive, without issue, outside your body, i have no issue with a womans choice. Probably wouldnt be my choice, but i would try not to judge.


----------



## CharleyRogan (Feb 20, 2009)

WelshOneEmma said:


> Its a tough one and this is a very emotive subject.
> 
> Whilst I personally would struggle to make this decision, I am very pro choice.
> 
> ...


There are thousand of people waiting for children who cannot have their own. Maybe a scheme should be set up to help those who are pregnant find adoptive parents for their child if they seriously don't want their baby


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

CharleyRogan said:


> There are thousand of people waiting for children who cannot have their own. Maybe a scheme should be set up to help those who are pregnant find adoptive parents for their child if they seriously don't want their baby


Wouldn't work, there's already 1000 of children in care

You shouldn't be forced to carry a child you don't want to feel them
Kick, to have the pain and crappyness pregnancy can bring


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*I don't think it should be made illegal.Lets face it, when it was women found someone to "perform" abortions.
I do think the time at which it should be done needs to be reduced drastically though.*


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

smudgiesmummy said:


> im on the fence with this one... if there's medical evidence that its a danger to both mother and child then im for it but if its just because they don't want a baby im not for it ... if the case was from rape then that's a different matter all together
> 
> accidents happen and i just couldn't kill a baby like that


Are you saying you believe in no sex before you're ready for/can afford a baby?

What about condoms splitting etc?

I don't believe in using abortions for contraception, but accidents happen.


----------



## CharleyRogan (Feb 20, 2009)

If you really feel you don't want a baby accident shouldn't happen though, there are so many forms of contraception that can work in unison that the chances or pregnancy is extremely low!


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Is this the 1950's?


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

For all those trotting out 'abortion as a contraceptive' do you have any stats to back that up or is all anecdotal?


----------



## smudgiesmummy (Nov 21, 2009)

Shrap said:


> Are you saying you believe in no sex before you're ready for/can afford a baby?
> 
> What about condoms splitting etc?
> 
> I don't believe in using abortions for contraception, but accidents happen.


no i already said accidents happened but if they do and the only reason is UNWANTED ... i dont agree with abortion as i could never do it


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

It should not be used as a form of birth control. A housemate when I was at Uni was going for her fifth abortion. I did think that was pretty disgusting.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

I used to be very pro-life when I was younger, but I have completely changed my stance as I've become older & better informed. Abortions will carry on even if they are made illegal, & I dread to think of the consequences of that



Phoolf said:


> For all those trotting out 'abortion as a contraceptive' do you have any stats to back that up or is all anecdotal?


The Daily Mail has had articles about contraceptive abortions in the past, so I'm sure their stats are very *ahem* 'accurate'


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

simplysardonic said:


> The Daily Mail has had articles about contraceptive abortions in the past, so I'm sure their stats are very *ahem* 'accurate'


Oh I'll bet  Sounds to me like just another urban myth quite frankly, I've never seen anything to back it up.


----------



## Durhamchance (Aug 2, 2012)

I think babies should be wanted. Accidents can and do happen, but nobody should have to live with that for the rest of their lives- Mother or baby.


----------



## oggers86 (Nov 14, 2011)

I dont think it should be made illegal but I think some can view it too lightly, I have heard someone say about accidently getting pregnant "oh its ok I will just get an abortion" 

My biggest fear is getting pregnant before I am ready and so far I have managed not to. I hope no accidents happen in the next couple of years but I am at the stage now where it wouldnt be a big deal, just earlier than planned so I would keep it. 

I always said if I was ever going for an abortion I would want one asap because once it starts being like a proper baby as opposed to a tiny fetus or cells then it would be incredibly hard to go through with it. 

At least with it being legal women do not have to go to some unqualified "doctor" to do it for them and risk their lives. 

Part of me wants doctors to refuse women who have more than one abortion but if they were forced to keep their baby then they would likely not take care of it properly and it would just lead a life of misery.


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

I'm in two minds about this as I think of the foetus as a being with rights as much as the mother.

I personally think abortion is wrong unless it's extreme circumstances like rape.

Yes, accidents happen, but why should the child have to suffer for its parents' cockup? 

This will probably cause some debate, but I think it should be mandatory for all to go onto some form of contraception and then complete eligibility tests to see if they would be fit parents. That way, perhaps the amount of morons chunting out babies for social welfare, or twits getting into 'relationships' and getting pregnant after 2 months because he's 'the one' wouldn't actually be able to populate the earth and spread their stupidity into the gene pool.

Can I also just clarify that I don't just refer to poorer families in this, you get twits and bad parents in all economic 'classes', as it were, and I think the whole flippin' lot should be neutered.


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

This pregnancy was an accident, I was on the coil meant to be next to be sterilised this one is. 

It DID cross my mind to have an abortion i will admit that, My children are 7 and 8 yrs old and i had just gone back to work i wasnt sure i wanted to go through it all again. I havnt done pregnancy well in the passed either and sent alot of time in hospital. 

I am a believer of fate and knew id never personally go through with one, I feel bad taking animals to the vets to be PTS when really poorly let alone end a life of a child of ours, Knowing what we made with the other two. 

But i dont believe any one else has the right to say that anther women cant end a life if thats what she needs. Surely its better to have an abortion then be like many other places were newborns are placed in the streets/bins/etc to die and suffer?


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

I feel that we are now in a day and age where the education regarding sexual health and unwanted pregnancy is fully available to anyone. The range of contraceptives mean that virtually anyone can protect themselves against falling pregnant.
Having had to go through a similar procedure as an abortion after a pregnancy failed at 14 weeks I do not understand how anyone could use that as a form of contraception.
I feel that abortion should only be used in cases of medical need or if the mother was the subject of sexual assault and became pregnant.

I don't support abortion as a contraceptive at all.
Parents also need to make sure their children are educated at an appropriate age. My youngest daughter is aged almost 16, she has a boyfriend, theyve been together now for over a year and she and I have had the talk about sex much to her embarrassment. We visited the doctor together, she's now on the pill. I've met her bf's parents and they have supplied him with condoms....our kids are fully prepared for when the time comes and it wasn't difficult at all.


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

Durhamchance said:


> I think babies should be wanted. Accidents can and do happen, but nobody should have to live with that for the rest of their lives- Mother or baby.


ooo i think we are due the same day  (sorry off topic!)


----------



## tiatortilla (Oct 1, 2012)

heavy threads atm! don't really want to get involved in a debate on this as it's a very sensitive issue but i thought i'd just share my opinion.
i could never have an abortion - for me, if i get pregnant that's it. however, i don't think i or anybody else has the right to tell somebody what to do with their body and i am 100% pro choice. it's such a difficult decision for a lot of women and i think those who protest outside clinics are the lowest kind of people and this is what we should be trying to stop!


----------



## Durhamchance (Aug 2, 2012)

LostGirl said:


> ooo i think we are due the same day  (sorry off topic!)


Ha Ha yes! 4th Feb?

My back is killing me x


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> I'm in two minds about this as I think of the foetus as a being with rights as much as the mother.
> 
> I personally think abortion is wrong unless it's extreme circumstances like rape.
> 
> ...


So you think the state should control who has children and when they have children? Should you have a certain salary before this is allowed? Should only one parent be working? Should they be of a certain political party? Intelligence? Should you be allowed animals?

As much as i see your point about some parents, the idea we would have to do tests to be a parent......  what if you are one of these parents who chooses not to vaccinate? should that take away your right to have a child? Look at the hooha thats going on at the moment with the foster parents who had the children taken away because they joined UKIP. And lets face it, the government cant even agree on suitable requirements for dog ownership! we all disagree with BSL - what if something like that were applied to having children. Its wrong on so many levels.

We also know about the forced sterilisation in Australia a few years ago and how horrified everyone is now - and the compensation being paid out is astronomical.

NOBODY has the right to tell me what i can do with MY body, same as i dont have the right to tell anyone else what to do with theirs.

Abortions will always take place. As a society we have the responsibility to do these in the safest way possible. Nobody knows whats going through someones head when they have to do this and trust me, making this decision (for most people) is one of the hardest decisions you will ever have to make.

Why is it ok for the welfare of a dog to be taken into consideration when an accidental breeding takes place and the first response is early neuter - they arent puppies yet - but the same cant be applied to a person???

I mean no disrespect here, but I find your comments very young, and you may well change them in a few years. Try not to be so rigid in your views.


----------



## kathateria (Nov 11, 2012)

if you cant feed them
dont breed them

if you dont work,or are a single parent,you shouldnt have kids.end of


----------



## seanmac (Oct 22, 2012)

Not sure it should be illegal but feel the age should be lowered so not voting in the poll


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

WelshOneEmma said:


> So you think the state should control who has children and when they have children? Should you have a certain salary before this is allowed? Should only one parent be working? Should they be of a certain political party? Intelligence? Should you be allowed animals?
> 
> As much as i see your point about some parents, the idea we would have to do tests to be a parent......  what if you are one of these parents who chooses not to vaccinate? should that take away your right to have a child? Look at the hooha thats going on at the moment with the foster parents who had the children taken away because they joined UKIP. And lets face it, the government cant even agree on suitable requirements for dog ownership! we all disagree with BSL - what if something like that were applied to having children. Its wrong on so many levels.
> 
> ...


I think you have excellent counter-arguments, all of which are valid. I do know that my views are rather extremist and aren't held by the majority of people, so I'm happy to be viewed as wrong in this. My views may very well change, I would imagine they would change most if/when I do get pregnant. I am still young compared to most on the forum (I'm 21), and am very open to my views changing 

I'll read over what you've said again and take it into consideration when thinking about my views, a good counter-argument is always healthy for redefining personal view boundaries 



kathateria said:


> if you cant feed them
> dont breed them
> 
> if you dont work,or are a single parent,you shouldnt have kids.end of


Ohh really? And what, pray tell, is your objection to single parents?


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

A Defense of Abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> I think it should be mandatory for all to go onto some form of contraception and then complete eligibility tests to see if they would be fit parents.


That's a very frightening thought.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> Ohh really? And what, pray tell, is your objection to single parents?


Do you think in your reality where there would be an eligibility test that single parents would be granted a license to breed? There are many societal problems with being brought up by a single parent, statistically you are more likely to commit crime, abuse drugs etc. (macro argument, not micro).


----------



## seanmac (Oct 22, 2012)

WelshOneEmma said:


> I do also realise that some babies born at 24w can survive, but have MANY problems so I do think until it can survive, without issue, outside your body, i have no issue with a womans choice. Probably wouldnt be my choice, but i would try not to judge.


Sorry but its pretty common for baby's at 24weeks and even recently 22 weeks babys can survive now(mu was told there was 0% chance baby would survive) i think 21 week, the main thing its with advancement in medical tech baby will be able to survive from an early age.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

Here is a good reason not to make abortion illegal:

Woman refused abortion dies of septaceamia

When the foetus is held to have equal rights to the mother, that makes abortion unaccepable in *all* circumstances - even when the mother is miscarrying and abortion would save her life.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

seanmac said:


> Sorry but its pretty common for baby's at 24weeks and even recently 22 weeks babys can survive now(mu was told there was 0% chance baby would survive) i think 21 week, the main thing its with advancement in medical tech baby will be able to survive from an early age.


But babies being aborted at that stage are ones with mental and/or physical disabilities.


----------



## seanmac (Oct 22, 2012)

myshkin said:


> Here is a good reason not to make abortion illegal:
> 
> Woman refused abortion dies of septaceamia
> 
> When the foetus is held to have equal rights to the mother, that makes abortion unaccepable in *all* circumstances - even when the mother is miscarrying and abortion would save her life.


But this hospital is in a huge amount of ****, in medical situations abortion is legal over there, for some reason the DR didnt listen to the mother, why an inquiry has been launched


----------



## ballybee (Aug 25, 2010)

I am pro choice, there are circumstances in which i do believe abortion is for the best, rape being the most obvious but there's other reasons i believe its a good choice.

I couldn't go through an abortion personally and personally can't stand people that have multiple abortions, i knew a girl at my high school who had 3 before the age of 16 and she didn't care at all. These people that can go through and abortion with such ease really shock me, i know i would suffer massively emotionally if i went through one.


----------



## seanmac (Oct 22, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> But babies being aborted at that stage are ones with mental and/or physical disabilities.


That is true but in them cases i would agree with it


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> Do you think in your reality where there would be an eligibility test that single parents would be granted a license to breed? There are many societal problems with being brought up by a single parent, statistically you are more likely to commit crime, abuse drugs etc. (macro argument, not micro).


Ohh really? Gosh, how strange. I was bought up by a single parent yet I've never once been in trouble with the police, I've never smoked, I no longer drink and I'm in my final year at university.

Same can be said for my boyfriend.

Same can be said for a number of our friends and relatives.

My word, aren't we children of single-parent families utter delinquents?  :dita:


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2012)

This a tough subject and I think a personal decision that should be taken seriously. Unfortunately SOME people do use abortion as a form of birth control, I know personally 5 woman that have had more than 4 abortions and all because they "don't like condoms", "the pill failed" (after the first or second fail you would have thought it would have been something that they addressed but no) and many other excuses 

Why any woman would need more than one abortion in her lifetime is beyond me, I'm sure there might be certain cases but those would be few and far between.

I don't think it should be made illegal but it should be made a bit harder to do, you would have thought that ending a life would be enough but sadly for many women it isn't. I was talking to a receptionist at the Marie Stopes sexual health clinic (I was there supporting one of the women that I previously mentioned) and she said that some women she knew on a first name basis because they had been there so much 

Personally I'm against abortion for myself but each woman has the right to make that choice for themselves, although many of them need to understand that it isn't an easy option out. You may have stopped the problem of the baby growing but mentally those scars will be with you for life 

For people that don't believe that SOME women use abortion as a form of contraception just take a trip to your nearest sexual health clinic and have a chat with the staff, I can guarantee that you will be shocked..


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

seanmac said:


> But this hospital is in a huge amount of ****, in medical situations abortion is legal over there, for some reason the DR didnt listen to the mother, why an inquiry has been launched


As I understand it, abortion is illegal in all circumstances in Ireland. The ability to perform one if the mother's life is in danger exists through legal precedent, rather than being defined in law.
Very late abortions are performed under these kind of tragic circumstances - bad enough that they lost their (wanted) baby so late, but so much worse that she lost her life because the law in Ireland allowed the hospital to refuse her an abortion. 
The choice should be in the hands of the woman, lawmakers and religious interests are not to be trusted on this sort of thing - they've got pretty bad form!


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> Ohh really? Gosh, how strange. I was bought up by a single parent yet I've never once been in trouble with the police, I've never smoked, I no longer drink and I'm in my final year at university.
> 
> Same can be said for my boyfriend.
> 
> ...


And?

That's an anecdote (micro). I was talking statistics and facts as a whole (macro). I know not everyone brought up by a single parent fits into a certain statistic, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, and sadly in your world where people would need a license I think single parents would be at a distinct disadvantage of getting such a license. Maybe a little flaw in the argument there.


----------



## tashi (Dec 5, 2007)

This needs looking into and will be closed until I have the time to reopen


----------



## hawksport (Dec 27, 2009)

Open again, for now


----------



## Wobbles (Jun 2, 2011)

I'm for abortion. I don't think it should used as a form of contraception, but neither do I think someone should just have to put up with a baby they don't want forever. That's a very heavy price to pay for simply being unlucky.


----------



## kathateria (Nov 11, 2012)

i was raised in a single parent family.my parents divorced when i was 13.
but if a woman sets out to get pregnant,living off the benefit system,i believe it to be wrong. 
if they choose to have an abortion because of their living circumstance,or lifestyle, they should be allowed to do so.

a child is sometimes better off away from parents,who will always see them as 'an accident' some cases,it would be better off, not being born at all.


----------



## hawksport (Dec 27, 2009)

Another post deleted. Whatever is said in PM isn't open to discussion on open forum


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

hawksport said:


> Another post deleted. Whatever is said in PM isn't open to discussion on open forum


But it was just continuing the debate while the thread was closed and moderated?


----------



## purpleskyes (May 24, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> For all those trotting out 'abortion as a contraceptive' do you have any stats to back that up or is all anecdotal?


Yes there stats on this which is a sad state of affairs, carried out only this year.

Last year 434 women had at least their fifth abortion, a number that has risen steadily since 2007, figures from the Department of Health show.
In addition, 36 per cent of women having an abortion in 2011 had already had at least one, equating to around 63,300 women.

Feel free to read the rest of the article below.

Tens of thousands of women have had more than one abortion: official statistics - Telegraph​


----------



## hawksport (Dec 27, 2009)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> But it was just continuing the debate while the thread was closed and moderated?


Then you should of either ignored it or reported it PMs are Private Messages


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

purpleskyes said:


> Yes there stats on this which is a sad state of affairs, carried out only this year.
> 
> Tens of thousands of women have had more than one abortion: official statistics - Telegraph​


And what does that link to the torygraph mean? A whole 420 out of almost 200,000 were on their fifth abortion? 430 is a significant percentage is it? Just because a woman has had more than one abortion does not correlate with abortion being used as contraception I'm afraid. Those abortions could be 10 years apart but it still counts as a 'repeat'. I think if you want to look at ages of people getting abortion you will find an even spread so not the young, irresponsible people that we like to generalise about.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/24/abortion-statistics-england-wales


----------



## AmberNero (Jun 6, 2010)

Certainly should not be illegal. I also do not think the social limit should be lowered. I have struggled for years with tokophobia, I say to people 'when we have chldren' but really, though I would like a child, I am not in any way reconciled with having a parasite growing in me. Because of this we are very, very, VERY careful with contraception.

I do think women who have multiple abortions due to lack of care/ contraception are morally firmly in the wrong. I have a value for life which is why I am so bloody careful, I know I may not be able to cope with pregnancy which is why I don't get pregnant. But accidents happen (which is why we use two forms of contraception) and so the opt to abort should never be made illegal.

I will be seeking councelling and support to try and get help for my tokophobia, I won't get pregnant until I feel I could mentally cope with it.


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> But it was just continuing the debate while the thread was closed and moderated?


Da rules is da rules you rebel!!

No name calling, no expressing an opinion different to anyone else and no quoting PM's or else


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

Here's my explanation of my views for whoever's unsure of what I mean when I talk of parental licenses:

I think parents who use children as commodities to get extra benefits or who use their children as ammunition during a relationship breakup shouldn't have children.

My aim with my view is to eliminate the 'Jeremy Kyle syndrome' which is more often that not using children as a tool in a broken down relationship. I can tell you, after being used as such as a child, it is not a nice way to grow up and it does lead to long-lasting emotional issues.

I'm not sure how single parents would be at a disadvantage from a license, as it would go on capability more than anything else. It was also suggested that licenses would disadvantage young/old couples and gay couples. Again, I'm not sure how? It wouldn't go on your age, sexual orientation or marital status, it would go on your ability to cope with a child.

I am fully aware that my views will never be implemented because they are an infringement of rights and it would never work. As I have said previously, I am happy to be viewed as wrong on this particular opinion, as there are very good arguments which do suggest I am wrong. 

In my view there's far too much talk about the rights of the mother. What about the rights of the child? What about a child's right to a stable upbringing, where they aren't shunted from pillar to post because the only the reason the parents had them was to get more benefits from the state because they're too lazy to get up off their backsides and work?

Now I know not all parents are like this, but it is becoming more and more common that parents cannot control their children or are using children to subsidise a lifestyle they are not willing to give up. 

That I, my partner and a number of my friends and relatives have been shoved into a biased statistical bracket is offensive. I'm not offended by the statistics (I'm not sure how you can be offended by numbers ), what I find offensive is that you're using biased research (as statistics are always biased) as a concrete base to make a judgement on single parent families. Statistics are not a concrete base, they are biased, therefore making an argument biased. In cases like these, you (generic 'you') need to do your own societal research and base your view on that.


----------



## kate_7590 (Feb 28, 2009)

Abortion shouldnt be used as a simple contraceptive, but I think if people are silly enough not to use proper contraception and see abortion as an easy 'get out' then maybe the baby would be better off being aborted than having to be born into a family that doesnt want it.

Personally I wouldnt consider an abortion if I got pregnant now because Im in a loving relationship with my hubby and we would like a baby, BUT IF I found out I was carrying a severely disabled baby I would probably abort it...which will probably be a big NO NO to some people..but its my choice at the end of the day.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> Here's my explanation of my views for whoever's unsure of what I mean when I talk of parental licenses:
> 
> I think parents who use children as commodities to get extra benefits or who use their children as ammunition during a relationship breakup shouldn't have children.
> 
> ...


This isn't a generic you at all, it's aimed at me just like your PMs were hence why you're saying the same things. I shall just retort with the fact that you are spouting eugenics and I have nothing further to say (again). I find it very naive to assume I am making judgements based on stats when you know nothing of my upbringing or background... 

Talking of biased....there's a reason you are so inflamed by me suggesting single parents would be wrongly discriminated against, and that's because you are biased. :lol:


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> Here's my explanation of my views for whoever's unsure of what I mean when I talk of parental licenses:
> 
> I think parents who use children as commodities to get extra benefits or who use their children as ammunition during a relationship breakup shouldn't have children.
> 
> ...


Statistically you used the word 'biased' more than anyone else rrr:


----------



## purpleskyes (May 24, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> And what does that link to the torygraph mean? A whole 420 out of almost 200,000 were on their fifth abortion? 430 is a significant percentage is it? Just because a woman has had more than one abortion does not correlate with abortion being used as contraception I'm afraid. Those abortions could be 10 years apart but it still counts as a 'repeat'. I think if you want to look at ages of people getting abortion you will find an even spread so not the young, irresponsible people that we like to generalise about.
> 
> Abortion statistics for England and Wales: see the latest breakdown | News | guardian.co.uk


To me personally yes I do find the fact that 420 women have had over five abortions significant/disgusting, one of those girls was only 16 by the time she had her 5th abortion, they did an interview with her on this morning and I personally know of a girl who at 23 was on her 6th abortion, she didnt use anything as it was just so easy to get rid of the baby.

I don't think age or the gap between the abortions really matters here if you have had 5 abortions you are clearly doing something very wrong. I have managed to make it to 25 without any accidents, its a pretty easy thing to do these days with all the contraceptives available.


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> This isn't a generic you at all, it's aimed at me just like your PMs were hence why you're saying the same things. I shall just retort with the fact that you are spouting eugenics and I have nothing further to say (again). I find it very naive to assume I am making judgements based on stats when you know nothing of my upbringing or background...


I changed it to generic 'you' in order to ensure my post was left there, as I think it's only fair to get both sides of an argument. Also, the generic 'you' is very applicable.

I am not spouting eugenics, but I have a problem with what you said, the highlighted bit in particular.



Phoolf said:


> Do you think in your reality where there would be an eligibility test that single parents would be granted a license to breed? *There are many societal problems with being brought up by a single parent, statistically you are more likely to commit crime, abuse drugs etc. *(macro argument, not micro).


As I have said before, statistics are not a concrete foundation for building an opinion, they are biased, meaning an opinion based on them is biased.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

purpleskyes said:


> To me personally yes I do find the fact that 420 women have had over five abortions significant, one of those girls was only 16 by the time she had her 5th abortion, they did an interview with her on this morning.
> 
> I don't think age or the gap between the abortions really matters here if you have had 5 abortions you are clearly doing something very wrong. I have managed to make it to 25 without any accidents, its a pretty easy thing to do these days with all the contraceptives available.


Perhaps for you. I know a woman who has 5 children by accident, she doesn't believe in abortion but medically 3 types of contraceptive pill she has used did not work for her body so yes, you can be careful but don't think just because you're alright jack that mistakes do not happen. Most forms of contraception are <99.9% effective therefore people who are taking precautions will get pregnant from time to time. A handful of people out of 200,000 just means that a handfull of people are irresponsible, nothing more, and if you wanted abortion stopped for them do you think this 16 year old should have 5 children instead?


----------



## JAChihuahua (Nov 23, 2012)

only 1.7% of abortions are carried out after 20 weeks, and according to the stats each one after 24 was for medical reasons (mother or baby or both).... Therefore I see no reason why the social abortion limit cannot be reduced from the current 24 weeks.

There is no official data (its never been a requrement) as to why women undergo abortions under 24 weeks.

As far as repeat abortions go:
Repeat abortion rates examined - Health News - NHS Choices

34.4% of ALL abortions carried out are repeats
24% of all abortions are repeats for mothers under 25!!!!!!!
8% of all abortions are repeats for mothers under 18!!!!!!!!!

I repeat. There is no scientifically published data on WHY women have social abortions, so no proof that it is used as contraception (no proof it isnt either), however your all free to interpret the figures yourselves.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> I changed it to generic 'you' in order to ensure my post was left there, as I think it's only fair to get both sides of an argument. Also, the generic 'you' is very applicable.
> 
> I am not spouting eugenics, but I have a problem with what you said, the highlighted bit in particular.
> 
> As I have said before, statistics are not a concrete foundation for building an opinion, they are biased, meaning an opinion based on them is biased.


And your opinion is based off your anecdotal life experience which is why you're getting wound up about me pointing the holes in your argument, it's personal for you (and for me, who knows?) and so you don't seem to be thinking through the implications of your idea being put into practice. Those 'most fit' to have children (eugenics) would very well be deemed those who are financially stable, who can afford childcare and who are in a loving heterosexual relationship, most of those 3 disqualify single parents a lot of the time, ergo you would be discriminating against single parents. Sorry if you don't like it, but it's true. Your idea of a 'Jeremy Kyle' family is another persons single parent family, and when you think it's okay for authority to decide who should and should not breed you open yourself up to all sorts of criticism.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

purpleskyes said:


> To me personally yes I do find the fact that 420 women have had over five abortions significant, one of those girls was only 16 by the time she had her 5th abortion, they did an interview with her on this morning.
> 
> I don't think age or the gap between the abortions really matters here if you have had 5 abortions you are clearly doing something very wrong. I have managed to make it to 25 without any accidents, its a pretty easy thing to do these days with all the contraceptives available.


420 out of 200,000 = 0.21%. Less than half a percent...they are outliers on the graph, so far from the mean that they actually alter it. 
5 abortions by age 16, yes, shocking, however it came about. But it's far too unusual to base laws on.


----------



## purpleskyes (May 24, 2012)

AmberNero said:


> Certainly should not be illegal. I also do not think the social limit should be lowered. I have struggled for years with tokophobia, I say to people 'when we have chldren' but really, though I would like a child, I am not in any way reconciled with having a parasite growing in me. Because of this we are very, very, VERY careful with contraception.
> 
> I do think women who have multiple abortions due to lack of care/ contraception are morally firmly in the wrong. I have a value for life which is why I am so bloody careful, I know I may not be able to cope with pregnancy which is why I don't get pregnant. But accidents happen (which is why we use two forms of contraception) and so the opt to abort should never be made illegal.
> 
> I will be seeking councelling and support to try and get help for my tokophobia, I won't get pregnant until I feel I could mentally cope with it.


Omg there is a name for it! I didnt know this was actually thing. I feel so much better knowing there are other people out there like myself. Anytime I have said to people I feel that babies are parasites draining your live source and that I cannot physically look at a pregnant person without feeling sick, they just laugh thinking I am joking when I am not in any way.

I am extremely careful due to this aswell, as to be honest I just do not know what I would do if it happened. I couldnt go through with a pregnancy no way but then I dont know if I could go through with an abortion. I think I would maybe just have to end it all as worrying as that sounds.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Whilst I personally do not like the thought of abortions, I feel it would be very wrong to abolish them entirely. I do think, however, that 24wks is too long and would like to see this reduced.

There are special circumstances where there is a requirement, rape being the most obvious one. Properly administered contraceptions (coil / implant etc) failing is another.

However, social abortions are totally and completely wrong. Some may say that accidents happen - condom split for example - well there is such a thing as a morning after pill that can be taken as a precaution if this happens. If you are ill and you vomit up your daily pill, the instructions clearly tell you to take extra precautions until you start your next cycle.

I stated when I was 16 that I never wanted children and, 30 yrs later, I have never been pregnant. Why? Because I was bl**dy careful and made sure it never happened. It IS possible to have sex without producing prodigy. All it takes is care.

I came across this little treasure yesterday and am sharing it because I just happen to think it is very good:








.


----------



## purpleskyes (May 24, 2012)

myshkin said:


> 420 out of 200,000 = 0.21%. Less than half a percent...they are outliers on the graph, so far from the mean that they actually alter it.
> 5 abortions by age 16, yes, shocking, however it came about. But it's far too unusual to base laws on.


Please do tell me where I stated that abortion should be illegal? I think you will find that I didnt express my opinion on whether it should be legal or not at all.


----------



## JAChihuahua (Nov 23, 2012)

the single parent statistics do stand, however they also need taking in account with the larger socio-economic statistics.

As a single parent family you are more likely to be living in poverty
you are more likely to be living in an area with a higher crime rate and lower average household income
you are more likely to be exposed to crime
you are more likely to attend a poorly performing underfunded school

You cannot place the blame of society on single parents shoulders. Research shows that offspring of single parents who did not grow up in lower class neighbourhoods (regardless of their personal family income) have no differences and no more predisposition to a life of crime or poor school performance than offspring of 2 parent familys in the same area.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

JAChihuahua said:


> the single parent statistics do stand, however they also need taking in account with the larger socio-economic statistics.
> 
> As a single parent family you are more likely to be living in poverty
> you are more likely to be living in an area with a higher crime rate and lower average household income
> ...


And considering financial situations would be taken into account for such 'breeding licenses' this would disciminate against them (and anyone impoverished really).


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

I seem to be the only one who has voted no. I remember when they legalised abortion, it was decided that it would only be allowed in cases where the mother's health was at risk, or the baby would be seriously handicapped, or in cases of rape.

Now it is anyone who wants it. Same as the hanging thing; they went back on their word.

I believe a woman has the right to choose what she does with her own body, but not the body of her unborn child.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

I would rather a child be aborted then grow up abandoned in the care system for the rest of their lives or suffer through with parents who couldn't give a s**t about them.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

purpleskyes said:


> Please do tell me where I stated that abortion should be illegal? I think you will find that I didnt express my opinion on whether it should be legal or not at all.


Whether it should be legal was the question asked by the OP....it's not unreasonable of me to answer in relation to that, wind yer neck in!


----------



## purpleskyes (May 24, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> Perhaps for you. I know a woman who has 5 children by accident, she doesn't believe in abortion but medically 3 types of contraceptive pill she has used did not work for her body so yes, you can be careful but don't think just because you're alright jack that mistakes do not happen. Most forms of contraception are <99.9% effective therefore people who are taking precautions will get pregnant from time to time. A handful of people out of 200,000 just means that a handfull of people are irresponsible, nothing more, and if you wanted abortion stopped for them do you think this 16 year old should have 5 children instead?


I am sorry but surely if this woman knew that pills didnt work for her she still didnt need to have 5 children. She could have had the implant, she could have used a condom or the female version of a condom, got the coil, had the implant, had the injection. I mean there are so many options available to people.

No I dont think the 16 year old should have 5 children not that she would have as she wouldnt have been able to be pregnant 5 times if she had actually gone ahead with baby number one. I just want them to get on some form of contraception, that girl wasnt on any as she said its so easy to get rid of the baby so why bother with contraception.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

purpleskyes said:


> I am sorry but surely if this woman knew that pills didnt work for her she still didnt need to have 5 children. She could have had the implant, she could have used a condom or the female version of a condom, got the coil, had the implant, had the injection. I mean there are so many options available to people.
> 
> No I dont think the 16 year old should have 5 children not that she would have as she wouldnt have been able to be pregnant 5 times if she had actually gone ahead with baby number one. I just want them to get on some form of contraception, that girl wasnt on any as she said its so easy to get rid of the baby so why bother with contraception.


One stupid person is worth changing the law over?  1 out of 200,000.


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

No it should not be illegal I am old enough to remember backstreet abortions,a friend of mine died having one as did many women or were ill with infections and ending up infertile.x


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2012)

CharleyRogan said:


> No I don't think it should be illegal but it shouldn't be used as a form of birth control! Although I think after week 20 it should be as a foetus is viable


This is exactly what I was going to say. I don't particually agree with abortion, It's not something I would ever do but I think they should have a choice. Genuine accidents do happen and some people can't look after themselves let alone another human being.


----------



## purpleskyes (May 24, 2012)

myshkin said:


> Whether it should be legal was the question asked by the OP....it's not unreasonable of me to answer in relation to that, wind yer neck in!


She had asked for some stats and I provided her with some stats.

You want my opinion on the OP fine. I don't agree with people who think that its accept to just abort children like its going to the dentist for a check up. Mistakes do happen yes, I know a friend who got pregnant first time she had sex at 16 (the condom spilt) and she had an abortion , I dont judge her for that. She learnt from her mistakes and hasn't had any accidents since and it has majorly messed her up in the head but it was the right thing to do.

My opinion is likely to be different from most peoples as I am from Ireland where it is illegal to have an abortion and if you want one well you have to fly over to England for example and have it carried out there. So the views in my country are going to be different to the views here.

So no I do not agree with repeated social abortions, but I do not think they should be made illegal.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> I seem to be the only one who has voted no. I remember when they legalised abortion, it was decided that it would only be allowed in cases where the *mother's health was at risk, or the baby would be seriously handicapped, or in cases of rape.*


I remember that too, in those cases I was all for it, but to abort a life just because you can't be bothered (before anyone jumps I know this isn't always the case but it seems that way to me, there are far more getting "rid" because it is easy than there are that have to abort due to medical reasons) is disgusting IMO.

Maybe my views are screwed because I've lost babies in the past, maybe I see that all life is worth a chance...

If they stuck to their promise when abortion was legalised then maybe so many wouldn't have issues with it :001_unsure:


----------



## JAChihuahua (Nov 23, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> And considering financial situations would be taken into account for such 'breeding licenses' this would disciminate against them (and anyone impoverished really).


This is a whole other debate - perhaps the mods could split it from the main abortion thread.

I'm not getting involved in the breeding licences thing... nobody is a perfect parent.

One of the best parents I know is a single parent, mentally handicapped, has a functioning age on average with a 10yr old, and her child is the result of rape. Economically she couldnt afford a baby, socially she is unacceptable as a parent, medically she needs alot of support to parent, and yet she is the most compassionate, level headed (thinks in black and white - so her child knows all the rules and wont get away with bending them), loving and patient of all parents I know. I wish I had half of her parental ability.

Her child is now almost grown, loves his mum with abandon and is working part time as an aid in a care home for handicapped adults whilst studying social work.

Perhaps she beat the statistics because of the support she recieved (no nannys or anything like that), or just perhaps its becuse she was born to be a mum. Perhaps its because she does not live in a crappy area.

The whole neighbourhood thing is another debate though. Single parents are vilified in the newspaper for renting properties in more affluent areas (and recieving government support for that), yet by living in poor areas (still recieving government support) they are puting their childrens welfare and future at risk (and if their kids become part of those statistics costing the tax payer much more in the long run).


----------



## alyssa_liss (May 4, 2009)

as someone who is currenty 6 months pregnant i couldnt imagine going through this .. however i think people need the choice.. 

i have managed 7/8 years without an 'accident' as soon as we started trying i fell pregnant.

i do think there is the odd true accident but so many people are ignorant about how easy it can happen etc.. 

i understand why some people have abortions for medical reasons, although i could not do that unless it was life or death.

i believe some people realise that it is not the right time for them ( these people i actually have respect for , aslong as they were careful in the first place and actually realise what they have been through and make sure it never happends again)

BUT then you have the people that are one the 3rd abortion or have an abortion then get pregnant and keep the baby a few months later


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

I also think it needs to be there for the victims of rape. I couldn't imagine being forced to raise the child of the man who had raped me. What a cruel thing to force on someone if you believe abortion is wrong. Imagine seeing the face of your rapist on your childs face everyday.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

B3rnie said:


> I remember that too, in those cases I was all for it, but to abort a life just because you can't be bothered (before anyone jumps I know this isn't always the case but it seems that way to me, there are far more getting "rid" because it is easy than there are that have to abort due to medical reasons) is disgusting IMO.
> 
> Maybe my views are screwed because I've lost babies in the past, maybe I see that all life is worth a chance...
> 
> If they stuck to their promise when abortion was legalised then maybe so many wouldn't have issues with it :001_unsure:


I had a pupil who suddenly stopped turning up for lessons. She rang me a few weeks later and said she was sorry, but she "had to have another abortion". Turned out she had had four. I couldn't be civil to her after that.



JAChihuahua said:


> This is a whole other debate - perhaps the mods could split it from the main abortion thread.
> 
> I'm not getting involved in the breeding licences thing... nobody is a perfect parent.
> 
> ...


My son was born with brain damage, used to attend a school for the mentally handicapped. When my grandchildren were little, my son used to take them all over the place on bike rides, round the shops and all sorts. He looked after them better than any normal person, I swear, and once refused to take his nephew again because he hadn't waited for the green man before crossing the road. He would look after them on fairground rides where children had to have an adult with them.

Every child should have an Uncle Ian.


----------



## JAChihuahua (Nov 23, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> I had a pupil who suddenly stopped turning up for lessons. She rang me a few weeks later and said she was sorry, but she "had to have another abortion". Turned out she had had four. I couldn't be civil to her after that.
> 
> My son was born with brain damage, used to attend a school for the mentally handicapped. When my grandchildren were little, my son used to take them all over the place on bike rides, round the shops and all sorts. He looked after them better than any normal person, I swear, and once refused to take his nephew again because he hadn't waited for the green man before crossing the road. He would look after them on fairground rides where children had to have an adult with them.
> 
> Every child should have an Uncle Ian.


What a beautiful man he sounds like. I do believe that children who are friends with those who are less fortunate than themselves do grow up to be more compassionate and accepting adults.


----------



## oggers86 (Nov 14, 2011)

I also dont understand how people can be so "open" about stuff like this. I knew someone who told me (and not in private) that she was pregnant and was booked in to have an abortion. Assuming it was true and she wasnt making it up, why on earth would you tell someone who you werent close to such private details??

I can guarantee that if I ever had to have an abortion for whatever reason, it would only be shared with a select few people (my OH and possibly my mum) I certainly wouldnt be going around telling all and sundry. 

Then again she isnt the first, I seem to know people who say these kinds of things (be them true or false) and I just end up distancing myself from them. Anybody who either makes something like this up or treats it as a big laugh is not someone who I want to know.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

late abortion should illegal always!!!...No abortion should be carried past 12 weeks...

In Poland where it is illegal women just travel abroad..only the poorest suffer effects of DIY ones...and those are women who cannot afford more kids...

I hate the thought of abortion...but how one can force woman to be a mother?
Point of children born to mothers who did not want them/ but will not give them to adoption? (the stigma?)...


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

cheekyscrip said:


> late abortion should illegal always!!!...No abortion should be carried past 12 weeks...
> 
> In Poland where it is illegal women just travel abroad..only the poorest suffer effects of DIY ones...and those are women who cannot afford more kids...
> 
> ...


Always? So if you hit 13 weeks and the pregnancy will kill you if continued then that should be illegal?


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Phoolf said:


> Always? So if you hit 13 weeks and the pregnancy will kill you if continued then that should be illegal?


Very good point.

Also there are people for many varied reasons who have very irregular periods and therefore do not always realise they are pregnant for a few months.


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> I think you have excellent counter-arguments, all of which are valid. I do know that my views are rather extremist and aren't held by the majority of people, so I'm happy to be viewed as wrong in this. My views may very well change, I would imagine they would change most if/when I do get pregnant. I am still young compared to most on the forum (I'm 21), and am very open to my views changing
> 
> I'll read over what you've said again and take it into consideration when thinking about my views, a good counter-argument is always healthy for redefining personal view boundaries


I dont want you to feel you are wrong - they are your opinions! I just meant that given your age, you have a lot more living to do and you may find they change. I know that at 21 as far as I was concerned it was just a bunch of cells for a long time. Now at 33 and having seen a heartbeat at the 6 week scan, I dont just think its a bunch of cells. You could go one step further and ask "when does life begin?" - is it with a HB, which is 4 weeks after conception, and usually before someone knows they are pregnant.

As someone who lives next to a family who have a lot of children and pretty much live off benefits, I do understand where you are coming from. There are a lot of people out there who make bad parents, and this includes poor, rich, single and couples.

There are also a lot of people who make amazing parents but we all differ with what we agree with. Look at how many differing opinions there are on here with regards to how we raise our dogs, the pro and anti-cesar milans for example.

who would put these tests in place? there are a lot of people who are anti Gina Ford, a lot of pro Gina Ford. Then there is attachment parenting, bit hippy dippy for me, but some like it.

Unfortunately, when it comes to what would make a good parent, the main things people would be looking for would be finances, stability (which usually means two parents), a secure job etc and a lot of people would be refused based on these grounds, even gay couples if you have an overly religious person determining the criteria (look at whats happening in the US).



seanmac said:


> Sorry but its pretty common for baby's at 24weeks and even recently 22 weeks babys can survive now(mu was told there was 0% chance baby would survive) i think 21 week, the main thing its with advancement in medical tech baby will be able to survive from an early age.


I never said they couldnt survive, I know they can - but is it a good life. All children born at this stage have some problem. They can be very small, but then again they can be huge. Did you ever watch the program 24 week babies? They covered a maternity unit that had babies born at 22-24weeks. In a 6 month period, 1 baby out of 100 born at this gestation survived, and they wont know the level of her disability until she's about 2. On the program they had a young woman who was born at 26w many years ago and survived. She discussed her life and how hard it was and whilst neither her or her mum would ask each other if the right decision was made from the way she spoke you can see she didnt think it was as she struggled every day.

Just because with all this medical attention a baby can survive - should it? what about quality of life? we are happy enough to apply this to animals, why not people?

When we found out we were pregnant we had the talk about what to do should the baby come early. Luckily we never had to deal with this, but it was a conversation we had.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

JAChihuahua said:


> What a beautiful man he sounds like. I do believe that children who are friends with those who are less fortunate than themselves do grow up to be more compassionate and accepting adults.


Agree. And now they are grown up, they look after him with things like reading and shopping.



oggers86 said:


> I also dont understand how people can be so "open" about stuff like this. I knew someone who told me (and not in private) that she was pregnant and was booked in to have an abortion. Assuming it was true and she wasnt making it up, why on earth would you tell someone who you werent close to such private details??
> 
> I can guarantee that if I ever had to have an abortion for whatever reason, it would only be shared with a select few people (my OH and possibly my mum) I certainly wouldnt be going around telling all and sundry.
> 
> Then again she isnt the first, I seem to know people who say these kinds of things (be them true or false) and I just end up distancing myself from them. Anybody who either makes something like this up or treats it as a big laugh is not someone who I want to know.


Same sort of women who insist on telling everyone when their period has started I expect. Like I bloody care:sosp:



emmaviolet said:


> Very good point.
> 
> Also there are people for many varied reasons who have very irregular periods and therefore do not always realise they are pregnant for a few months.


I knew a girl when I was young who didn't know she was pregnant till the baby was born (or so she said). Back then people were very naive, and she was on the fat side, so I do believe it was true.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> I knew a girl when I was young who didn't know she was pregnant till the baby was born (or so she said). Back then people were very naive, and she was on the fat side, so I do believe it was true.


It's actually a condition, I think and I could be wrong it's like 1 in 1000 are like this. It's their brain not acknowledging the pregnancy for whatever reason.
The most obvious one to choose would be the solider who was away at war having a baby without knowing she was pregnant. It can happen to all sizes too.


----------



## Luz (Jul 28, 2012)

I am sure my views on abortion changed when I had problems conceiving. I was always pro-choice and still am to a point. However, I do think girls/women who get pregnant willy-nilly and then go for repeat abortions should be encouraged to have contraceptive implants. 

I don't think that babies given up for adoption would end up in the care system.

I also disagree with 'couples' who are together a couple of months and decide a baby would be 'nice' and then when they split up the female goes out with the next bloke for a couple of months and thinks 'well I had one with the first bloke', it's not fair not to have one with this...ad infinitum. There are single parents and single parents!


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

I think abortion should be legal,there are many reasons for choosing to have an abortion,yes some reasons can appear selfish but everyone is different and abilities to cope vary.
If abortion was made illegal then back street abortions would be carried out again.
Anti abortion protesters annoy the hell out of me protesting outside clinics, they don't know if a person has gone in to the clinic after being raped or indeed anything about a persons circumstances.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

skip said:


> I think abortion should be legal,there are many reasons for choosing to have an abortion,yes some reasons can appear selfish but everyone is different and abilities to cope vary.
> If abortion was made illegal then back street abortions would be carried out again.
> Anti abortion protesters annoy the hell out of me protesting outside clinics, they don't know if a person has gone in to the clinic after being raped or indeed anything about a persons circumstances.


I was a teenager when abortion was illegal and all my contemporaries either went to an awful lot more effort not to get pregnant, or they didn't do it till they were married. On the odd occasion someone got pregnant and they got married.

I don't think it would be any great effort to avoid pregnancies nowadays with all the advances. We didn't even have the pill then, and when it was invented it wasn't available to everyone.


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> And your opinion is based off your anecdotal life experience which is why you're getting wound up about me pointing the holes in your argument, it's personal for you (and for me, who knows?) and so you don't seem to be thinking through the implications of your idea being put into practice. Those 'most fit' to have children (eugenics) would very well be deemed those who are financially stable, who can afford childcare and who are in a loving heterosexual relationship, most of those 3 disqualify single parents a lot of the time, ergo you would be discriminating against single parents. Sorry if you don't like it, but it's true. Your idea of a 'Jeremy Kyle' family is another persons single parent family, and when you think it's okay for authority to decide who should and should not breed you open yourself up to all sorts of criticism.


Of course my opinion is based on my life experiences, I've spent my whole life being looked down on by people, even those in my own family, for being from a single parent family. My mother was ridiculed for choosing not to throw herself at men in an attempt to acquire another husband as apparently allowing me to grow up without a father was akin to child cruelty. Of course I'm going to be jaded with that view.

You're the one that's deeming who would be considered as 'most fit' to care for a child, not me. At no point have I said children should be raised by financially stable, heterosexual couples. I think the idea that these are the only people that can have children is hilarious, look at how many financially stable heterosexual parents have no clue how to raise their kids.

My idea of a 'Jeremy Kyle family' are those who can't be bothered to get off their backsides and work for their kids, they just use them for the dole, the people who, when they break up, use the children as blackmail or prevent the children seeing their other parent or the people who are so caught up in their own lives and their own arguments, they don't put the needs of the child first. That is a 'Jeremy Kyle family', I suggest you read everything I have said and not attempt to twist it to your own way of thinking.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> Of course my opinion is based on my life experiences, I've spent my whole life being looked down on by people, even those in my own family, for being from a single parent family. My mother was ridiculed for choosing not to throw herself at men in an attempt to acquire another husband as apparently allowing me to grow up without a father was akin to child cruelty. Of course I'm going to be jaded with that view.
> 
> You're the one that's deeming who would be considered as 'most fit' to care for a child, not me. At no point have I said children should be raised by financially stable, heterosexual couples. I think the idea that these are the only people that can have children is hilarious, look at how many financially stable heterosexual parents have no clue how to raise their kids.
> 
> My idea of a 'Jeremy Kyle family' are those who can't be bothered to get off their backsides and work for their kids, they just use them for the dole, *the people who, when they break up, use the children as blackmail or prevent the children seeing their other parent *or the people who are so caught up in their own lives and their own arguments, they don't put the needs of the child first. That is a 'Jeremy Kyle family', I suggest you read everything I have said and not attempt to twist it to your own way of thinking.


And you have the foresight to screen for this then when you hand out your licenses?


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

WelshOneEmma said:


> I dont want you to feel you are wrong - they are your opinions! I just meant that given your age, you have a lot more living to do and you may find they change. I know that at 21 as far as I was concerned it was just a bunch of cells for a long time. Now at 33 and having seen a heartbeat at the 6 week scan, I dont just think its a bunch of cells. You could go one step further and ask "when does life begin?" - is it with a HB, which is 4 weeks after conception, and usually before someone knows they are pregnant.
> 
> As someone who lives next to a family who have a lot of children and pretty much live off benefits, I do understand where you are coming from. There are a lot of people out there who make bad parents, and this includes poor, rich, single and couples.
> 
> ...


I agree with you that my opinions on it will change, and I've no doubt the biggest change will be if/when I get pregnant! I am looking forward to the change because I try and be as open-minded as possible and if I find that there is a better opinion out there than mine and I agree with it, I find no shame in apologising for being wrong and adopting the better view 

I also agree there is no way to define what makes a good parent, which is why my views will never work and I'm ok with that because I know my views aren't realistic, they're idealist. It would be great if all parents were able to raise their kids in the best possible way, but unfortunately circumstances don't always allow for that, there may be a sudden family trauma, or some people who have kids really just aren't cut out to be parents. Conversely, some people you would never dream of being a good parent suddenly turns out to be one, so you just never know how people will deal with it, which is why my argument is so unrealistic.

My point was (and this isn't directed at you) that I know my views are not the norm and they are not implementable. Normally I'm really tolerant, but the way I grew up has soured me massively against parents and, from the "child's" point of view, I know what it's like to have grown up with prejudice because of something you have never been able to control. Hence why I feel so strongly about this.


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> And you have the foresight to screen for this then when you hand out your licenses?


See above comment, in particular the *"I know my ideas aren't implementable because it's difficult to know who will be able to cope and who wouldn't."*


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> Of course my opinion is based on my life experiences, I've spent my whole life being looked down on by people, even those in my own family, for being from a single parent family. My mother was ridiculed for choosing not to throw herself at men in an attempt to acquire another husband as apparently allowing me to grow up without a father was akin to child cruelty. Of course I'm going to be jaded with that view.
> 
> You're the one that's deeming who would be considered as 'most fit' to care for a child, not me. At no point have I said children should be raised by financially stable, heterosexual couples. I think the idea that these are the only people that can have children is hilarious, look at how many financially stable heterosexual parents have no clue how to raise their kids.
> 
> My idea of a 'Jeremy Kyle family' are those who can't be bothered to get off their backsides and work for their kids, they just use them for the dole, the people who, when they break up, use the children as blackmail or prevent the children seeing their other parent or the people who are so caught up in their own lives and their own arguments, they don't put the needs of the child first. That is a 'Jeremy Kyle family', I suggest you read everything I have said and not attempt to twist it to your own way of thinking.


I missed your original post, but I wanted to say that neither of my grandchildren have much contact with their fathers, my grandson has only met his once, and my daughter has done a brilliant job of raising them. Ok, she had financial help from her father when he was alive, and she always had us to turn to, but I hate to hear about single mothers being stigmatised when I know how well she has done.

In America as recently as the 19070's the government decided to sterilise certain groups of people so they could not produce children and it got to a point where they were creating the same sort of master race they had fought Hitler to abolish.

Nobody should decide who can and cannot have children, I don't care who they are.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> I missed your original post, but I wanted to say that neither of my grandchildren have much contact with their fathers, my grandson has only met his once, and my daughter has done a brilliant job of raising them. Ok, she had financial help from her father when he was alive, and she always had us to turn to, but I hate to hear about single mothers being stigmatised when I know how well she has done.
> 
> In America as recently as the 19070's the government decided to sterilise certain groups of people so they could not produce children and it got to a point where they were creating the same sort of master race they had fought Hitler to abolish.
> 
> Nobody should decide who can and cannot have children, I don't care who they are.


Thank you newfiesmum, you said it much better than I could! Eugenics is controversial and not socially acceptable for a reason.


----------



## JAChihuahua (Nov 23, 2012)

WelshOneEmma said:


> I never said they couldnt survive, I know they can - but is it a good life. All children born at this stage have some problem. They can be very small, but then again they can be huge. Did you ever watch the program 24 week babies? They covered a maternity unit that had babies born at 22-24weeks. In a 6 month period, 1 baby out of 100 born at this gestation survived, and they wont know the level of her disability until she's about 2. On the program they had a young woman who was born at 26w many years ago and survived. She discussed her life and how hard it was and whilst neither her or her mum would ask each other if the right decision was made from the way she spoke you can see she didnt think it was as she struggled every day.
> 
> Just because with all this medical attention a baby can survive - should it? what about quality of life? we are happy enough to apply this to animals, why not people?
> 
> When we found out we were pregnant we had the talk about what to do should the baby come early. Luckily we never had to deal with this, but it was a conversation we had.


Ahh yes, Dr Evans wonderfully biased programme.

Of the long term study (there is only 1) on severe prematurity (26 weeks or under) these are the actual statistics from births in 1995. Please remember in 1995 there was not the availability of CPAP, brain cooling, scans, and other wonderful treatments that have developed in the last 15 years and further reduced the chances of long term disabilty.... brain cooling has for example reduced the number of brain bleeds (and so Cerebral palsy and other conditions) by 80% compared to babies who do not recieve this treatment!

At age 6
20% had no disabilities
22% had severe disability (defined as cerebral palsy but not walking, low cognitive scores, blindness, profound deafness)
24% had moderate disability (defined as cerebral palsy but walking, IQ/cognitive scores in the special needs range, a lesser degree of visual or hearing impairment) 
34% had mild disability (defined as low IQ/cognitive score, squint, requiring glasses)

at age 11
13% attended special schools
57% of those in mainstream schools had special educational needs
90% of those with SEN were within the mild range (squint, glasses, reading support and achieve normal academic results)

As for survival rates....
42% of babies born at 24 weeks survive
78% of babies born at 26 weeks survive

Perhaps because 13 children in every hundred must attend special schools (and so could dubiously be classed as having low quality of life - I vehemently disagree with this) we should not bother trying to save them!!!

Perhaps because 58 babies out of every hundred born at 24 weeks die, we should not provide medical care for the 42 who can live?

SERIOUSLY?


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> On the odd occasion someone got pregnant and they got married.
> .


I love this example, it reminds me of why I do not believe or follow any religion.

When the girls got pregnant they would get married and pretend there was no sin! If they really believed in god then he would see everything anyway.
Also if you follow the religion then maybe wait until marriage.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

65 votes against it being illegal and still only me who thinks otherwise. Are there no catholics on here?

I have to say I am surprised, to be honest. I did think I would be in the minority but not this much in the minority.


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> I was a teenager when abortion was illegal and all my contemporaries either went to an awful lot more effort not to get pregnant, or they didn't do it till they were married. On the odd occasion someone got pregnant and they got married.
> 
> I don't think it would be any great effort to avoid pregnancies nowadays with all the advances. We didn't even have the pill then, and when it was invented it wasn't available to everyone.


I agree that with all the contraception available that pregnancy should be easier to avoid.
I know that people were made to marry,a lot of whom spent a life of misery being married to someone they did not love,being forced to marry because you are pregnant wasn't the answer.
I worked at a hospital for the physically and mentally handicapped where I started my student nurse training , there were women in that hospital who had been hidden away because they were un married mothers and because they had spent years behind the hospital walls were institutionalized ,mentally Ill and exhibited all kinds of behavioral problems , thei. Lives totally destroyed and wasted, not only the women but in some cases the child they gave birth to.
Unfortunately there will always be un wanted pregnancies due to carelessness, there will also be rape victims, and medical considerations. I would imagine forcing someone to go through childbirth when the baby isn't wanted for whatever reason could be mentally damaging or physically damaging or even both.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

emmaviolet said:


> I love this example, it reminds me of why I do not believe or follow any religion.
> 
> When the girls got pregnant they would get married and pretend there was no sin! If they really believed in god then he would see everything anyway.
> Also if you follow the religion then maybe wait until marriage.


It wasn't about any religion, it was about image. What would people think? Back then they would have been shunned and outcast for having a baby out of wedlock, even their own families might not have had anything to do with them.

I recently met up with an old school friend via Friends Reunited, who told me that she had got pregnant at 17 and married the father (they are still together) and her mother refused to come to the wedding because of what the neighbours would say. It was ten years before they spoke again.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

skip said:


> I agree that with all the contraception available that pregnancy should be easier to avoid.
> I know that people were made to marry,a lot of whom spent a life of misery being married to someone they did not love,being forced to marry because you are pregnant wasn't the answer.
> I worked at a hospital for the physically and mentally handicapped where I started my student nurse training , there were women in that hospital who had been hidden away because they were un married mothers and because they had spent years behind the hospital walls were institutionalized ,mentally Ill and exhibited all kinds of behavioral problems , thei. Lives totally destroyed and wasted, not only the women but in some cases the child they gave birth to.
> Unfortunately there will always be un wanted pregnancies due to carelessness, there will also be rape victims, and medical considerations. I would imagine forcing someone to go through childbirth when the baby isn't wanted for whatever reason could be mentally damaging or physically damaging or even both.


I recall a time when girls who were not married and pregnant were consigned to unmarried mothers homes which were usually run by nuns and run like prisons, because those girls had sinned. They were treated like criminals, and they were made to sign away their child for adoption. They were told they had no choice that the law would not allow them to keep the child.

I do not think we should have a return to that, but the fact is that most of those girls got pregnant because they knew no better. There were still women who knew nothing till after the wedding night, some did not even know than men were built differently never mind why.

That is hardly the case today and I see no reason why anyone should get pregnant by accident.


----------



## welshjet (Mar 31, 2011)

I havent read through all the posts yet but well be doing so after this

all i can say is this - she lost her life  - could it have been saved

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Contraceptives are not always 100%


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

newfiesmum said:


> It wasn't about any religion, it was about image. What would people think? Back then they would have been shunned and outcast for having a baby out of wedlock, even their own families might not have had anything to do with them.
> 
> I recently met up with an old school friend via Friends Reunited, who told me that she had got pregnant at 17 and married the father (they are still together) and her mother refused to come to the wedding because of what the neighbours would say. It was ten years before they spoke again.


*How times have changed. And not all for the better imo.*


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> It wasn't about any religion, it was about image. What would people think? Back then they would have been shunned and outcast for having a baby out of wedlock, even their own families might not have had anything to do with them.
> 
> I recently met up with an old school friend via Friends Reunited, who told me that she had got pregnant at 17 and married the father (they are still together) and her mother refused to come to the wedding because of what the neighbours would say. It was ten years before they spoke again.


Sometimes it was religion too.


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> Contraceptives are not always 100%


They're not but if you combine them, for example condoms and the pill, there's very little chance of you getting pregnant.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

welshjet said:


> I havent read through all the posts yet but well be doing so after this
> 
> all i can say is this - she lost her life  - could it have been saved
> 
> BBC News - Woman dies after abortion request &#039;refused&#039; at Galway hospital


Yes, but abortion is illegal in Ireland as it is, I believe, in Italy. Divorce is also illegal in Ireland, or was a few years ago and people used to come here to get divorced and they have always come here to get abortions. What happened to this woman is tragic, but she must have known the Irish law would not be changed for her. She should have come to England for an abortion, but it doesn't seem there was much time.



emmaviolet said:


> Contraceptives are not always 100%


I don't suppose I dare suggest that they should keep their knickers on then


----------



## Sussexplumber (Oct 5, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *How times have changed. And not all for the better imo.*


Whats with all these contentious threads appearing? Has the Forum suddenly got boring?


----------



## JAChihuahua (Nov 23, 2012)

I'm sorry but accidents do happen, whether through ignorance, or contraceptive failure it happens, and unfortunatly its most often due to ignorance. 

As I said, I firmly believe that the social abortion age should be reduced to 15 weeks, but I would not change the medical abortion age limits.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> They're not but if you combine them, for example condoms and the pill, there's very little chance of you getting pregnant.


But still there is a chance.


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> I recall a time when girls who were not married and pregnant were consigned to unmarried mothers homes which were usually run by nuns and run like prisons, because those girls had sinned. They were treated like criminals, and they were made to sign away their child for adoption. They were told they had no choice that the law would not allow them to keep the child.
> 
> I do not think we should have a return to that, but the fact is that most of those girls got pregnant because they knew no better. There were still women who knew nothing till after the wedding night, some did not even know than men were built differently never mind why.
> 
> That is hardly the case today and I see no reason why anyone should get pregnant by accident.


I remember my mother telling me that she didn't know how babies were made when she got married and that my nana and grand dad went to see their priest because they didn't know either.

The pill,condoms etc are extremely effective by all accounts these days but not 100% effective , having said that I don't think the decision to abort a baby should be taken lightly either.


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> Yes, but abortion is illegal in Ireland as it is, I believe, in Italy. Divorce is also illegal in Ireland, or was a few years ago and people used to come here to get divorced and they have always come here to get abortions. What happened to this woman is tragic, but she must have known the Irish law would not be changed for her. She should have come to England for an abortion, but it doesn't seem there was much time.
> 
> I don't suppose I dare suggest that they should keep their knickers on then


Abortion is illegal, but divorce was legalised a good while ago.

I know your second point wasn't directed at me but I do agree with you - I'm comfortable knowing that, even while on contraception, if it does fail I'm at a time in my life where pregnancy and children would be difficult but doable. A few years ago I was _very_ cautious because I was still very young and not in uni.



emmaviolet said:


> But still there is a chance.


There is but it's about 1 in 1,000. It's all about being careful, if you're on the pill, take it on time, get the right sized condom, be careful around your fertile period, etc.


----------



## JAChihuahua (Nov 23, 2012)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> Abortion is illegal, but divorce was legalised a good while ago.
> 
> I know your second point wasn't directed at me but I do agree with you - I'm comfortable knowing that, even while on contraception, if it does fail I'm at a time in my life where pregnancy and children would be difficult but doable. A few years ago I was _very_ cautious because I was still very young and not in uni.
> 
> There is but it's about 1 in 1,000. It's all about being careful, if you're on the pill, take it on time, get the right sized condom, be careful around your fertile period, etc.


Dont forget that not all contraception is suitable for every person.

I have fibroids and cannot use coils
I also have an adrenal issue which precludes hormonal contraception. Hubby has had the snip, because we are done with having children, but what about those ladies who still want babies in the future? They are left with barrier methods which as you know are not that effective.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> Abortion is illegal, but divorce was legalised a good while ago.
> 
> I know your second point wasn't directed at me but I do agree with you - I'm comfortable knowing that, even while on contraception, if it does fail I'm at a time in my life where pregnancy and children would be difficult but doable. A few years ago I was _very_ cautious because I was still very young and not in uni.
> 
> There is but it's about 1 in 1,000. It's all about being careful, if you're on the pill, take it on time, get the right sized condom, be careful around your fertile period, etc.


If it is 1 in 1,000 then those odds are really bad.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Sussexplumber said:


> Whats with all these contentious threads appearing? Has the Forum suddenly got boring?


*What are you on about? I didn't start this thread.*


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

JAChihuahua said:


> Dont forget that not all contraception is suitable for every person.
> 
> I have fibroids and cannot use coils
> I also have an adrenal issue which precludes hormonal contraception. Hubby has had the snip, because we are done with having children, but what about those ladies who still want babies in the future? They are left with barrier methods which as you know are not that effective.


That is true, for those couples it does make things more difficult.



emmaviolet said:


> If it is 1 in 1,000 then those odds are really bad.


I meant there is a 1 in a 1,000 chance of getting pregnant when combining contraceptives.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> 65 votes against it being illegal and still only me who thinks otherwise. Are there no catholics on here?
> 
> I have to say I am surprised, to be honest. I did think I would be in the minority but not this much in the minority.


I think it's the blanket 'no it's wrong' no matter what that means people are not voting that way.

It means that even if the mothers and babies lives were at risk then still the woman should have the baby, I think most would find uncomfortable. Also it leads to the worst type of ones that spring up in the back alleys of places.


----------



## JAChihuahua (Nov 23, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> I think it's the blanket 'no it's wrong' no matter what that means people are not voting that way.
> 
> It means that even if the mothers and babies lives were at risk then still the woman should have the baby, I think most would find uncomfortable. Also it leads to the worst type of ones that spring up in the back alleys of places.


exactly! Unfortunatly for me abortion isnt black and white, its every shade of grey there is.


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

JAChihuahua said:


> Dont forget that not all contraception is suitable for every person.
> 
> I have fibroids and cannot use coils
> I also have an adrenal issue which precludes hormonal contraception. Hubby has had the snip, because we are done with having children, but what about those ladies who still want babies in the future? They are left with barrier methods which as you know are not that effective.


A colleague and a school friend both went on to have another child after a tubal tie,the school friend got a large amount of cash after she sued the hospital. My hubby had the snip too when we had our family but a friend of his who had the snip went on to father another child,much to his wife's and his horror at the time. He thought she had been unfaithful


----------



## JAChihuahua (Nov 23, 2012)

skip said:


> A colleague and a school friend both went on to have another child after a tubal tie,the school friend got a large amount of cash after she sued the hospital. My hubby had the snip too when we had our family but a friend of his who had the snip went on to father another child,much to his wife's and his horror at the time. He thought she had been unfaithful


dont scare me like that!!!

Nah he's had the tests and there is definatly no lead left in the pencil


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*Perhaps the best birth control they could do in schools is show a fetus at say 10 weeks old.*


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

emmaviolet said:


> I think it's the blanket 'no it's wrong' no matter what that means people are not voting that way.
> 
> It means that even if the mothers and babies lives were at risk then still the woman should have the baby, I think most would find uncomfortable. Also it leads to the worst type of ones that spring up in the back alleys of places.


I would like to see it go back to how we were promised when it was legalised, health of mother and child and rape. The trouble is it is too easy to bring these things in, then keep moving the goalposts.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *Perhaps the best birth control they could do in schools is show a fetus at say 10 weeks old.*


I prefer my idea........clamp them all into chastity belts till they are eighteen!


----------



## momentofmadness (Jul 19, 2008)

Durhamchance said:


> Ha Ha yes! 4th Feb?
> 
> My back is killing me x


 my eldest Birthday. x


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> I would like to see it go back to how we were promised when it was legalised, health of mother and child and rape. The trouble is it is too easy to bring these things in, then keep moving the goalposts.


While I agree that it is too easy now to have one and the stories of young people having over 5 scares the life out of me, I would still prefer an abortion then a childs life filled in care homes and abuse.


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> I prefer my idea........clamp them all into chastity belts till they are eighteen!


How is that healthy though? I don't agree with having sex at some crazy age like 12 or 14, but at 17 I was very mentally prepared, educated and comfortable with it. I was in a relationship and it wasn't forced. Surely that's the best way to be?

I find that those who have been educated about sex from a young age tend to me more sensible entering into it as young adults.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

LostGirl said:


> This pregnancy was an accident, I was on the coil meant to be next to be sterilised this one is.
> 
> It DID cross my mind to have an abortion i will admit that, My children are 7 and 8 yrs old and i had just gone back to work i wasnt sure i wanted to go through it all again. I havnt done pregnancy well in the passed either and sent alot of time in hospital.
> 
> ...


My third child was a mistake, but we were married had two already, not a mistake that would have happened in circumstances not so stable. Abortion was never an issue because I don't believe in it, but I think my husband would have liked to suggest it had he not known I would never speak to him again.

My eldest got pregnant at 19 by the worst scumbag lowlife ever to crawl along the ground. I left the choice to her, though I would not have been happy had she chosen an abortion, but I did not let her know that. Thankfully, she chose not as I have a lovely, handsome grandson.

Now we have my son, who was born with brain damage. Had some doctor told me that before he was born, would he have been born? I don't know, I could not possibly answer that because it was all so remote. He is an amazing man and I don't know what I would do without him, he is my best friend.

I think that it is very very rare that abortion is justified, I really do.


----------



## momentofmadness (Jul 19, 2008)

I dont believe Ive the right to decide for another.. But right now Im 37 and my fella is 40, in my eyes I am far to old to have another child.. This is in my eyes for me.. I have no problem with anyone else my age or older having a child.. 

I have a 13 and 9 year old already and I feel I have had my children and dont want to go through it all again.. So if i became pregnant by some I dont know.manner.. 
Then I would prob opt for an abortion..

Can I say though.. I had my first on the pill..I had been very poorly previously the first time and my 2nd .. I had no plans for another.. in fact I had planned not to have any more Id asked for my tubes to be tied but they said I was too young.. But I wasn't in a fantastic relationship so didn't think it be fair...But some how I have my youngest.... 
I dont agree with a woman having many abortions.. doesn't seem right.. But obviously I dont know the circumstances..


----------



## welshjet (Mar 31, 2011)

Ok, now read

Ive voted for woman's choice

But to use abortion as a contraception is totally wrong. There are plenty of other ways and personally i think that if a person is using it this way then something really needs to be done, Im in my 40's and luckily - perhaps with an ounce of conmon sense, have never found myself in this position. Surely, the morning after pill is now widely available to all and sundry and you do not have to jump through hoops anymore. Not everyone's way of thinking and views, but if there is a reoccuring pattern, the jab and implants are available and are pretty reliable. If you know your highly fertile then combine it. 

For medical and attacks as such, i think that the only person who has the right to decide is the woman, who will be carrying the child and then the family.

I totally abhor the sight of people protesting outside a clinic, in normal circumstances, i would say it is a traumatic thing to have to go through and that person needs support not harassment BUT with people now using abortions as contraception, it now goes to show what a throwaway culture we are in all respects


----------



## Valanita (Apr 13, 2010)

*Yes*, no woman should be made to have a baby she doesn't want.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

newfiesmum said:


> I prefer my idea........clamp them all into chastity belts till they are eighteen!


*Only problem with that is, society has changed.Perhaps the stigma attached to unmarried mothers wasn't such a bad idea.*


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

JAChihuahua said:


> Ahh yes, Dr Evans wonderfully biased programme.
> 
> Of the long term study (there is only 1) on severe prematurity (26 weeks or under) these are the actual statistics from births in 1995. Please remember in 1995 there was not the availability of CPAP, brain cooling, scans, and other wonderful treatments that have developed in the last 15 years and further reduced the chances of long term disabilty.... brain cooling has for example reduced the number of brain bleeds (and so Cerebral palsy and other conditions) by 80% compared to babies who do not recieve this treatment!
> 
> ...


Where did i say we shouldnt provide medical care???

All I said was even though we have this is doesnt mean a child will be perfectly healthy therefore the argument of "they can now survive at 24w" is not a great argument. Yes they need a lot of medical intervention and a lot still do not make it. Again it is the choice of the PARENTS to determine that level of intervention and nobody else's business.

Seeing as I have no idea on where your stats come from, I can hardly state that they are unbiased either can I?


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *Only problem with that is, society has changed.Perhaps the stigma attached to unmarried mothers wasn't such a bad idea.*


You are joking right?


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

emmaviolet said:


> You are joking right?


Unfortunately I dont think she is BUT I also think Janice has a point. We have gone too far in the opposite direction where its almost seen as cool. I grew up in a town where people tried to get pregnant young so they could have their council house etc.

I see these people now, multiple children with multiple fathers, none of whom see the kids. Mum out and drunk every weekend.

Whilst I do not in the slightest think single parents should be vilified, I dont think its what people should be proud of either (and I mean the young girls who go out wanting to get pregnant to be like this).

Being a parent is hard. Being a single parent is doubly hard and there are a lot who do an amazing job and put the kids first. Unfortunately too many kids these days are having kids and not growing up with the responsibility because of the attitude that now surrounds being single parents.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

WelshOneEmma said:


> Unfortunately I dont think she is BUT I also think Janice has a point. We have gone too far in the opposite direction where its almost seen as cool. I grew up in a town where people tried to get pregnant young so they could have their council house etc.
> 
> I see these people now, multiple children with multiple fathers, none of whom see the kids. Mum out and drunk every weekend.
> 
> ...


The teen pregnancy rate in England and Wales has reached its lowest since 1969, new data shows.

BBC News - Teen pregnancy rate lowest since 1969


----------



## JAChihuahua (Nov 23, 2012)

WelshOneEmma said:


> Where did i say we shouldnt provide medical care???
> 
> All I said was even though we have this is doesnt mean a child will be perfectly healthy therefore the argument of "they can now survive at 24w" is not a great argument. Yes they need a lot of medical intervention and a lot still do not make it. Again it is the choice of the PARENTS to determine that level of intervention and nobody else's business.
> 
> Seeing as I have no idea on where your stats come from, I can hardly state that they are unbiased either can I?


oops sorry I missed the link... however it doesnt take much to google?

Premature birth statistics - Tommy's
and

Epicure :: Home The people behind the long term study!

what you said was:



> I never said they couldnt survive, I know they can - but *is it a good life*.


 I provided the statistics to show you.



> *All *children born at this stage have some problem. They can be very small, but then again they can be huge.


definatly not ALL!



> Just because with all this medical attention a baby can survive - should it? what about quality of life? we are happy enough to apply this to animals, why not people?


You question whether they should have medical attention? I gave you the statistics and say YES! You question quality of life, I gave you the statistics on the numbers who are not severely disabled.


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

JAChihuahua said:


> oops sorry I missed the link... however it doesnt take much to google?
> 
> Premature birth statistics - Tommy's
> and
> ...


You have your opinions, I have mine. I'm not going to get into an argument with us as i know neither of us will concede the point.


----------



## JAChihuahua (Nov 23, 2012)

WelshOneEmma said:


> You have your opinions, I have mine. I'm not going to get into an argument with us as i know neither of us will concede the point.


this isnt about opinions, its about the facts and figures. Quite clearly not ALL 24 weekers have health problems as you suggest.

EDIT

and without the facts how can people form unbiased opinions?


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

Im pro life, after watching how they murder the baby, I cant advocate that, cos some slag cant shut her legs. Sure some situations maybe like rape, but for contraception, like many use it for cos they are careless, no.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

emmaviolet said:


> You are joking right?


*No i'm not joking. When society frowned on unmarried mothers it wasn;t such a bad idea.
I have to laugh at some on this forum. In one breath they complain about kids having kids and claiming benefits and in the next they think some of the old ways were wrong.*


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

smudgiesmummy said:


> no i already said accidents happened but if they do and the only reason is UNWANTED ... i dont agree with abortion as i could never do it


Good thing we still have freespeech, idgaf who here wants to play cyber hero and condemn for a view, (arrogance anyway) they wont change mine.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *No i'm not joking. When society frowned on unmarried mothers it wasn;t such a bad idea.
> I have to laugh at some on this forum. In one breath they complain about kids having kids and claiming benefits and in the next they think some of the old ways were wrong.*


Some of the old ways were wrong.

I would rather be raised by a single mother then have an abusive father! I'm sure most would, but you want to condemn single mothers?

Not all things were great in the good old days, such as being shouted at as you walked down the street if your skin was not the right colour!


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

emmaviolet said:


> Some of the old ways were wrong.
> 
> I would rather be raised by a single mother then have an abusive father! I'm sure most would, but you want to condemn single mothers?
> 
> Not all things were great in the good old days, such as being shouted at as you walked down the street if your skin was not the right colour!


*pmsl.. hey i was raised by a single father, so your argument is?*


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *No i'm not joking. When society frowned on unmarried mothers it wasn;t such a bad idea.
> I have to laugh at some on this forum. In one breath they complain about kids having kids and claiming benefits and in the next they think some of the old ways were wrong.*


From what little I know of you Janice, you haven't had the same stigma of being in a single parent that others have. I recall you saying that you grew up without a mother? Unfortunately our society seems to boost up single fathers, yet come down on single mothers. At least in my experience anyway.

One of my biggest fears about having children is that I don't want them to have the same stigma I had as a child because it was horrible. I was bullied for it in school and members of my own family have said that me and my mom aren't a proper family because I don't have a dad.

The last thing they should do is bring back the stigma of single parents, there's already a generation of messed up kids after divorce rates shot up in the late 80s and through the 90s. Do you want to create another generation like mine?


----------



## SLB (Apr 25, 2011)

Haven't read through the whole thread.

But I sit on the fence here.

I say Yes because:

- There is adequate contraception out there, whilst it may not all be 100% you can use two forms - the pill/depo/implant as well as a condom.

- I feel that if people think they are old enough to have sex or think they can have sex, without being sensible - and this applies to teenagers as well. Then they should live with the consequences.

- It's technically murder.

- Many women are in danger of being harmed during the procedure. They can become infertile and get infections from unqualified people doing the abortion. Abortions are very very expensive in some places so women feel the need to go somewhere cheaper and get botch jobs done.

- Women who have abortions often have to deal with public outrage or the mental torture.

I say No because:

- Rape/abuse victims - they shouldn't have to bring a child into the world that was born out of their pain.

- Women who don't want the child will resort to violent dangerous methods of aborting a child. E.G: Being kicked and punched in the stomach, throwing themselves down the stairs and drinking and taking drugs excessively.

- Many women are in danger from botched procedures due to the pressure of having an abortion in the first place.

- Financially unstable.

There are fors and against it. My points link into each other, such things as "living with the consequences and being sensible" link with the financially stable, I wouldn't bring a child into the world any time soon as we aren't able to afford one.

But my overall thought it that women have feelings - we are human too. Mistakes happen and whilst I would live with my mistakes, sometimes it's mentally and emotionally hard on others to live with theirs and that could cause greater problems than the woman having an abortion.

I do think that for women such as rape/abuse victims, abortion should be kept legal for the sake of them. I wouldn't be able to keep a child knowing it was born from the seed of a monster. Children should be born from love and happiness, not from misery and pain.

It's a tough one. We all have our own views and whilst I can say what I would or wouldn't do - I don't know if that would actually be the case if it was ever to happen. But I would like to have that choice there. Women have fought so hard to get equality and part of that is having the choice to do what they would like with their own body. I would like to know that if I decided to abort a baby that I wouldn't be judged - but I know I would, but then would I be judged equally as harshly if I had the baby regardless of my situation or how the baby was conceived?


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

Single parents shouldn't be viewed in a bad light and I don't understand how the past is relevant. It was considered a man's duty to beat his wife at one point. Should we go back to that point in history?


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> From what little I know of you Janice, you haven't had the same stigma of being in a single parent that others have. I recall you saying that you grew up without a mother? Unfortunately our society seems to boost up single fathers, yet come down on single mothers. At least in my experience anyway.
> 
> One of my biggest fears about having children is that I don't want them to have the same stigma I had as a child because it was horrible. I was bullied for it in school and members of my own family have said that me and my mom aren't a proper family because I don't have a dad.
> 
> The last thing they should do is bring back the stigma of single parents, there's already a generation of messed up kids after divorce rates shot up in the late 80s and through the 90s. Do you want to create another generation like mine?


*I was a single parent too. So like many others i can say be there done that and got the t-shirt. although i was married when i had my kids.
I was born in 1950,and i still believe " some" of the old rules would do the young girls/women of today a great deal of good.*


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *pmsl.. hey i was raised by a single father, so your argument is?*


I'm sorry you are killing me!!

You think stigma should be brought to single mothers but you was raised by a single father.

I bet he was held up a hero like rabbitmonkee said but a child who has no father is sworn at, called a b*****d and excluded from society.

What a funny way of thinking!


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

JAChihuahua said:


> this isnt about opinions, its about the facts and figures. Quite clearly not ALL 24 weekers have health problems as you suggest.
> 
> EDIT
> 
> and without the facts how can people form unbiased opinions?


Problem is people can find facts to support any argument. My point was just because a baby can survive at 24w doesnt mean it would be without problems so the argument was flawed.

Either way, I have my opinion, based on what I have read etc, you have yours.


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

I'm almost of two minds with abortion. I feel abortion should legal with more restrictions in each trimester. Than, I think, it should be legal throughout most of a pregnancy. How the heck would the government enforce anything else? If someone is using abortion as birth control, they're probably best not having children anyways.

Will technology render debate over abortion irrelevant in the future?


----------



## auspiciousmind (Sep 2, 2012)

SLB said:


> I say Yes because:
> 
> - There is adequate contraception out there, whilst it may not all be 100% you can use two forms - the pill/depo/implant as well as a condom.
> 
> ...


This is 100% how I feel .. but put far more eloquently then I would of ended up posting it as.

My situation at the moment:

long term partner , living together , using the implant as contraception (as we both are not in the position nor want children at the moment & are STI/STD free), I'm currently not working but OH runs his own business.

and just to throw in the mix:

From the age of 16 (and my younger sister 13) were brought up in a single parent family... BECAUSE my dad DIED suddenly without warning. After all that both me and my sister both turned out great.. I went to school , I have qualification in Forensic Science , I've worked for years , I've never brought trouble to my mothers door. My sisters currently studying at Uni.



I think to some extent a "Nuclear family" can have children that are far worse off than some single-parent families.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

It should be legal, as it is. Like others have pointed out the woman shouldnt have to have the kid if she knows she wont be able to cope with it, its not fair on the kid... neither should she have to have the kid if it's the product of rape etc etc, all good reasons.

The one argument i havent seen raised tho, concerns the fathers. As far as i know if a woman gets herself pregnant she can abort the baby regardless of wether the father would be willing to take sole responsibilty for the child and wants the child.

That doesnt seem fair to me. If you get preggers by consentual means and the guy wants the kid you should be made to go through the childbirth even if you dont want the kid yourself, unless you are at particular risk healthwise.


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

porps said:


> It should be legal, as it is. Like others have pointed out the woman shouldnt have to have the kid if she knows she wont be able to cope with it, its not fair on the kid... neither should she have to have the kid if it's the product of rape etc etc, all good reasons.
> 
> The one argument i havent seen raised tho, concerns the fathers. As far as i know if a woman gets herself pregnant she can abort the baby regardless of wether the father would be willing to take sole responsibilty for the child and wants the child.
> 
> *That doesnt seem fair to me. If you get preggers by consentual means and the guy wants the kid you should be made to go through the childbirth even if you dont want the kid yourself, unless you are at particular risk healthwise*.


So if you get pregnant and the dad doesnt want the baby, by that rationale they should be able to force you to have an abortion.

Its not fair to the dad, and yes it does take two (when its consensual) but its not the dad who has to carry the baby and also its a lot easier for a man to walk away than a woman.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

emmaviolet said:


> I'm sorry you are killing me!!
> 
> You think stigma should be brought to single mothers but you was raised by a single father.
> 
> ...


*You are so wrong in your assumptions. And this is half the problem with this forum.
You cannot compare the 50's with todays society.
Back then women were made to feel ashamed if they had kids out of wedlock.
There is no shame these days.
Now back on topic, i did state that years ago if women did want an abortion they would have found someone to do it.*


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

WelshOneEmma said:


> So if you get pregnant and the dad doesnt want the baby, by that rationale they should be able to force you to have an abortion.
> 
> Its not fair to the dad, and yes it does take two (when its consensual) but its not the dad who has to carry the baby and also its a lot easier for a man to walk away than a woman.


no, your logic is flawed. You've taken 2+2 and come up with 5.

My points is that if one parent is willing to have and care for the child then they should have that choice. At no point, as far as i know, did i imply that the man should be the one making the choice either way.

Yes indeed, the woman has to carry the baby, i was expecting that argument. It's called consequences. Perhaps they would be more careful about contraception, and if they are not they should deal with the consequence of their irresponsiblity.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

porps said:


> It should be legal, as it is. Like others have pointed out the woman shouldnt have to have the kid if she knows she wont be able to cope with it, its not fair on the kid... neither should she have to have the kid if it's the product of rape etc etc, all good reasons.
> 
> The one argument i havent seen raised tho, concerns the fathers. As far as i know if a woman gets herself pregnant she can abort the baby regardless of wether the father would be willing to take sole responsibilty for the child and wants the child.
> 
> That doesnt seem fair to me. If you get preggers by consentual means and the guy wants the kid you should be made to go through the childbirth even if you dont want the kid yourself, unless you are at particular risk healthwise.


Pregnancy still carries with it many risks, up to and including death - even in the western world and in the 21st century. No-one gets to tell a woman she must go through it in this country, and that is how it should be in my opinion.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

myshkin said:


> Pregnancy still carries with it many risks, up to and including death - even in the western world and in the 21st century. No-one gets to tell a woman she must go through it in this country, and that is how it should be in my opinion.


They should be well aware of the risks before having unprotected sex. Consequence of irresponsiblity.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

should never ever be illigal

kids should always be a choice, not something forced upon you


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> should never ever be illigal
> 
> kids should always be a choice, not something forced upon you


(as long as you're female)


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

porps said:


> It should be legal, as it is. Like others have pointed out the woman shouldnt have to have the kid if she knows she wont be able to cope with it, its not fair on the kid... neither should she have to have the kid if it's the product of rape etc etc, all good reasons.
> 
> The one argument i havent seen raised tho, concerns the fathers. As far as i know if a woman gets herself pregnant she can abort the baby regardless of wether the father would be willing to take sole responsibilty for the child and wants the child.
> 
> That doesnt seem fair to me. If you get preggers by consentual means and the guy wants the kid you should be made to go through the childbirth even if you dont want the kid yourself, unless you are at particular risk healthwise.


I can see your point of view, but there are a couple of flaws. A man might say he wants to the baby, that he will care for it, but will he when the time comes? Or is he just saying that so she will have it? Also, what happens if the child is badley handicapped? Is he still going to be willing to take responsibility? This last is the problem I have with surrogacy, but that's another story.

It is also not that easy for a woman to go through a pregnancy and birth and then just walk away no matter what she may think she wants. It is not an intellectual thing, it is a deeply emotional one. Possibly she will change her mind and he will be put out because she promised he could have the baby.

It is all too complex I'm afraid. By the way if she had got herself pregnant, there would be no father to argue about it and she would hardly be seeking an abortion.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

porps said:


> They should be well aware of the risks before having unprotected sex. Consequence of irresponsiblity.


Well actually, they aren't made aware of it...no-one would make babies if they were!

The majority of female gynaecologists opt for c-section for their own births, and most male gynaes opt for it for their wives - not because they are too posh to push, but because they are aware of the horrific injuries which cause lifetime problems that can occur with vaginal birth.....that's not even the life-threatening stuff.

So anyway, accidental pregnancy = must give birth whether she likes it or not. Interesting view.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

porps said:


> (as long as you're female)


dont even get me started on that

i dont agree with men being forced to be fathers either


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *You are so wrong in your assumptions. And this is half the problem with this forum.
> You cannot compare the 50's with todays society.
> Back then women were made to feel ashamed if they had kids out of wedlock.
> There is no shame these days.
> Now back on topic, i did state that years ago if women did want an abortion they would have found someone to do it.*


Thats the point. You were saying it should go back to that.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> I can see your point of view, but there are a couple of flaws. A man might say he wants to the baby, that he will care for it, but will he when the time comes? Or is he just saying that so she will have it? Also, what happens if the child is badley handicapped? Is he still going to be willing to take responsibility? This last is the problem I have with surrogacy, but that's another story.
> 
> It is also not that easy for a woman to go through a pregnancy and birth and then just walk away no matter what she may think she wants. It is not an intellectual thing, it is a deeply emotional one. Possibly she will change her mind and he will be put out because she promised he could have the baby.
> 
> It is all too complex I'm afraid. By the way if she had got herself pregnant, there would be no father to argue about it and she would hardly be seeking an abortion.


You talk as if men cannot have an emotional attachment to a child. Have you never heard men speak of when they held their child for the first time? Nah we're blokes right... no emotion and all that! "Oh it's diabled i? bin it then, i'll just make another...."

You talk as though all women are great mothers who love their children, thats not true.

I realise its complex, and of course i realise it takes 2 to get her pregnant.. but it only takes one to decide on the fate of the kid... thats fair right?

The choice should be there but the man should have a say about wether he wants the child to live. If she doesnt want to deal with pregnancy and child birth she should be a bit more bloody careful.


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

porps said:


> no, your logic is flawed. You've taken 2+2 and come up with 5.
> 
> My points is that if one parent is willing to have and care for the child then they should have that choice. At no point, as far as i know, did i imply that the man should be the one making the choice either way.
> 
> Yes indeed, the woman has to carry the baby, i was expecting that argument. It's called consequences. Perhaps they would be more careful about contraception, and if they are not they should deal with the consequence of their irresponsiblity.


My point was if you try to force it one way it opens the door to force it the other way. Trust me, I can add up! 

Nobody should be forced to go through a pregnancy they dont want. Its hard enough when you do want it. And as has been stated, accidents happen. Yes there are consequences in life but someone shouldnt be forced to go through something major, that can kill them, because they have to deal with consequences.

As I stated earlier, my personal opinion is my body, my choice. Nobody has the right to take my choices away.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

porps said:


> You talk as if men cannot have an emotional attachment to a child. Have you never heard men speak of when they held their child for the first time? Nah we're blokes right... no emotion and all that! "Oh it's diabled i? bin it then, i'll just make another...."
> 
> You talk as though all women are great mothers who love their children, thats not true.
> 
> I realise its complex, and of course i realise it takes 2 to get her pregnant.. but it only takes one to decide on the fate of the kid... thats fair right?


That is not what I meant at all, and I think you know it. But it is a fact that an awful lot of men think that women don't mean it when they say they don't want a child. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that he will manipulate the situation, and if he does change his mind she is the one who is going to be stuck with the child she didn't want.

As the mother of a mentally disabled son, which most know on here, I have seen many, many fathers turn their backs on their child when it turns out to be mentally challenged. It happens, it happens a lot because a lot think it is some sort of slight on their virility.

I am the one who thinks abortion should be illegal, remember, I am just trying to point out the pitfalls to your argument. In my world, she would not be pregnant in the first place.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

WelshOneEmma said:


> My point was if you try to force it one way it opens the door to force it the other way. Trust me, I can add up!
> 
> Nobody should be forced to go through a pregnancy they dont want. Its hard enough when you do want it. And as has been stated, accidents happen. Yes there are consequences in life but someone shouldnt be forced to go through something major, that can kill them, because they have to deal with consequences.
> 
> As I stated earlier, my personal opinion is my body, my choice. Nobody has the right to take my choices away.


Tbh, i dont think it necessarily opens the door up the other way. Im trying to say that both parents get a choice about keeping the child, but neither gets the chance to force an abortion if the oher is prepared to raise the child alone.

I'd also like to just add a little disclaimer at this point... You see im not quite sure i actually beleive in what i'm arguing at the moment, i cant claim to have strudied it or thought about it at length, it was just one tangent that popped into my head while reading the thread that hadnt been brought up yet. I'll continue to fight this corner tho.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> That is not what I meant at all, and I think you know it. But it is a fact that an awful lot of men think that women don't mean it when they say they don't want a child. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that he will manipulate the situation, and if he does change his mind she is the one who is going to be stuck with the child she didn't want.
> 
> As the mother of a mentally disabled son, which most know on here, I have seen many, many fathers turn their backs on their child when it turns out to be mentally challenged. It happens, it happens a lot because a lot think it is some sort of slight on their virility.
> 
> I am the one who thinks abortion should be illegal, remember, I am just trying to point out the pitfalls to your argument. In my world, she would not be pregnant in the first place.


I know quite a few women who were emotionally manipulated into having the kids...then he's off and they're single mums struggling to get by.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

porps said:


> Tbh, i dont think it necessarily opens the door up the other way.
> 
> I'd also like to just add a little disclaimer at this point... You see im not quite sure i actually beleive in what i'm arguing at the moment, i cant claim to have strudied it or thought about it at length, it was just one tangent that popped into my head while reading the thread that hadnt been brought up yet. *I'll continue to fight this corner tho*.


I'm all for playing devil's advocate, but you aren't convincing with this one


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

porps said:


> Tbh, i dont think it necessarily opens the door up the other way.
> 
> I'd also like to just add a little disclaimer at this point... You see im not quite sure i actually beleive in what i'm arguing at the moment, i cant claim to have strudied it or thought about it at length, it was just one tangent that popped into my head while reading the thread that hadnt been brought up yet. I'll continue to fight this corner tho.


For the counter to your argument please see The Violinist experiment: Violinist (thought experiment) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)



> The "famous violinist" thought experiment asks a person to consider the ethics of a scenario where they wake to find themselves in a hospital serving as life support to a famous violinist. The person is asked to consider that they were not consulted prior to this arrangement, but that if they detach from the violinist he will die. Thomson wrote, "If you stay in the hospital bed, connected to the violinist, he will be totally cured in nine months. You are unlikely to suffer harm. No one else can save him. Do you have an obligation to stay connected?"[1]
> [edit]





> In her introduction to her "Famous Violinist Problem", Thomson notes that much of the inadequate debate on abortion was getting lost within the issue of whether the fetus is a person or a mass of tissue. Having identified this question, Thomson attempted to circumvent this issue by "[immediately granting] that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception"; which then allowed her to address what she felt was the only issue involved: that of whether the pregnant woman, or the fetus, had the "stronger and more stringent right to life".[2]
> [edit]


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> That is not what I meant at all, and I think you know it. But it is a fact that an awful lot of men think that women don't mean it when they say they don't want a child. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that he will manipulate the situation, and if he does change his mind she is the one who is going to be stuck with the child she didn't want.
> 
> As the mother of a mentally disabled son, which most know on here, I have seen many, many fathers turn their backs on their child when it turns out to be mentally challenged. It happens, it happens a lot because a lot think it is some sort of slight on their virility.
> 
> I am the one who thinks abortion should be illegal, remember, I am just trying to point out the pitfalls to your argument. In my world, she would not be pregnant in the first place.


i know thats not how you meant it but it does often feel like it's ok for women to make sweeping generalisations about men but if men do it theres outcry at the sexism.

I know you're just debating it with me, and i too... in all honesty im probably wrong, but it's killed half an hour.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Phoolf said:


> For the counter to your argument please see The Violinist experiment: Violinist (thought experiment) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)


thats very interesting, never seen it before.. would have to give it more thought..

thinking....

ok, i think i have a thought....

From the angle i've been coming from.. wouldnt it be more approriate if the violinist was tethered to 2 people. Both could choose to stay and if either 1 stays the violinist would be saved, however 1 of the 2 can choose that both must leave, whilst the other does not have the same choice.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

porps said:


> thats very interesting, never seen it before.. would have to give it more thought..
> 
> thinking....
> 
> ...


No I don't think so, there is no biological way a man would be connected to the Violinist (the foetus) and therefore he is not the one taking the risk and letting someone else live off his life force for 9 months. A more appropriate argument would be if your partner wanted the Violinist to live and tried to coerce you into letting it live off you for 9 months so that he could still be friends with him rather than letting you put yourself and your rights first.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Phoolf said:


> I know quite a few women who were emotionally manipulated into having the kids...then he's off and they're single mums struggling to get by.


Precisely my point.



porps said:


> i know thats not how you meant it but it does often feel like it's ok for women to make sweeping generalisations about men but if men do it theres outcry at the sexism.
> 
> I know you're just debating it with me, and i too... in all honesty im probably wrong, but it's killed half an hour.


I have seen an equal amount of women turn their backs on a handicapped child, believe me, and nothing makes me angrier. But a lot of the time they are just backing up the man.

We are getting into a different subject now though.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Phoolf said:


> For the counter to your argument please see The Violinist experiment: Violinist (thought experiment) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)


That is interesting.

The thing is it says you just have to lie there. With pregnency comes a lot of health issues, especially if you are already weak. Plus child birth is no picnic either.


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

porps said:


> Tbh, i dont think it necessarily opens the door up the other way. Im trying to say that both parents get a choice about keeping the child, but neither gets the chance to force an abortion if the oher is prepared to raise the child alone.
> 
> I'd also like to just add a little disclaimer at this point... You see im not quite sure i actually beleive in what i'm arguing at the moment, i cant claim to have strudied it or thought about it at length, it was just one tangent that popped into my head while reading the thread that hadnt been brought up yet. I'll continue to fight this corner tho.


The problem is it would set a precedent, and once its set one way it could be set another.

Dont get me wrong, I do agree that abortion should be a joint decision, as should keeping a child, but as has been commented previously, a lot more men walk away than women do. The decision to have a child is HUGE and should not be made on a whim or to make someone happy.

Unfortunately though, as its the woman who ultimately carries the child, it is ultimately her choice and a man should not be able to force her to carry the child. Apart from which, if she doesnt want it, she's not going to do everything she can to ensure its healthy is she?


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> That is interesting.
> 
> The thing is it says you just have to lie there. With pregnency comes a lot of health issues, especially if you are already weak. Plus child birth is no picnic either.


Indeed. It's one of the pro choice thought arguments that is often used to demonstrate whether your actual thinking is in line with your stated opinion.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Phoolf said:


> No I don't think so, there is no biological way a man would be connected to the Violinist (the foetus) and therefore he is not the one taking the risk and letting someone else live off his life force for 9 months. A more appropriate argument would be if your partner wanted the Violinist to live and tried to coerce you into letting it live off you for 9 months so that he could still be friends with him rather than letting you put yourself and your rights first.


the risk i certainly cant argue with, it isnt shared.
However the risk has always been there and if young women arent aware of them before getting pregnant we're failing them.



newfiesmum said:


> Precisely my point.
> 
> I have seen an equal amount of women turn their backs on a handicapped child, believe me, and nothing makes me angrier. *But a lot of the time they are just backing up the man.*
> 
> We are getting into a different subject now though.


strange that... I dont think i can name a single male friend of mine who would put his woman before his child.



emmaviolet said:


> That is interesting.
> 
> The thing is it says you just have to lie there. With pregnency comes a lot of health issues, especially if you are already weak. Plus child birth is no picnic either.


Indeed, so why didnt they bother with protection? do we not have sex ed in schools any more? hell, do we even need it when we have the internet?



WelshOneEmma said:


> Dont get me wrong, I do agree that abortion should be a joint decision, as should keeping a child, but as has been commented previously, a lot more men walk away than women do. The decision to have a child is HUGE and should not be made on a whim or to make someone happy.


Agreed.

One other thing - i'm sure i one of you talking about how it's easier for mean to walk away, or how the women are so often left as single parents, how the men change their minds etc, you get the jist. Cant find the post now, hope i didnt imagine it.

But no mention of the MANY women who wont ALLOW the fathers to be a part of their kids lives. the MANY women out there who i have seen first hand just use the kids as a weapon against men who dont want them cos of precisely that kind of behaviour. And they probably still tell thier friends and family "he's such a bastard, never see's the kids, just leaves it all down to me"

They really get my goat. But yeah way offtopic, sorry all.. im bored ;(


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

goodvic2 said:


> Should abortion be made illegal? Or does a woman have the right to choose what she wants to do with her body?


I believe this is a polarizing question that does not allow the nuances of the discussion and the decisions.

I find the categories in the question very limiting.

I don't believe in abortion on demand until the 9th month - as is being pushed for in many places in North America. Although I don't think abortion should be illegal I DO believe there should be a time in the pregnancy where we recognize one person's rights (the womans) are up against anothers (the childs) and decisions at that point require a legal, medical and ethical framework. Many of us know well viable persons who came out of the womb in the 7th and 8th month. My sister is one.

There is no way I can pick an answer to reflect that in your poll.

CC


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

I think yes it should unless the women is raped and then becomes pregnant. I dont like it when some people abort because the child is disabled but thats just me, and I i was ever put in the situation where the baby would be servilely disabled I guess id agree.


----------



## Reverie (Mar 26, 2012)

I'm totally pro choice, to the point where I don't really understand how someone could disagree with it, although obviously I understand that at the point where it becomes an actual baby it's not really on, but before that it's really just a bunch of cells.

I heard a story recently where a young girl died because she was refused an abortion, tell me, how is this justifiable? It's not as if the baby survived either.


----------



## sligy (Jul 3, 2012)

I would say its always the womans choice, not the mans and it should be legal.

If i for whatever reason fell pregnant (hopefully that wont happen) i would not want to keep it. I have had 2 very late miscarriages and its heartbreaking. I should have been due my baby on the 21st of decemeber this year, i would have been in my final month of pregnancy right now.

My partner and i wanted another child but it just does not seem to be possible for us. We get to nearly 5 months and i loose it. 

So for my own mental health i would want a abortion. I would not want to become attached to another baby i am just going to loose anyway that being said, it is not to be abused and used as a birth control.


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

porps said:


> But no mention of the MANY women who wont ALLOW the fathers to be a part of their kids lives. the MANY women out there who i have seen first hand just use the kids as a weapon against men who dont want them cos of precisely that kind of behaviour. And they probably still tell thier friends and family "he's such a bastard, never see's the kids, just leaves it all down to me"
> 
> They really get my goat. But yeah way offtopic, sorry all.. im bored ;(


I agree completely. Once a child comes into this world it has a right to both parents and should a dad want to be involved, he should be. The child is the priority going forward. Too many people are selfish these days, wanting to get one over on the parent and a lot of women want the money from the dad without having the dad involved, but then again some dads can be just as bad trying to undermine mum.

Look at the situation with Halle Berry at the moment. All the adults are behaving like children, especially her and the new boyfriend, and no-one is thinking about the child and the effect on them.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

I dont agree with abortion. 

I havent voted because i dont think it should be made illegal, i think a woman should be offered one if there is a serious risk to her health or the baby is severely (and i mean severely) disabled. 

A baby can flinch when is touched by around 12 weeks so i dont believe all the bull that they cant feel pain because that is ridiculous! 
I also believe life starts from the second that the hb is present. 

There are so many forms of contraception available now and its FREE so i do not understand why there are so many unwanted babies  

I do believe that if you have sex there is a chance that it could result in pregnancy and if that is not wanted then there should be measures put in place not to get pregnant or not have sex at all.

When we have finished having children i will be packing OH off to have the snip and i will still be on the pill. 

We constantly hear that every woman has a choice and its the womans body etc, yes it is, but why do people not pop to the docs for the morning after pill after an 'accident' or the chemist? 

I think us humans have a hell of alot to answer for and harp on about rights, what about the unborn childs rights? they are a living thing with a hb and a soul, why shouldnt they get a 'right' to have a chance at life?


----------



## Wobbles (Jun 2, 2011)

No one should be made to have a kid they don't want. It's not as if you can just take it back to a store, your stuck with it for life so you have to actually want it. If you don't no-one should ever force you to keep it.

If they made it illegal, people would just find someone else or other ways to get rid regardless of the risks. If I got up the duff, and the law said I couldn't have a abortion, I would go to someone willing to do it, out of sheer desperation. I would proberbly do virtually _anything_ to stop from having a baby I didn't want. Having a baby should be a choice not compulsory.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Wobbles said:


> No one should be made to have a kid they don't want. It's not as if you can just take it back to a store, your stuck with it for life so you have to actually want it. If you don't no-one should ever force you to keep it.
> 
> If they made it illegal, people would just find someone else or other ways to get rid regardless of the risks. If I got up the duff, and the law said I couldn't have a abortion, I would go to someone willing to do it, out of sheer desperation. I would proberbly do virtually _anything_ to stop from having a baby I didn't want. Having a baby should be a choice not compulsory.


Its not compulsory, You have sex to have a baby and thats not compulsory either..if you dont want a kid that much double up on contraception or take the morning after pill after an accident. 
Not wanting kids is not a free pass to murder a human being.

If you are that sure you dont want kids get sterilised..quite simple really.


----------



## 912142 (Mar 28, 2011)

thedogsmother said:


> I was just about to type this:thumbup: reply. I know of a friend of a friend who has had countless abortions, she wants to get pregnant because shes in a "relationship", that relationship breaks up and the baby is no longer needed so she aborts it. However the baby would probably be better off than having her as a mum anyway.


That in my opinion is despicable - there is a life there.  Do these people know what happens to a feotus that is being terminated? Maybe they should take the time to find out - it is horrendous and many doctors just hate performing it.


----------



## Reverie (Mar 26, 2012)

Wobbles said:


> No one should be made to have a kid they don't want. It's not as if you can just take it back to a store, your stuck with it for life so you have to actually want it. If you don't no-one should ever force you to keep it.
> 
> If they made it illegal, people would just find someone else or other ways to get rid regardless of the risks. If I got up the duff, and the law said I couldn't have a abortion, I would go to someone willing to do it, out of sheer desperation. I would proberbly do virtually _anything_ to stop from having a baby I didn't want. Having a baby should be a choice not compulsory.


I totally agree. Do people not wonder what sort of miserable life a child might have that was totally unwanted? Or, like you say, someone might go to terrible lengths to avoid having to have the child, that could end up with both parties dying. Making abortion illegal might lead to infanticide in extreme cases.

Call me mercenary, but I put the rights of a living breathing person above those of an unborn foetus.


----------



## 912142 (Mar 28, 2011)

harley bear said:


> I dont agree with abortion.
> 
> I havent voted because i dont think it should be made illegal, i think a woman should be offered one if there is a serious risk to her health or the baby is severely (and i mean severely) disabled.
> 
> ...


Or better still keep their knickers on!


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

912142 said:


> Or better still keep their knickers on!


They should provide chastity belts :devil:


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

harley bear said:


> I do believe that if you have sex there is a chance that it could result in pregnancy and if that is not wanted then there should be measures put in place not to get pregnant or not have sex at all.
> 
> We constantly hear that every woman has a choice and its the womans body etc, yes it is, but why do people not pop to the docs for the morning after pill after an 'accident' or the chemist?


Playing devils advocate here -

10 years ago i was raped by an ex (i put him away for it). I took the morning after pill. I still got pregnant. As it was I miscarried before i had to make a decision - should I have had to have that baby?

Contraception doesnt always work. The morning after pill doesnt always work.

you yourself know a HB is present at 6weeks usually before someone knows they are pregnant. People are not going to be celibate, its human nature to hump! yes you can take all the precautions under the sun and an accident can happen. is it really better to bring up a baby when its not wanted? they arent going to get the best care are they?


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

912142 said:


> Or better still keep their knickers on!


Nice how it's only the responsibility of the females there.


----------



## Wobbles (Jun 2, 2011)

harley bear said:


> Its not compulsory, You have sex to have a baby and thats not compulsory either..if you dont want a kid that much double up on contraception or take the morning after pill after an accident.
> Not wanting kids is not a free pass to murder a human being.
> 
> If you are that sure you dont want kids get sterilised..quite simple really.


No it's not compulsory to have sex, but if that sex results in a pregnancy you don't want, you should be allowed to get rid of it if you chose. Those that say abortion is wrong are saying if you end up pregnant you have to keep it rather than getting rid, making it compulsory to have it.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Wobbles said:


> No it's not compulsory to have sex, but if that sex results in a pregnancy you don't want, you should be allowed to get rid of it if you chose. Those that say abortion is wrong are saying if you end up pregnant you have to keep it rather than getting rid, making it compulsory to have it.


It always amazes me how some pro lifers go on as if abortion being legal mean it's a requirement for women to abort everytime they get pregnant as opposed to it being a choice about what you do with your own body.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Reverie said:


> . . .
> I heard a story recently where a young girl died because she was refused an abortion, tell me, how is this justifiable? It's not as if the baby survived either.


My son read that story and presented it to me. It has been reported in a sensationalized manner without facts (what is new?).

The death of the mother was from a blood infection. The circumstances in which she was told not to abort were the same that I know of in 5 circumstances in which family members, miscarrying, were told it was safer to allow the miscarriage than to abort.

It is not known as of yet if the blood infection was caused by waiting for the miscarriage before removing the dead child.

So, really not an example of a woman dying because she was refused an abortion . . . although some in the media trumped it that way trying to stir up a fuss for their cause.

It MIGHT be an example when more is known.

CC


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

WelshOneEmma said:


> Playing devils advocate here -
> 
> 10 years ago i was raped by an ex (i put him away for it). I took the morning after pill. I still got pregnant. As it was I miscarried before i had to make a decision - should I have had to have that baby?
> 
> ...


Like i said if a baby is not wanted then there are lots of contraception available. 
There are thousands of people out there who are willing to adopt but the laws are too strict so they cant and most the time its something ridiculous like what government party they support!

If a woman is sexually active and they dont want a child then they should already be using contraception, im an truly sorry you were raped but the morning after pill should just have been a double up on your contraception.


----------



## Wobbles (Jun 2, 2011)

Phoolf said:


> Nice how it's only the responsibility of the females there.


Well to be fair, at the end of the day, it's up to them and them alone what they allow in which hole:dita:


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Wobbles said:


> No it's not compulsory to have sex, but if that sex results in a pregnancy you don't want, you should be allowed to get rid of it if you chose. Those that say abortion is wrong are saying if you end up pregnant you have to keep it rather than getting rid, making it compulsory to have it.


'Get rid of it' Thats the problem with society these days, there is literally no value on human life! Its sad and very, very wrong.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Phoolf said:


> Nice how it's only the responsibility of the females there.


i think thats fair tbh. If females dont have to share the choice of wether the baby lives or dies then when should males share the responsiblity of wether or not it is concieved. cant have your cake and eat it i'm afraid.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Wobbles said:


> Well to be fair, at the end of the day, it's up to them and them alone what they allow in which hole:dita:


How crass.


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

harley bear said:


> Like i said if a baby is not wanted then there are lots of contraception available.
> There are thousands of people out there who are willing to adopt but the laws are too strict so they cant and most the time its something ridiculous like what government party they support!
> 
> If a woman is sexually active and they dont want a child then they should already be using contraception, im an truly sorry you were raped but the morning after pill should just have been a double up on your contraception.


so despite being raped, it was my fault because I wasnt on contraception? i was taken off the pill because my body couldnt handle the hormones. my new boyfriend had had a vasectomy so there was no need for me to be on the pill. my ex rapes me without a condom, i took the morning after pill and still got pregnant. i fail to see where your logic is here i am afraid.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

porps said:


> i think thats fair tbh. If females dont have to share the choice of wether the baby lives or dies then when should males share the responsiblity of wether or not it is concieved. cant have your cake and eat it i'm afraid.


I don't think anyone says the man should have no input, but it's not their choice is it? And I don't think being sexist and acting like 'closing your knickers' rolleyes: ) solves every problem that there is is particularly helpful.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

There is no contraception if you have been raped.

Some women cannot take the pill for medical reasons!!!


----------



## 912142 (Mar 28, 2011)

Phoolf said:


> Nice how it's only the responsibility of the females there.


You are right it's not but to be absolutely sure (if you don't want an unwanted child) don't wait for the bloke to turn down what is being offered on a plate.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

912142 said:


> You are right it's not but to be absolutely sure (if you don't want an unwanted child) don't wait for the bloke to turn down what is being offered on a plate.


Offered on a plate?

Women are items of food now are they? To be served up to the males?


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

harley bear said:


> I dont agree with abortion.
> 
> I havent voted because i dont think it should be made illegal, i think a woman should be offered one if there is a serious risk to her health or the baby is severely (and i mean severely) disabled.
> 
> ...


All you have said is music to my ears.



WelshOneEmma said:


> Playing devils advocate here -
> 
> 10 years ago i was raped by an ex (i put him away for it). I took the morning after pill. I still got pregnant. As it was I miscarried before i had to make a decision - should I have had to have that baby?
> 
> ...


I don't think anyone would expect you to go through a pregnancy and birth from a rapist. But one of the conditions of having an abortion when it was first legalised was rape, so no I don't think you should be made to keep it.

On the other hand, it is not human nature to hump as you put it when there are moral standards to be maintained. Throughout history people have behaved themselves till after marriage, because it was not thought moral to do otherwise. In the middle classes of Jane Austen's time, rape was unheard of because a gentleman would never dream of disrespecting a lady.

If they could restrain themselves, then so should people of today be able to do the same.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

WelshOneEmma said:


> so despite being raped, it was my fault because I wasnt on contraception? i was taken off the pill because my body couldnt handle the hormones. my new boyfriend had had a vasectomy so there was no need for me to be on the pill. my ex rapes me without a condom, i took the morning after pill and still got pregnant. i fail to see where your logic is here i am afraid.


I never said it was your fault, you did the right thing having the morning after pill.
I said i believe that every woman that is sexually active should be on some form of contraception, the pill is not the only contraception available.


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

This is where emotions get way ahead of everything else. I certainly don't consider a fetus a life at the moment of conception (as well as 2 and maybe more months into pregnancy).


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> All you have said is music to my ears.
> 
> I don't think anyone would expect you to go through a pregnancy and birth from a rapist. But one of the conditions of having an abortion when it was first legalised was rape, so no I don't think you should be made to keep it.
> 
> ...


I think there was no rape then as women could not report it.

Rape is as old as time, it is just not always recorded at all times.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> In the middle classes of Jane Austen's time, rape was unheard of because a gentleman would never dream of disrespecting a lady.
> 
> If they could restrain themselves, then so should people of today be able to do the same.


Load of tosh I'm afraid newfiesmum, maybe you would like to research the extensive history of rape that is on offer through many great texts. If sexual urges were curtailed because of supposed 'morality' then why is prostitution the oldest profession?  But then if we all relied on Jane Austen's novels (my favourite author btw) we would think the world a very genteel place.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

harley bear said:


> I never said it was your fault, you did the right thing having the morning after pill.
> I said i believe that every woman that is sexually active should be on some form of contraception, the pill is not the only contraception available.


Some women may use condoms instead. A rapist may not bother.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> I think there was no rape then as women could not report it.
> 
> Rape is as old as time, it is just not always recorded at all times.


Not to mention there was no such thing as marital rape in the UK until *1991*!!!!

It was routine for men to marry young girls back in Jane Austen's day, I'm pretty sure we would now class that as pretty immoral and when the woman is seen as chattle it most certainly was rape in a lot cases.


----------



## 912142 (Mar 28, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> Contraceptives are not always 100%


The best contraceptive is 'NO' - unfortunately when the drink goes in the wits go out and 'NO' is not in some individuals otherwise extensive vocabulary.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

comfortcreature said:


> My son read that story and presented it to me. It has been reported in a sensationalized manner without facts (what is new?).
> 
> The death of the mother was from a blood infection. The circumstances in which she was told not to abort were the same that I know of in 5 circumstances in which family members, miscarrying, were told it was safer to allow the miscarriage than to abort.
> 
> ...


Septacaemia (never sure on the spelling) is one of the well known risks of prolonged childbirth which is far more common than we like to believe. After all the examination and inquiry, miscarriage _will_ turn out to be the cause of her septacaemia, and consequently her death.


----------



## Wobbles (Jun 2, 2011)

harley bear said:


> Like i said if a baby is not wanted then there are lots of contraception available.
> There are thousands of people out there who are willing to adopt but the laws are too strict so they cant and most the time its something ridiculous like what government party they support!
> 
> If a woman is sexually active and they dont want a child then they should already be using contraception, im an truly sorry you were raped but the morning after pill should just have been a double up on your contraception.


It doesn't matter if there's people who would adopt, you might just not want to carry a baby for 9 long months. Look at what you have to go through, watch what you eat, pain of birth, discomfort, lose your figure, don't fit in all your clothes, inconvenience etc. There could be a million adopters, I simply would not want to go through that, especially for something I didn't even want in the first place.



harley bear said:


> 'Get rid of it' Thats the problem with society these days, there is literally no value on human life! Its sad and very, very wrong.


What else do you refer to something as if you don't know what sex it is? Sorry but its not a human life until its there in front of you, or at least the last month maybe. No way should something not born yet have the same rights as a living existing person.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

912142 said:


> The best contraceptive is 'NO' - unfortunately when the drink goes in the wits go out and 'NO' is not in some individuals otherwise extensive vocabulary.


Or in many cases no doesn't mean very much to the other person.


----------



## sligy (Jul 3, 2012)

Another point i would like to add is that i hear all day long from this site, make sure you go to a reputable breeder when you get a puppy. Great i think. 

But lets face it there are about 200,000 abortions every year and add that to the amount of children that go into care each year. Already they struggle to find foster homes for alot of children, chuck 200,000 more into the mix and we would have to advertise them on gumtree with the unwanted dogs and cats.

Sounds harsh but its reality. Sounds like all these babies are going to have a great start.


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

newfiesmum said:


> I don't think anyone would expect you to go through a pregnancy and birth from a rapist. But one of the conditions of having an abortion when it was first legalised was rape, so no I don't think you should be made to keep it.
> 
> On the other hand, it is not human nature to hump as you put it when there are moral standards to be maintained. Throughout history people have behaved themselves till after marriage, because it was not thought moral to do otherwise. In the middle classes of Jane Austen's time, rape was unheard of because a gentleman would never dream of disrespecting a lady.
> 
> If they could restrain themselves, then so should people of today be able to do the same.


And how are you going to prove rape? does it have to be a violent one? does the man have to charged/convicted? if the girl was (stupidly) drunk and not really able to consent does it still count? what if the couple are married?

And seeing as prostitution has been around since pretty much the beginning of time i think its fair to say that people have not behaved themselves before marriage. And there was no such thing as rape as women didnt have the right to say no. How many people had children with their slaves? it may have been unheard of for the women in the upper classes to not have sex before marriage, as yes that was all about how things looked, but a lot of the men had mistresses and i'm sure alot werent virgins when they married their virgin wives.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Wobbles said:


> It doesn't matter if there's people who would adopt, you might just not want to carry a baby for 9 long months. Look at what you have to go through, watch what you eat, pain of birth, discomfort, lose your figure, don't fit in all your clothes, inconvenience etc. There could be a million adopters, I simply would not want to go through that, especially for something I didn't even want in the first place.
> 
> What else do you refer to something as if you don't know what sex it is? Sorry but its not a human life until its there in front of you, or at least the last month maybe. No way should something not born yet have the same rights as a living existing person.


Your right, why spoil your figure and have the inconvenience if you can just pop to the clinic and murder your mistake!
A baby of 20 weeks can survive, to be abortion is as bad as giving birth to a BABY and stabbing it in the heart with a needle to stop the hb. Just makes me feel physically sick!


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

harley bear said:


> A baby of 20 weeks can survive, to be abortion is as bad as giving birth to a BABY and stabbing it in the heart with a needle to stop the hb. Just makes me feel physically sick!


Very few abortions are ever carried out at 20weeks, the large majority are before 13 weeks.


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

I have had to have an abortion when i had an ectopic pregnancy. I was told after that it was my fault as i am a smoker. I found out at 10 weeks after bleeding quite bad. I went to a and e and had a scan and bloodtest and was told that the baby was growing in my left fallopian tube and if i didnt abort the baby then my tube would reputure and i would pretty much bleed to death. 

Still kills me when i think about it but i never ever ever want to go through that again so i have the contraceptive implant. I dont know if i will ever try and get pregnant again, the thought that it may happen again makes me not want to.

So if abortion was made illegal, would it be completely illegal so no baby ever gets aborted or would women in my situation be able to abort or what?


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Phoolf said:


> Load of tosh I'm afraid newfiesmum, maybe you would like to research the extensive history of rape that is on offer through many great texts. If sexual urges were curtailed because of supposed 'morality' then why is prostitution the oldest profession?  But then if we all relied on Jane Austen's novels (my favourite author btw) we would think the world a very genteel place.


Prostitution is the oldest profession because men would go to a prositute rather than disrespect their ladies. I have probably had a sheltered upbringing, but my mother was very moral and thought it a terrible thing to have sex before marriage. In fact I think she thought it a terrible thing to have sex after marriage as well, but that is another story.

I am not saying that everybody had morals; I know that the upper classes didn't, hence all the illegitimate children of Charles II and Henry VIII, but they did have morals and they knew they would end up pregnant and there would be nothing to be done about it. Which is why you got a lot of young girls committing suicide rather than face the shame of it.

I just think that as reasoning adults people should be capable of having moral standards, and capable of not getting pregnant. They didn't when I was a teenager, so why not now? We didn't have legal abortion in those days.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> Prostitution is the oldest profession because men would go to a prositute rather than disrespect their ladies. I have probably had a sheltered upbringing, but my mother was very moral and thought it a terrible thing to have sex before marriage. In fact I think she thought it a terrible thing to have sex after marriage as well, but that is another story.
> 
> I am not saying that everybody had morals; I know that the upper classes didn't, hence all the illegitimate children of Charles II and Henry VIII, but they did have morals and they knew they would end up pregnant and there would be nothing to be done about it. Which is why you got a lot of young girls committing suicide rather than face the shame of it.
> 
> I just think that as reasoning adults people should be capable of having moral standards, and capable of not getting pregnant. They didn't when I was a teenager, so why not now? We didn't have legal abortion in those days.


Why it is an issue of morality when contraception fails?

Teenagers very much did get pregnant when you were a lass, they've been getting pregnant since the beginning of time. You just might not have know about it so much because the problem with enforcing morality on people is that it also brings with it psychological torment and shame.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

I'm just going to speak to the comment that it is 'human nature to hump' comment.

My grandmother had her first child at 16 and her last at 44. I am fully aware that people have been sexually active outside of marriage forever and rapes have happened forever.

Somehow, however, there seems to have been a slippery slope taken where there is NO expectation of self restraint and NO expectation of adults taking responsibility for their activities. 

I am not prolife or prochoice. I fit somewhere in the middle, but the idea that people should behave however they want without thought to consequences is offensive to me.

CC


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

harley bear said:


> I never said it was your fault, you did the right thing having the morning after pill.
> I said i believe that every woman that is sexually active should be on some form of contraception, the pill is not the only contraception available.


My form of contraception was that my boyfriend had had a vasectomy. Its not my fault my ex decided he didnt want to use a condom when raping me.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Wobbles said:


> It doesn't matter if there's people who would adopt, you might just not want to carry a baby for 9 long months. Look at what you have to go through, watch what you eat, pain of birth, discomfort, lose your figure, don't fit in all your clothes, inconvenience etc. There could be a million adopters, I simply would not want to go through that, especially for something I didn't even want in the first place.
> 
> What else do you refer to something as if you don't know what sex it is? Sorry but its not a human life until its there in front of you, or at least the last month maybe. No way should something not born yet have the same rights as a living existing person.




Take a long hard look at that photo! The day before that was taken i would have been legally allowed to have him aborted! You tell me hes not a baby there!


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2012)

Wobbles said:


> It doesn't matter if there's people who would adopt, you might just not want to carry a baby for 9 long months. Look at what you have to go through, watch what you eat, pain of birth, discomfort, lose your figure, don't fit in all your clothes, inconvenience etc. There could be a million adopters, I simply would not want to go through that, especially for something I didn't even want in the first place.
> 
> What else do you refer to something as if you don't know what sex it is? *Sorry but its not a human life until its there in front of you, or at least the last month maybe. No way should something not born yet have the same rights as a living existing person.*


For someone that was that was sooo dead against an emergency spay you surprise me. It seems your opinion changes depending on who/what you are talking about.
If you are pro-choice then that should be across the board.
Just my humble opinion of course


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

tashax said:


> I have had to have an abortion when i had an ectopic pregnancy. I was told after that it was my fault as i am a smoker. I found out at 10 weeks after bleeding quite bad. I went to a and e and had a scan and bloodtest and was told that the baby was growing in my left fallopian tube and if i didnt abort the baby then my tube would reputure and i would pretty much bleed to death.
> 
> Still kills me when i think about it but i never ever ever want to go through that again so i have the contraceptive implant. I dont know if i will ever try and get pregnant again, the thought that it may happen again makes me not want to.
> 
> So if abortion was made illegal, would it be completely illegal so no baby ever gets aborted or would women in my situation be able to abort or what?


A feotus conceived and growing in the fallopian tube has no chance of survival but left to develop would probably kill the mother, so it would come under health risk wouldn't it?

I would like you to know though, that my first pregnancy was like yours only I miscarried. I went on to have three healthy children, so don't think there is a reason for it to happen a second time.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

harley bear said:


> Take a long hard look at that photo! The day before that was taken i would have been legally allowed to have him aborted! You tell me hes not a baby there!


I don't really care if it's a baby there. It's my body and if I don't want something feeding off my lifesource I don't have to, neither should any woman if they don't wish to.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Phoolf said:


> I don't really care if it's a baby there. It's my body and if I don't want something feeding off my lifesource I don't have to, neither should any woman if they don't wish to.


Thats precisely my point about there being no value to human life.


----------



## sligy (Jul 3, 2012)

comfortcreature said:


> I'm just going to speak to the comment that it is 'human nature to hump' comment.
> 
> My grandmother had her first child at 16 and her last at 44. I am fully aware that people have been sexually active outside of marriage forever and rapes have happened forever.
> 
> ...


What you say is great, take responsibility and hump with protection. But we all know it does not go that way with everyone and all the time. So when abortion is illegal and we have 200,000 baby's (that's only counting the ones done on the NHS so there is more) where are all these baby's going to live, at who's expense and who is going to care for them???


----------



## 912142 (Mar 28, 2011)

Phoolf said:


> Or in many cases no doesn't mean very much to the other person.


I'm an old biddy but there was a day when I was a young thing and in my day females didn't put themselves into situations or conversations that they felt they had to give in or compromised.

You can put forward many arguments but the bottom line is everyone must take responsibility for themselves, if you don't want a child then button down the hatch.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

harley bear said:


> Thats precisely my point about there being no value to human life.


Where's the value to mine if you take away the right I have to my own body?  Many pro lifers love the baby...until it's born of course, then they don't care so much to think about the torment that might be caused by being unwanted, being adopted out, being in foster care, being abused etc. etc.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

912142 said:


> I'm an old biddy but there was a day when I was a young thing and in my day females didn't put themselves into situations or conversations that they felt they had to give in or compromised.
> 
> You can put forward many arguments but the bottom line is everyone must take responsibility for themselves, if you don't want a child then button down the hatch.


I suppose rape is a modern phenomenon then! Having a child is not the only aim of sexual urge...some people actually happen to enjoy it for its own sake.


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> A feotus conceived and growing in the fallopian tube has no chance of survival but left to develop would probably kill the mother, so it would come under health risk wouldn't it?
> 
> I would like you to know though, that my first pregnancy was like yours only I miscarried. I went on to have three healthy children, so don't think there is a reason for it to happen a second time.


You see i was never told what would or could happen. I was just told that it had to go. After reserching about it i have read about women going on to have perfectly normal pregnancies and babies, just frightens me tbh, just incase it did happen again. I know your not really ment to get excited before the second trimester but we did get excited and it killed us both and our relationship


----------



## noogsy (Aug 20, 2009)

if the baby isnt wanted then a woman SHOULD have a say in whether to have said baby.the problem is the system is abused.but it has always got to be a womans choice.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

912142 said:


> I'm an old biddy but there was a day when I was a young thing and in my day females didn't put themselves into situations or conversations that they felt they had to give in or compromised.
> 
> You can put forward many arguments but the bottom line is everyone must take responsibility for themselves, if you don't want a child then button down the hatch.


Thank you. I was beginning to think I had imagined our standards back in the early sixties when you wondered whether to kiss someone on the first date, not whether to screw him.



tashax said:


> You see i was never told what would or could happen. I was just told that it had to go. After reserching about it i have read about women going on to have perfectly normal pregnancies and babies, just frightens me tbh, just incase it did happen again. I know your not really ment to get excited before the second trimester but we did get excited and it killed us both and our relationship


Slightly different with me as the first I knew I was pregnant was when they carted me off to hospital in an ambulance. A fallopian pregnancy is very rare and very unlikely to happen twice.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

sligy said:


> > Originally Posted by comfortcreature
> > I'm just going to speak to the comment that it is 'human nature to hump' comment.
> >
> > My grandmother had her first child at 16 and her last at 44. I am fully aware that people have been sexually active outside of marriage forever and rapes have happened forever.
> ...


Are you speaking of allowing abortion then for the sake of making less people? That is compassionate?

Compassionate would be promoting the idea of 'taking responsibility'.

My OH and I tried to adopt and were put on a waiting list that we were told would be 7 years minimum. I have an inclination those babies would have homes.

If you noticed I also have mentioned I don't believe abortion should be illegal.

I do believe women should be better informed of the risks of abortion. An extended family member had an abortion at the age of 19 and when she wanted to get pregnant a few years later could not DUE to side effects of the abortion it was confirmed. She had no clue that could happen - thanks to Planned Parenthood who paints a rosey picture and doesn't go into the mental health and physical health consequences many suffer after making the decision at a young and uninformed age.

CC


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

harley bear said:


> Take a long hard look at that photo! The day before that was taken i would have been legally allowed to have him aborted! You tell me hes not a baby there!


I think this is where you are getting too personal with it all.

Ok this is your baby and it resembles a baby, ok, but when a woman really doesn't want it and it is without question, I don't think the fact you and others have babies they love really comes into it.


----------



## Reverie (Mar 26, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> Thank you. I was beginning to think I had imagined our standards back in the early sixties when you wondered whether to kiss someone on the first date, not whether to screw him.


I hope you don't think everyone who supports 'pro-choice' just sleeps with everyone!?! I was exactly the same, wondering whether to go 'in for the kiss' on my first, and more, dates with my OH. And I'm 21.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> Thank you. I was beginning to think I had imagined our standards back in the early sixties when you wondered whether to kiss someone on the first date, not whether to screw him.


This statement is strange to go with 'the swinging sixties'!!!

Also on another thread about the jimmy saville accusations, people were saying how anything went back then!


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Reverie said:


> I hope you don't think everyone who supports 'pro-choice' just sleeps with everyone!?! I was exactly the same, wondering whether to go 'in for the kiss' on my first, and more, dates with my OH. And I'm 21.


Yes indeed. Anyone who is for abortion or sex before marriage has nor morality. Of course morality is exclusively tied up with religion....and the repression of women lets not forget.

I'm moral yet not religious. How odd!


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

newfiesmum said:


> We didn't have legal abortion in those days.


Before legal abortions there were illegal ones and abortions aren't anything new. Abortions have been happening all the back to at least roman times. If abortion was illegal now, it would be even easier to get it done illegally. You could look up on the net how to induce an abortion or find someone to do it for you.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> This statement is strange to go with 'the swinging sixties'!!!
> 
> Also on another thread about the jimmy saville accusations, people were saying how anything went back then!


I guess The Rolling Stones groupees were all figments of our imagination.


----------



## 912142 (Mar 28, 2011)

Phoolf said:


> I suppose rape is a modern phenomenon then! Having a child is not the only aim of sexual urge...*some people actually happen to enjoy it for its own sake*.


Nothing wrong in that but if a child is not the aim then take precautions - that's all I am saying.


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

There is no greater disservice to a child than to not give it the very best you can. 

A child born into a life where it is unwanted and unloved is cruel IMO. 

I find it odd that people would rather a child was brought into the world to be in this situation rather than stopping It by way of an abortion. 

In an ideal world pregnancy would be avoided if not planned but people need to deal with the "now" and not "what they should have done". 

A woman should always have the choice.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

912142 said:


> Nothing wrong in that but if a child is not the aim then take precautions - that's all I am saying.


No, your answer was 'close your knickers' (ugh). The only 100% proven method of contraception is chastity.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

goodvic2 said:


> There is no greater disservice to a child than to not give it the very best you can.
> 
> A child born into a life where it is unwanted and unloved is cruel IMO.
> 
> ...


I don't. Just look at the pro life movement in the US (I hate the term pro life, as if pro choice people are running round extolling the virtues of abortion and recommending them to everyone they know!), they care about foetuses but have no compassion for actual children living in poverty, or the mothers forced to birth them for that matter.


----------



## JAChihuahua (Nov 23, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> All you have said is music to my ears.
> 
> I don't think anyone would expect you to go through a pregnancy and birth from a rapist. But one of the conditions of having an abortion when it was first legalised was rape, so no I don't think you should be made to keep it.
> 
> ...


HAHAHAHAHA! You are kidding arent you?

There were many novels written during the regency period about rape, premarital sex (Jane austen amongst those who loved a bit of pre-marital sex and pregnancy in her novels), extra marital sex (again austen), and single parents!

That is popular media, if you search court records of the time (or do a google of rape in regency britain) you will find several reliable sources with references about the laws, customs, trials and prosecutions. Here is one to get you started.... http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4844/1/4844_2313.PDF?UkUDh:CyT
The "offences against the person act", covered acts of rape.

This wasnt just the lower classes, it ran through society like it does now, even the 2nd earl of castlehaven was tried and convicted of rape & sodomy.

Sadly many in the regency period thought that a woman could not concieve unless she had consented 

Of course the royalty of the time (like most) can be looked at for their views on marriage, pre-marital sex, divorce and adultery.

My particular favourite way to illustrate this is...
Horrible Histories - King George IV Solo Career - YouTube  
"I loved more girls than I ate pies, but I couldnt stand my wiiiiifffffeeee"

can you tell my kids love this, and I do to, just a little bit!


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

As far as marriage, I don't even agree with marriage.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

JAChihuahua said:


> HAHAHAHAHA! You are kidding arent you?
> 
> There were many novels written during the regency period about rape, premarital sex (Jane austen amongst those who loved a bit of pre-marital sex and pregnancy in her novels), extra marital sex (again austen), and single parents!
> 
> ...


Oh the time of the Marquis De Sade!


----------



## CRL (Jan 3, 2012)

if you watch the film The Duchess she was raped by her husband so she would have a son. i dont know how true that is to her real life story but that was in the 18th century


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> Prostitution is the oldest profession because men would go to a prositute rather than disrespect their ladies. I have probably had a sheltered upbringing, but my mother was very moral and thought it a terrible thing to have sex before marriage. In fact I think she thought it a terrible thing to have sex after marriage as well, but that is another story.
> 
> I am not saying that everybody had morals; I know that the upper classes didn't, hence all the illegitimate children of Charles II and Henry VIII, but they did have morals and they knew they would end up pregnant and there would be nothing to be done about it. Which is why you got a lot of young girls committing suicide rather than face the shame of it.
> 
> I just think that as reasoning adults people should be capable of having moral standards, and capable of not getting pregnant. They didn't when I was a teenager, so why not now? We didn't have legal abortion in those days.


People would have the babies and others in the family would pretend it was theirs.

In the days of henry viii, there were some of the most immoral things occurring and girls of poor classes had babies from those in power and had to keep quiet about it. But at least they had the good grace to kill themselves!

They were also raped during the time too!


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

goodvic2 said:


> There is no greater disservice to a child than to not give it the very best you can.
> 
> A child born into a life where it is unwanted and unloved is cruel IMO.
> 
> ...


Why do you think those opposed to abortion think children need to be born into lives where they are not wanted or loved?

There are many homes waiting to love those children.



> I don't. Just look at the pro life movement in the US (I hate the term pro life, as if pro choice people are running round extolling the virtues of abortion and recommending them to everyone they know!), they care about foetuses but have no compassion for actual children living in poverty, or the mothers forced to birth them for that matter.


Please do not categorize people on one side or the other of this argument as if they all believe the same things about everything. This statement is incredibly crass and inaccurate. I know people in both camps.

Where is there any evidence of your idea that 'they have no compassion for children living in poverty or the mothers forced to birth them '. That is some warped conjecture on your part.

CC


----------



## 912142 (Mar 28, 2011)

Phoolf said:


> No, your answer was 'close your knickers' (ugh). The only 100% proven method of contraception is chastity.


The phrase was 'keep your knickers on' The original post was about abortion and my posts have reflected my views on avoiding an unwanted pregancy and having to go down the route of abortion and not whether one enjoyed sex for the sake of it.

I apologise if you don't like my turn of phrase but then I am just an old fashioned north east quine.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

emmaviolet said:


> I think this is where you are getting too personal with it all.
> 
> Ok this is your baby and it resembles a baby, ok, but when a woman really doesn't want it and it is without question, I don't think the fact you and others have babies they love really comes into it.


No, im not getting too personal at all. I was merely stating a fact that a baby is a human being before the last month of pregnancy.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

harley bear said:


> I never said it was your fault, you did the right thing having the morning after pill.
> I said i believe that every woman that is sexually active should be on some form of contraception, the pill is not the only contraception available.


This is a highly insensitive thing to say to a victim of rape. How would a victim know to be prepared with protection. 
You do not have to be sexually active for your BF to then rape you.

Emma I'm so sorry for the hell you must have been through.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

comfortcreature said:


> Please do not categorize people on one side or the other of this argument as if they all believe the same things about everything. This statement is incredibly crass and inaccurate. I know people in both camps.
> 
> CC


Yet you only have to look at the GOP antics this summer from the likes of Todd Akin to see that vulgar and quite prominent public view from pro lifers over the pond. I would in no way class every pro lifer as agreeing with this sort of thing in many ways, but where the US is concerned it can be very extreme, they want to force poor women to come to term but don't even care to give them adequate medical care and don't believe in welfare. But then there are quite a lot of right wing loonies there I suppose.


----------



## Reverie (Mar 26, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> People would have the babies and others in the family would pretend it was theirs.
> 
> In the days of henry viii, there were some of the most immoral things occurring and girls of poor classes had babies from those in power and had to keep quiet about it. But at least they had the good grace to kill themselves!
> 
> They were also raped during the time too!


In medieval times, their theory on rape was that if the woman conceived, it was clear that she 'wanted it' and so then it wasn't seen as crime, because "God" would apparently never let a baby be conceived against the mother's will. 

Chaucer himself was accused of rape, but let off because of a pregnancy.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

as a Catholic i say yes it should be illegal, as a woman i am torn. I wouldnt expect a victim of rape to carry a child as it seems so cruel.

As Catholics we do "natural" family planning, no modern contraceptives. Ive fallen pregnant once, when planned. Never had a scare.
Self control is needed and i dont see why a life should be ended because someone couldnt control themselves.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

harley bear said:


> No, im not getting too personal at all. I was merely stating a fact that a baby is a human being before the last month of pregnancy.


And who is arguing for abortion 1 month before the due date?


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Reverie said:


> In medieval times, their theory on rape was that if the woman conceived, it was clear that she 'wanted it' and so then it wasn't seen as crime, because "God" would apparently never let a baby be conceived against the mother's will.
> 
> Chaucer himself was accused of rape, but let off because of a pregnancy.


Medieval times? American politicians have said the same only in the past few months!!!


----------



## sligy (Jul 3, 2012)

comfortcreature said:


> Are you speaking of allowing abortion then for the sake of making less people? That is compassionate?
> 
> Compassionate would be promoting the idea of 'taking responsibility'.
> 
> ...


No im not saying that, the simple fact is all these baby's need to be homed in a loving environment, they deserve the best chance they can have, but the truth is most of them would not get that at all. Many would be shunted from pillar to post, many would just be dumped at the side of the road, others would stay with a resentful parent who looks at them in disgust every day.

Then there would be some that have a happy ending, some would stay with the mother and life would work out great, others would go to caring and loving homes.

These baby's you talk of would then grow up, if they have the chance of course. It is possible however the mother cares so little they dump them in the cold and they die. Some would have lead such unstable lives and struggle to cope with normal life. So some of these baby's you so dearly protect could then have lead such traumatic lives they end up bitter and twisted and full of hatred. They hate everyone so much they then become the hardened criminals you so despise and want to kill off because they committed murder.

So i ask do these little baby's, deserve a life of hell.

Then lets take a look at the logistics of the mum that keeps the child. For a while it lasts, the baby is fun, they get to put pretty clothes on it and everything is lovely. Then the father leaves them (of course that's if they even know who it is) does not pay any maintenance. So we will pay her to stay at home with this baby now we will even pay for her house. 
Then she meets a new boyfriend, they have the chance to move abroad but she soon finds out she cant because that child has the right to his/her father and the father has rights to the child he cant even be arsed to see for more than a hour each week and who he cares so little for he wont pay for it. 
Her whole life has been ruined because of one very silly mistake and who will she look at, not the father it will be the child she looks at as a burden.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

912142 said:


> The phrase was 'keep your knickers on' The original post was about abortion and my posts have reflected my views on avoiding an unwanted pregancy and having to go down the route of abortion and not whether one enjoyed sex for the sake of it.
> 
> I apologise if you don't like my turn of phrase but then I am just an old fashioned north east quine.


You started with 'keep your knickers on' and then later said to take precautions. So you either take precautions (which can and do fail) or you are chaste, which one is it?


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Phoolf said:


> And who is arguing for abortion 1 month before the due date?


It is very much a part of this argument. Many places in North America are pushing for legalized abortion on demand up to due date. I believe some have it. - http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2009/jul/09070604

CC


----------



## Reverie (Mar 26, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> Medieval times? American politicians have said the same only in the past few months!!!


Hence why I gave it a mention (Just did a degree in medieval lit ). Scary isn't it?


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Reverie said:


> In medieval times, their theory on rape was that if the woman conceived, it was clear that she 'wanted it' and so then it wasn't seen as crime, because "God" would apparently never let a baby be conceived against the mother's will.
> 
> Chaucer himself was accused of rape, but let off because of a pregnancy.


People still believe it today, I don't know if you saw any of the us election but mitt romneys fellow believed that if raped a womans body will most likely reject a baby!


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Phoolf said:


> I don't really care if it's a baby there. It's my body and if I don't want something feeding off my lifesource I don't have to, neither should any woman if they don't wish to.


100 percent this



Starlite said:


> I wouldnt expect a victim of rape to carry a child as it seems so cruel.
> 
> .


its cruel for anyone who doesnt want a baby to have to carry one


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

comfortcreature said:


> It is very much a part of this argument. Many places in North America are pushing for legalized abortion on demand up to due date. I believe some have it.
> 
> CC


Don't you think that's strategic politicking due to people not wanting abortions in many states full stop? (and in some states they do not have abortion clinics anymore!). If you ask for more than they will give then you get what you want in the first place


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> People still believe it today, I don't know if you saw any of the us election but mitt romneys fellow believed that if raped a womans body will most likely reject a baby!


Only if the rape was legitimate rape!!


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Reverie said:


> Hence why I gave it a mention (Just did a degree in medieval lit ). Scary isn't it?


Ooh I love medieval lit! I am studying Childrens Lit right now (which is what I should be doing right now but I do love debating doh!)


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Phoolf said:


> Don't you think that's strategic politicking due to people not wanting abortions in many states full stop? (and in some states they do not have abortion clinics anymore!). If you ask for more than they will give then you get what you want in the first place


No, I do not.See the link I posted above (sorry in an edit). The same is being pushed for in Canada.



Phoolf said:


> Only if the rape was legitimate rape!!


This statement tells me you listened to the media and not to the actual comment made. The media took it out of context. I would suggest you find the real satement and the context it was made in (not that I agree with the statement, but I don't agree with the warped context the media put it in either).

CC


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Lets forget about rape, its never the womans fault shes raped!

For the people who are so dead against having kids why not get sterilised? Why wait for the 'mistake' to happen?


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

My contraceptive implant is 99.9% effective, it is the most effective form of contraception, the pill being the other. My mum fell pregnant with my brother when she was on the pill and a friend of mine has had 2 children which were concived whilst taking the pill. I have also heard of women falling pregnant with the implant. Nothing is 100%


----------



## JAChihuahua (Nov 23, 2012)

lets not forget that the termination of an unwanted pregnancy is as old as time too. Records of abortions and how to procure one have existed since people began to record history.

Back on the subject of austen, the curette (curette as in Dilation and curettage) was invented in the 18th century!


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

harley bear said:


> Lets forget about rape, its never the womans fault shes raped!
> 
> For the people who are so dead against having kids why not get sterilised? Why wait for the 'mistake' to happen?


Doctors will not sterilise before the ageo f say 30 or so unless there's medical reasons for doing so.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

harley bear said:


> For the people who are so dead against having kids why not get sterilised? Why wait for the 'mistake' to happen?


im taking the no sex way instead because i dont want to put my body through that

plus at 31 and childless i would be hard pushed to find a doctor willing to do it


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

tashax said:


> My contraceptive implant is 99.9% effective, it is the most effective form of contraception, the pill being the other. My mum fell pregnant with my brother when she was on the pill and a friend of mine has had 2 children which were concived whilst taking the pill. I have also heard of women falling pregnant with the implant. Nothing is 100%


That's why I take both :lol:


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

harley bear said:


> Lets forget about rape, its never the womans fault shes raped!
> 
> For the people who are so dead against having kids why not get sterilised? Why wait for the 'mistake' to happen?


My doctor wont allow me to be sterilized he says i am too young nd may change my mind in the future


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Phoolf said:


> Doctors will not sterilise before the ageo f say 30 or so unless there's medical reasons for doing so.


So you would rather murder an unwanted life then pay to go private to prevent one?


----------



## Reverie (Mar 26, 2012)

harley bear said:


> Lets forget about rape, its never the womans fault shes raped!
> 
> For the people who are so dead against having kids why not get sterilised? Why wait for the 'mistake' to happen?


What? How can you even say that? Again, being 'pro-choice' does not mean that you are 'against kids'! I very much want kids one day, but if I had got pregnant by accident when I wasn't ready (and it could still happen even though I'm on the pill) I wouldn't be keeping it.


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

Phoolf said:


> That's why I take both :lol:


I am currently living the life of a nun so im fine :ihih:


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

harley bear said:


> So you would rather murder an unwanted life then pay to go private to prevent one?


its not murder


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

harley bear said:


> So you would rather murder an unwanted life then pay to go private to prevent one?


You can't just get what you want by going private, doctors have a code of ethics you know. Plus why would I want to spend tens of thousands of pounds?

And yes I would abort a foetus, I would not 'murder' and 'unwanted life'.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Reverie said:


> What? How can you even say that? Again, being 'pro-choice' does not mean I don't ever want kids! I very much want kids one day, but if I had got pregnant by accident when I wasn't ready (and it could still happen even though I'm on the pill) I wouldn't be keeping it.


well its about time folk took responsibility for their actions.


----------



## 912142 (Mar 28, 2011)

Phoolf said:


> You started with 'keep your knickers on' and then later said to take precautions. So you either take precautions (which can and do fail) or you are chaste, which one is it?


You are 'nit picking'.

No that was my second post in answer to this.

but why do people not pop to the docs for the morning after pill after an 'accident' or the chemist?

My response was - or better still keep your knickers on. If you do not have the sense to take precautions then at least keep your knickers on it is in my opinion preferable than going down the abortion route. I wonder how many for abortion would continue in their belief that abortion is okay if they actually saw one - not many I think.

Does that satisfy you?


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

harley bear said:


> well its about time folk took responsibility for their actions.


I think they do, which is why they have abortions when it's prudent to do so instead of ruining not one but two or more lives.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Phoolf said:


> You can't just get what you want by going private, doctors have a code of ethics you know. Plus why would I want to spend tens of thousands of pounds?
> 
> And yes I would abort a foetus, I would not 'murder' and 'unwanted life'.


Of course its murder, your taking the life of another human being.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

emmaviolet said:


> This statement is strange to go with 'the swinging sixties'!!!
> 
> Also on another thread about the jimmy saville accusations, people were saying how anything went back then!


I think I must have missed the swinging sixties somehow. I don't think they had it in my part of London. Certainly there were groupies who would follow famous men about, but normal, everyday people were quite disgusted with them. Besides which I was talking about the early sixties, before the Beatles arrived with their drugs and no one had ever heard of the Rolling Stones.



Phoolf said:


> Yes indeed. Anyone who is for abortion or sex before marriage has nor morality. Of course morality is exclusively tied up with religion....and the repression of women lets not forget.
> 
> I'm moral yet not religious. How odd!


Of course that is not what I meant, and I did not mention religion as a factor in morality.



DogLover1981 said:


> Before legal abortions there were illegal ones and abortions aren't anything new. Abortions have been happening all the back to at least roman times. If abortion was illegal now, it would be even easier to get it done illegally. You could look up on the net how to induce an abortion or find someone to do it for you.


It was a hot bath and a dose of gin during the war. I remember doing a temporary job in a London office and being shocked at some of the girls talking about a well known abortionist.



Reverie said:


> In medieval times, their theory on rape was that if the woman conceived, it was clear that she 'wanted it' and so then it wasn't seen as crime, because "God" would apparently never let a baby be conceived against the mother's will.
> 
> Chaucer himself was accused of rape, but let off because of a pregnancy.


My mother came across someone where she worked who believed that. She had some odd ideas herself but she knew that one wasn't true because she had had four kids and had never enjoyed sex.



emmaviolet said:


> People still believe it today, I don't know if you saw any of the us election but mitt romneys fellow believed that if raped a womans body will most likely reject a baby!


Well, I am sure we are all relieved that he didn't get in.


----------



## Reverie (Mar 26, 2012)

harley bear said:


> well its about time folk took responsibility for their actions.


Like having sex in a monogamous, long-term relationship? HOW DARE I???


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

sligy said:


> No im not saying that, the simple fact is all these baby's need to be homed in a loving environment, they deserve the best chance they can have, but the truth is most of them would not get that at all. Many would be shunted from pillar to post, many would just be dumped at the side of the road, others would stay with a resentful parent who looks at them in disgust every day.
> 
> Then there would be some that have a happy ending, some would stay with the mother and life would work out great, others would go to caring and loving homes.
> 
> ...


very dramatic but the chances of all of this happening is slim, much slimmer than a child being removed and cared for. and a LIFE is not a "silly mistake"



tinktinktinkerbell said:


> 100 percent this
> 
> its cruel for anyone who doesnt want a baby to have to carry one


its cruel to end a life because YOU were careless.



harley bear said:


> Lets forget about rape, its never the womans fault shes raped!
> 
> *For the people who are so dead against having kids why not get sterilised? Why wait for the 'mistake' to happen?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> agree. Dont want them spay/neuter


----------



## sligy (Jul 3, 2012)

tashax said:


> My doctor wont allow me to be sterilized he says i am too young nd may change my mind in the future


My doctor wont allow me to be sterilized either. Even tho i have had 2 miscarriages and have 2 children anyway.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2012)

i were offered a termination several times when having my last baby , i declined each time as i knew whatever it was we had to face we would get through it together! wouldn't have had it any other way , some may see that as selfish BUT i look my daughter in the face everyday and i'm glad my decision wasn't swayed in anyway i love her dearly. everyone is different and has different coping mechanisms , some women don't like babies and don't want them but if your actively having sex it's something you take a risk with every single time , nothing is bombproof , not even sterilization so unless your actually willing to put yourself through having everything removed that is the risk everyone takes. what works for one won't work for another though and i believe you should have the right to choose , carrying a baby isn't everything it is cut out to be and there are people in this world that don't even deserve to be parents but hey that's a totally different topic altogether!


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

912142 said:


> You are 'nit picking'.
> 
> No that was my second post in answer to this.
> 
> ...


How does one know there's been an accident when precautions were taken in the first place? 

I will always have my belief in abortion, I don't really care about videos of abortion (which are mainly propaganda videos of a handful of very very late term abortions, not very early stage abortions which can just be like heavy periods). If you think early term abortions are wrong then why do you advocate using the morning after pill which occurs after conception?


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

harley bear said:


> Lets forget about rape, its never the womans fault!


Are you being genuine or ironic? Its hard to tell online.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Phoolf said:


> How does one know there's been an accident when precautions were taken in the first place?


Thats a good point


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2012)

I wonder how many people that are for abortions know that an abortion can seriously affect your chances of conceiving naturally?

I know one girl that had 3 abortions and then when she was finally ready she could conceive due to the damage the abortions had caused :001_unsure:


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

harley bear said:


> Of course its murder, your taking the life of another human being.


Uh no..I'm not. I am getting rid of a bunch of cells that have no independence but are instead living off my own body.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

B3rnie said:


> I wonder how many people that are for abortions know that an abortion can seriously affect your chances of conceiving naturally?
> 
> I know one girl that had 3 abortions and then when she was finally ready she could conceive due to the damage the abortions had caused :001_unsure:


Think that is what is medically these days known as 'informed consent'.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

emmaviolet said:


> Are you being genuine or ironic? Its hard to tell online.


Im being genuine, in extreme circumstances there should be abortion available NOT for people who are having consensual sex and getting pregnant by mistake. 
There is no excuse in this day and age for 'accidents' to happen.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Starlite said:


> its cruel to end a life because YOU were careless.


so it would be better to have a child that isnt wanted and wont be loved

yeah whatever


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Phoolf said:


> How does one know there's been an accident when precautions were taken in the first place?
> 
> I will always have my belief in abortion, I don't really care about videos of abortion (which are mainly propaganda videos of a handful of very very late term abortions, not very early stage abortions which can just be like heavy periods). If you think early term abortions are wrong then why do you advocate using the morning after pill which occurs after conception?


A question for you.

As a scientist I hold the biological belief that life begins at conception. That is how it is defined biologically.

VIABLE life is a full other matter and the line at which viable life starts has beenthe center of the abortion argument forever (and I can remember the forever).

Do you believe in late term abortions? If not, where do you draw the line?



tinktinktinkerbell said:


> so it would be better to have a child that isnt wanted and wont be loved
> 
> yeah whatever


There are lots of families waiting on lists that are years and years long to adopt. Babies will not be unwanted and unloved.

The sticking point with regard to considerations has to do with the mother having to carry the child and when that child, by law, is termined to be viable.

Personally the push for late term on demand abortions has me quite riled as it shows the lack of compassion for human life that we have descended to.

CC


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

harley bear said:


> There is no excuse in this day and age for 'accidents' to happen.


Have you invented a 100% fool proof contraception then harleybear?


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

B3rnie said:


> I wonder how many people that are for abortions know that an abortion can seriously affect your chances of conceiving naturally?
> 
> I know one girl that had 3 abortions and then when she was finally ready she could conceive due to the damage the abortions had caused :001_unsure:


Good! People like that do not deserve the blessing of carrying a life!


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

comfortcreature said:


> A question for you.
> 
> As a scientist I hold the biological belief that life begins at conception. That is how it is defined biologically.
> 
> ...


I believe in late term abortions personally. I think the earlier the better, for the mothers and doctors mental wellbeing but I'm by no means against late term abortion. I would probably draw the line along with the medical profession in that when a foetus is viable then it should not be terminated.


----------



## Grace_Lily (Nov 28, 2010)

Personally I wouldn't be able to have an abortion, but I very much support the notion that it's a woman's right to choose.


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

It is just like a heavy period, well it was for me. I was very emotional during the time and for a long time after because my baby was wanted but now i think about it, i wouldnt have stayed with my ex, i would have been a single mum, i wouldnt have been able to cope financally and i will not sit on my arse and let other people pay me to raise my own child. I also would not have been able to cope mentally.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

harley bear said:


> Good! People like that do not deserve the blessing of carrying a life!


So they should abort then?


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

Phoolf said:


> Uh no..I'm not. I am getting rid of a bunch of cells that have no independence but are instead living off my own body.


my son kicked for the first time at 14 weeks, he had a heartbeat at the 12 week scan, he was/is a person.

When do you class a fetus as a life?


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Phoolf said:


> Have you invented a 100% fool proof contraception then harleybear?


No of course not..but if i choose to have sex and a life is created then i will let that life live as it has just as much right to life as i do.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> Think that is what is medically these days known as 'informed consent'.


huh? I wondered if people knew about the risks, it is not informed if ya don't know it's going to happen 
And for the record the person I mentioned in my last post was NOT told the abortions would have affected fertility down the line. Yes she should have been told, but the fact is she wasn't.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Starlite said:


> my son kicked for the first time at 14 weeks, he had a heartbeat at the 12 week scan, he was/is a person.
> 
> When do you class a fetus as a life?


When they're medically capable of living independently instead of relying 100% on another person for sustenance.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Phoolf said:


> So they should abort then?


No, if they go for a second abortion then they should be castrated :thumbsup:


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Starlite said:


> When do you class a fetus as a life?


when its able to survive outside of the mother


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

B3rnie said:


> huh? I wondered if people knew about the risks, it is not informed if ya don't know it's going to happen
> And for the record the person I mentioned in my last post was NOT told the abortions would have affected fertility down the line. Yes she should have been told, but the fact is she wasn't.


Well that would depend on when this occured as informed consent is very strictly monitored these days (I even did a recent audit on the procedures of it). You don't just pop into a room and get an abortion, you are counselled about it.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

harley bear said:


> No, if they go for a second abortion then they should be castrated :thumbsup:


So they're allowed the first then?


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

Phoolf said:


> When they're medically capable of living independently instead of relying 100% on another person for sustenance.





tinktinktinkerbell said:


> when its able to survive outside of the mother


babies can and do survive from 20 weeks, yet the law states up to 24 weeks.
And Phloof if you stood by what you said my son would have died anyway, I did have to feed him and still do provide food for him, he hasnt got the weekly shop down yet.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Phoolf said:


> Well that would depend on when this occured as informed consent is very strictly monitored these days (I even did a recent audit on the procedures of it). You don't just pop into a room and get an abortion, you are counselled about it.


Planned Parenthood does not council the full information on the risks - physical nor mental health.

CC


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Starlite said:


> babies can and do survive from 20 weeks, yet the law states up to 24 weeks.
> And Phloof if you stood by what you said my son would have died anyway, I did have to feed him and still do provide food for him, he hasnt got the weekly shop down yet.


But he can medically live on his own, before 20 weeks he can't. He can't breath. That's the line.


----------



## JAChihuahua (Nov 23, 2012)

Does anyone remember the series call the midwife?

Aside from the poverty, death due to lack of medical care, single parents, squalid conditions, and mothers churning out a baby a year, the author also saw the dark side of unwanted babies.

The author of the book, discusses the film Vera Drake, but also about the practice and results of illegal abortions in the 50's. A midwife responds to Mike Leigh's Vera Drake | Film | The Guardian
and here
The back-street butchers (From The Northern Echo)

I NEVER want to think about going back to those times. I may not agree with later social abortions, but god forbid we feel the need to force desperate women to endure the above torture.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> Well that would depend on when this occured as informed consent is very strictly monitored these days (I even did a recent audit on the procedures of it). *You don't just pop into a room and get an abortion, you are counselled about it*.


It would be nice to think of it that way, unfortunately it doesn't happen like that (not round here anyway )

I am talking less than 6 years ago so it isn't something that should have happened, however it still does.

As for counselling :lol: :lol: Sorry doesn't happen.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

comfortcreature said:


> Planned Parenthood does not council the full information on the risks.
> 
> CC


We don't have Planned Parenthood. I'm talking about the NHS in the UK (UK forum, not North American) and informed consent.


----------



## sligy (Jul 3, 2012)

Starlite said:


> very dramatic but the chances of all of this happening is slim, much slimmer than a child being removed and cared for. and a* LIFE is not a "silly mistake"*
> 
> its cruel to end a life because YOU were careless.
> 
> ...


Not to you, a life might not be a mistake to you. There was a girl in my village who just had her child taken off her because the child was a burden because she met a new boyfriend and wanted to travel. I often wonder where that child is now.
No it is not dramatic, have you read the news, baby's are dumped more often than you would realize, anywhere from bins to doorsteps and that's while they have the option to abort take that right away and the figures can only go up.

As for being dramatic about the jail sentences, no i am not, look at the figures. Half of all people under the age of 25 in jail were in foster care at some point in there life. These are not just figures plucked from the sky these are the figures for the uk . 
In america 70% of people on Texas death row were in foster care at some point in there life.

This is not a case of let the little baby live, its about what future that babys going to have. From my figures it does not stand a great chance.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

B3rnie said:


> It would be nice to think of it that way, unfortunately it doesn't happen like that (not round here anyway )
> 
> I am talking less than 6 years ago so it isn't something that should have happened, however it still does.
> 
> As for counselling :lol: :lol: Sorry doesn't happen.


Sorry it didn't happen for your friend but it very much does happen.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

Phoolf said:


> But he can medically live on his own, before 20 weeks he can't. He can't breath. That's the line.


10yrs ago babies didnt survuve from 24 weeks
5years ago they didnt survive from 20 weeks

Medicine continues to astound us, can you say it couldnt go further back?


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Starlite said:


> 10yrs ago babies didnt survuve from 24 weeks
> 5years ago they didnt survive from 20 weeks
> 
> Medicine continues to astound us, can you say it couldnt go further back?


If it does go back then the line goes back. So what? Doesn't mean I won't believe in abortion.


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

I dont know if i am correct but i remember either reading about or hearing about a pregnant woman being stabbed. She was very very pregnant and when the ambulance crew got to her it was highly unlikely that she was going to survive, so they performed a c section and the baby was removed and was breathing on its own, the mother died whilst being operated on. The baby survived for a few hours but died. When the person who stabbed the woman was caught they were charged with 2 counts of murder as the baby had taken a breath outside of the mothers body on its own. That to me is when a feotus is a person, when it can live independently from its mother (obviously not completely independent)


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

Phoolf said:


> If it does go back then the line goes back. So what? Doesn't mean I won't believe in abortion.


I never said it did, but your reasoning is flawed.


----------



## noogsy (Aug 20, 2009)

i do think people should not be repeat offenders.its terrible to have several terminations.and no one say anything about a implant.but then some dont believe in contraception.because we live in a free country where women can choose.they choose to not use contraception.because they believe it is against there beliefs.but are not so honerable about taking on looking after a new life.what do we do???
tell every single woman she must use contraception?
refuse all terminations?
make condoms a law?
only give terminations to women who have been raped who can prove rape.
or women with say genetic problem.
its such a mine field THAT IT WILL ALWAYS HAVE TO BE THE WOMANS CHOICE.
THANK GOD  we live in a country where women have freedom to choose.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

tashax said:


> I dont know if i am correct but i remember either reading about or hearing about a pregnant woman being stabbed. She was very very pregnant and when the ambulance crew got to her it was highly unlikely that she was going to survive, so they performed a c section and the baby was removed and was breathing on its own, the mother died whilst being operated on. The baby survived for a few hours but died. When the person who stabbed the woman was caught they were charged with 2 counts of murder as the baby had taken a breath outside of the mothers body on its own. That to me is when a feotus is a person, when it can live independently from its mother (obviously not completely independent)


So babies born dead are not people? I must inform my friend who's little girl was stillborn, she died 3 days before her due date.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Starlite said:


> I never said it did, but your reasoning is flawed.


Howso?

I find reasoning based on a catechism from a religious heirachy that is complicit in the spread of AIDS in Africa to be flawed personally.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Starlite said:


> 10yrs ago babies didnt survuve from 24 weeks
> 5years ago they didnt survive from 20 weeks
> 
> Medicine continues to astound us, can you say it couldnt go further back?


But say eventually they can save from 4 werks with all the new advances, does that mean you can't abort after 4?


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Starlite said:


> So babies born dead are not people? I must inform my friend who's little girl was stillborn, she died 3 days before her due date.


This is very sad.

Im so sorry for your friends loss.

Eta wrong very sorry.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> Sorry it didn't happen for your friend but it very much does happen.


She wasn't/isn't my friend and she isn't the only person it has/hasn't happened to 
Especially when it comes to clinics.

Sorry but I can never believe there as as many "accidents" as some would like to claim, many are just "can't be bothered cos someone will clear up my mess"

YES SOME accidents happen but they are few and far between, I remember having a conversation with a nurse and she said that most of the time (I said most, not all) it is down to people not taking their contraception properly or being "in the moment" so forgetting protection. She was also very disappointed with the lack of support some of these women receive after the event.

Too many women think an abortion is an easy fix, but I can tell you it isn't easy to fix the mental scars which WILL come back to haunt you one day.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

Phoolf said:


> Howso?
> 
> I find reasoning based on a catechism from a religious heirachy that is complicit in the spread of AIDS in Africa to be flawed personally.


you find whatever you want petal, condoms have been deemded accptable by the Church in 3rd world countries but as many people have stated, you cannot force people to use them.



emmaviolet said:


> But say eventually they can save from 4 werks with all the new advances, does that mean you can't abort after 4?


Why are you aborting in the first place?


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

emmaviolet said:


> This is very sad. But actually they are not as no death or birth certificate will be issued or funeral I believe.
> 
> Im so sorry for your friends loss.


A death certificate is produced, a death cert is needed for a funeral to take place


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> This is very sad. But actually they are not as no death or birth certificate will be issued or funeral I believe.
> 
> Im so sorry for your friends loss.


I've heard of people having funerals for stillborn babies.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Starlite said:


> you find whatever you want petal, condoms have been deemded accptable by the Church in 3rd world countries but as many people have stated, you cannot force people to use them.
> 
> Why are you aborting in the first place?


Oh they're deemed acceptable all the way up to the pope now? I hope someone tells the missionaries. I wonder how many living, breathing children have died as a result of the advice not to use condoms. Sanctity of life and all that.


----------



## noogsy (Aug 20, 2009)

i cant have any more children though choice.
termination wouldnt have ever been for me.
but i will fight for every woman to have her choice.
never give up that freedom of choice to our government
(A right bunch they are)
never give up womens rights.
a lot of very brave women fought for womens rights.


----------



## JAChihuahua (Nov 23, 2012)

The law for social abortions does need review, there can be no question of that.

If a premature baby born at 23 weeks and 6 days was smothered by his mother in an incubator - she would be charged with murder

If a woman pregnant at 23 weeks and 6 days has an abortion for not wanting the baby - thats all ok and perfectly legal

madness!

I am all for keeping the law as it stands with regards to medical abortions... those where baby/mum will suffer due to medical conditions. These can be carried out at ANY time in pregnancy

However I personally believe that social abortions should have a 15 week time limit, where even with mistakes in dating scans there is no possibility of that foetus surviving outside the womb.


----------



## sligy (Jul 3, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> This is very sad. But actually they are not as no death or birth certificate will be issued or funeral I believe.
> 
> Im so sorry for your friends loss.


I miscarried twice at nearly 5 months, as it is so late they will let you have a funeral paid for by the NHS.

Had it been 2 weeks later i would have had to register the birth and have a death certificate done as it would have been classed as still born.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

B3rnie said:


> She wasn't/isn't my friend and she isn't the only person it has/hasn't happened to
> Especially when it comes to clinics.
> 
> Sorry but I can never believe there as as many "accidents" as some would like to claim, many are just "can't be bothered cos someone will clear up my mess"
> ...


I can't disagree with that, which is why I take 2 lots of BC's. I wouldn't want to have an abortion, but I wouldn't have much of a choice as I do not want children.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

emmaviolet said:


> This is very sad. But actually they are not as no death or birth certificate will be issued or funeral I believe.
> 
> Im so sorry for your friends loss.


actually they are. The little girl in question had a funeral and was cremated, heartbraking seeing a box so small.


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

Starlite said:


> So babies born dead are not people? I must inform my friend who's little girl was stillborn, she died 3 days before her due date.


Hmmm where did i state that still borns are not people?? Dont make me out to be a cruel heartless bitch because i am really really not. My friend had a car accident and lost her daughter, 5 days before her due date because the placenta ruptered. If she had not had the car accident her daughter would have been born very healthy. If your friends baby was not born still born then that too would have been able to live independently.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

sligy said:


> I miscarried twice at nearly 5 months, as it is so late they will let you have a funeral paid for by the NHS.
> 
> Had it been 2 weeks later i would have had to register the birth and have a death certificate done as it would have been classed as still born.


Sorry i must have misunderstood.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

Phoolf said:


> I can't disagree with that, which is why I take 2 lots of BC's. I wouldn't want to have an abortion, but I wouldn't have much of a choice as I do not want children.


why not get sterilised if you dont want children. The NHS wont do it till you are 30 but if you really dont want kids you can go private.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

emmaviolet said:


> Sorry i must have misunderstood.


thankfully not many go through it hun so most people dont know


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Starlite said:


> why not get sterilised if you dont want children. The NHS wont do it till you are 30 but if you really dont want kids you can go private.


Already answered. Why would I spent tens of thousands of pounds due to a minority risk? 

I don't believe abortion is wrong, nor is it murder, it's a medical procedure. And just because you can pay doesn't mean a doctor will do what you want, they have a code of ethics, if I went in saying I wanted my legs chopped off do you think they'd do it just for the cash? And leave themselves open to lawsuits? I think not.


----------



## sligy (Jul 3, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> Sorry i must have misunderstood.


No worries, i didnt know any of this either till i had too, i didnt have a funeral as it would have made it very real, but lots of women do. They do it in the hospital chapels generally. 
I was just amazed about having to go and register the births and deaths. I cant ever imagine the stress that would cause.


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

CRL said:


> if you watch the film The Duchess she was raped by her husband so she would have a son. i dont know how true that is to her real life story but that was in the 18th century


He also had a daughter out of wedlock with one of the maids that she then had to raise as her own daughter.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Starlite said:


> thankfully not many go through it hun so most people dont know


Must be truely awful. Im reallyvsorry for your friend.

I just thought when someone had a stillborn they said it was worse because no one counted them as a person but it may have been earlier and different circumstances.

Sorry for that.


----------



## JAChihuahua (Nov 23, 2012)

WelshOneEmma said:


> He also had a daughter out of wedlock with one of the maids that she then had to raise as her own daughter.


She had her own illegitimate daughter too.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> Already answered. Why would I spent tens of thousands of pounds due to a minority risk?
> 
> I don't believe abortion is wrong, nor is it murder, it's a medical procedure. And just because you can pay doesn't mean a doctor will do what you want, they have a code of ethics, if I went in saying I wanted my legs chopped off do you think they'd do it just for the cash? And leave themselves open to lawsuits? I think not.


Only cost around £3000  Not sure why you thought it would cost tens of thousands :001_unsure:


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

B3rnie said:


> Only cost around £3000  Not sure why you thought it would cost tens of thousands :001_unsure:


Because it's an invasive surgical procedure involving not only a surgeon but anaesthetist, theatre staff. nurses and recovery time. The cost is of no interest to me, the option for me isn't 'child or sterile' because thankfully I'm given a choice about my body.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

I'd like to see your source on that figure btw.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> I'd like to see your source on that figure btw.


My only source is what a friend (yep this one is a friend) paid to be steralised. I hate to say it but abortion isn't exactly non-invasive....


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

B3rnie said:


> My only source is what a friend (yep this one is a friend) paid to be steralised. I hate to say it but abortion isn't exactly non-invasive....


Well firstly that depends on what stage the abortion is performed in, and secondly is it more or less invasive than having something inside you for 9 months?


----------



## ginge2804 (Nov 5, 2011)

This is a hard topic tbh!

I do think the limit on being able to have them should be much earlier, as at 24 weeks, the baby is really developing and become a child!

I would never say that no one should be allowed to have them, because that would just mean that more and more and more unwanted babies who will either be in care, or would live with parents that did not want them, and therefore don't treat them right. 

I personally would never have one.


----------



## Wobbles (Jun 2, 2011)

B3rnie said:


> For someone that was that was sooo dead against an emergency spay you surprise me. It seems your opinion changes depending on who/what you are talking about.
> If you are pro-choice then that should be across the board.
> Just my humble opinion of course


That's because in that case, the baby bunnies were only days away from being born, they were actual little rabbits. I do agree with abortion, but not days away from birth! That's just plain wrong and cruel regardless of species.


----------



## JAChihuahua (Nov 23, 2012)

quick google shows marie stopes charges under £1500 for sterilisation


HOWEVER

I do not think that not wanting children = sterilisation!


----------



## sligy (Jul 3, 2012)

Lets just have a look at some scenarios so i can work out who gets a abortion and who does not in this anti abortion uk were all talking about. 

A 14 year old girl lies to her parents about staying at her friends, she goes to a party and gets drunk. She looses her virginity and ends up pregnant, is she allowed one?

A junky who has no other care in the world but her gear gets pregnant is she allowed one?

A mother on benifits who already has 3 children and wants no more gets pregnant is she allowed one???

What about someone with mental health problems???

Or a woman in a controlling relationship, her boyfriend finds out she is on the pill and makes her stop taking it, she fall pregnant does she get one?

Or a woman who wanted a baby very much but a month into her pregnancy she looses her job. her house and has no where to live and her boyfriend ups and leaves, is she allowed one?

What about the women who gets beaten regularly by her partner, she is too scared to leave but does not want to subject a child to this man, does she get one???


----------



## JAChihuahua (Nov 23, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> Well firstly that depends on what stage the abortion is performed in, and secondly is it more or less invasive than having something inside you for 9 months?


I cant remember the exact dates, but I am sure a chemical abortion (so non invasive) can be performed before 12 weeks!


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

sligy said:


> Lets just have a look at some scenarios so i can work out who gets a abortion and who does not in this anti abortion uk were all talking about.
> 
> A 14 year old girl lies to her parents about staying at her friends, she goes to a party and gets drunk. She looses her virginity and ends up pregnant, is she allowed one?
> 
> ...


Thankfully all of the above!


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> Well firstly that depends on what stage the abortion is performed in, and secondly is it more or less invasive than having something inside you for 9 months?


Yes it does depend on how far the pregnancy is, but the chances of you having an early termination when it is an accident is slim because being an accident you won't know for a few weeks.

If you don't want children why is a steralisation such a big thing, but abortion is all hunky dorey?
Sorry I just don't get that mindset, if it was me I would rather opt for the risk of pregnancy being slim to none than cleaning up the mess afterwards....


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

It's important to debate the subject and not individual people. I can discuss a millions of what ifs and say people should do this or that. I'll never know what's involved in individual circumstances and the choice to have an abortion should left up to the woman. When people talk about the freedom to decide what to do with their lives, I can't think of anything that would be more so than what's inside a woman's own body.

Personally, I think new forms of contraception and birth control will render this debate irrelevant in the future, anyways.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

B3rnie said:


> Yes it does depend on how far the pregnancy is, but the chances of you having an early termination when it is an accident is slim because being an accident you won't know for a few weeks.
> 
> If you don't want children why is a steralisation such a big thing, but abortion is all hunky dorey?
> Sorry I just don't get that mindset, if it was me I would rather opt for the risk of pregnancy being slim to none than cleaning up the mess afterwards....


How is chemical abortion invasive at a few weeks or 2 months?

Who says I can afford private sterilisation? And why would I put myself through surgery when I have no issue with abortion or taking birth control?


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

I haven't read the whole thread - I did see someone ask if there are any Catholics on here though and thought I'd chip in.

I no longer consider myself Catholic and am as much as atheist as I can bring myself to admit against the years of indoctrination that rage inside my head. 

However I am still strongly against abortion and would never have one myself, although I might be able to talk myself into a morning after pill if it came to it. (I very much don't want children either! Just really not for me and am looking into more perminant contraception methods now I'm getting older and still can't foresee ever wanting a kid.)

BUT I do NOT think it should be made illegal, full stop. I think people who are repeatedly getting contraception abortions should be offered counselling or similar help. Despite my personal reservations I whole-heartedly support other women's right to choose up to the point that the featus is viable and throughout pregnancy if the mother's life is in danger.

I don't think you can base the laws of a society on an opinion which is not a majority view. And I think it is important for the good of women and women in society that the right to decide whether to put yourself through a pregnancy remains, within reason (i.e. decide within a set period of time for the sake of the featus), in the hands of the individual woman - she can make the decision based on her own morals and conscience.


----------



## JAChihuahua (Nov 23, 2012)

B3rnie said:


> *Yes it does depend on how far the pregnancy is, but the chances of you having an early termination when it is an accident is slim because being an accident you won't know for a few weeks.*
> 
> If you don't want children why is a steralisation such a big thing, but abortion is all hunky dorey?
> Sorry I just don't get that mindset, if it was me I would rather opt for the risk of pregnancy being slim to none than cleaning up the mess afterwards....


rubbish! For chemical abortion (just looked it up on nhs website) this is available up until 9 weeks.... more than 2 menstrual cycles for the average woman.

and as 80% of uk abortions take place before 10 weeks this is a viable non invasive option for most women.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Werehorse said:


> I haven't read the whole thread - I did see someone ask if there are any Catholics on here though and thought I'd chip in.
> 
> I no longer consider myself Catholic and am as much as atheist as I can bring myself to admit against the years of indoctrination that rage inside my head.
> 
> ...


Think this is the most sensible post so far


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> so it would be better to have a child that isnt wanted and wont be loved
> 
> yeah whatever


Why do you assume that because a child was not planned, and not wanted, that it will not be loved?

When I was expecting my third child, who was a mistake, I was working as a barmaid part time. The landlady said to me: why didn't you get an abortion if you didn't want it?

I don't think I have ever been so angry. "I didn't say I didn't want it, I said it wasn't planned, and you are of no use to me but there is no law says I can get rid of you" was my reply. I expected to get the sack, but she was very apologetic the next night.

To me, if it is ok to kill off an unborn child because it is not wanted, why isn't it ok to kill off grannie when she gets old and senile and inconvenient? It seems to me that there are a lot of sick people who would welcome the chance to die, but that is not allowed even if they want it. I see no difference between them and an unborn child no matter how early on it is.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> How is chemical abortion invasive at a few weeks or 2 months?
> 
> Who says I can afford private sterilisation? And why would I put myself through surgery when I have no issue with abortion or taking birth control?


I had already said that it does depend on how far along the pregnancy is, but after seeing the state of some women after a chemical abortion I can safely say that mentally it can be very invasive 

As for the second part that isn't really asking my question, money shouldn't come into it because if you were that dead set about having a steralisation you will save the money up some how.

My question was why are you many people dead set against steralistaion (when they say that they don't want kids) but having an abortion is all ok?
Is it because abortions are free and the other option isn't?


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

B3rnie said:


> I had already said that it does depend on how far along the pregnancy is, but after seeing the state of some women after a chemical abortion I can safely say that mentally it can be very invasive
> 
> As for the second part that isn't really asking my question, money shouldn't come into it because if you were that dead set about having a steralisation you will save the money up some how.
> 
> ...


I can't speak for 'many people'. I would happily be sterilised if given the choice on the NHS, I don't see why I should have to pay for a medical procedure when I pay my fair share of taxes for healthcare.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2012)

JAChihuahua said:


> rubbish! For chemical abortion (just looked it up on nhs website) this is available up until 9 weeks.... more than 2 menstrual cycles for the average woman.
> 
> and as 80% of uk abortions take place before 10 weeks this is a viable non invasive option for most women.


You ever had one? Do you know how invasive even the chemical abortion can be(mentally of course)?


----------



## JAChihuahua (Nov 23, 2012)

Werehorse said:


> I haven't read the whole thread - I did see someone ask if there are any Catholics on here though and thought I'd chip in.
> 
> I no longer consider myself Catholic and am as much as atheist as I can bring myself to admit against the years of indoctrination that rage inside my head.
> 
> ...


fully agree, although the issue of viability sticks in my gut a bit.

as I said before, the law on abortion as it stands does require review.

_If a premature baby born at 23 weeks and 6 days was smothered by his mother in an incubator - she would be charged with murder

If a woman pregnant at 23 weeks and 6 days has an abortion for not wanting the baby - thats all ok and perfectly legal

madness!

I am all for keeping the law as it stands with regards to medical abortions... those where baby/mum will suffer due to medical conditions. These can be carried out at ANY time in pregnancy

However I personally believe that social abortions should have a 15 week time limit, where even with mistakes in dating scans there is no possibility of that foetus surviving outside the womb.
_


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> I can't speak for 'many people'. I would happily be sterilised if given the choice on the NHS, I don't see why I should have to pay for a medical procedure when I pay my fair share of taxes for healthcare.


So it's all about money?

:nonod: :nonod: :nonod: :nonod:


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Werehorse said:


> I haven't read the whole thread - I did see someone ask if there are any Catholics on here though and thought I'd chip in.
> 
> I no longer consider myself Catholic and am as much as atheist as I can bring myself to admit against the years of indoctrination that rage inside my head.
> 
> ...


I don't think counselling would have any effect on those women who get repeat contraception abortions. They obviously think there is nothing wrong with it, so why would they take any notice of a counseller? I think they should be locked up, personally, that there should be some sort of law against continually getting rid of pregnancies to suit themselves. And they most certainly should never be allowed more than one abortion on the NHS.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

B3rnie said:


> So it's all about money?
> 
> :nonod: :nonod: :nonod: :nonod:


Why wouldn't it be? Why SHOULD I pay for a medical procedure out of my own pocket on top of the money I already pay for medical care? Why? Your question was why 'many people' were against it having it done, I'm not, but I won't be paying for it quite frankly. And as I've stated many a time I have no issue with abortion so I would have one if necessary.


----------



## JAChihuahua (Nov 23, 2012)

B3rnie said:


> You ever had one? Do you know how invasive even the chemical abortion can be(mentally of course)?


we were talking surgically, but if you must know yes.

I wont go into the why's and wherefores as that is personal, however it was not a decision I took lightly and I was fully aware of what I was doing (I already had 3 previous miscarriages and 2 healthy children). For me the mental torture of bringing an unwanted baby which would have done far more damage to my mental health than the termination. For me if circumstances had been different, perhaps I would have kept the baby - but they werent and I (and my hubby) made a decision that was for the good of the whole family and our existing children.


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

JAChihuahua said:


> fully agree, although the issue of viability sticks in my gut a bit.
> 
> as I said before, the law on abortion as it stands does require review.
> 
> ...


I do think "viable age" is open for debate, so yes I agree with you. I think it is acceptable to ask women to decided sooner in order to ensure no suffering to the featus. Clumsily worded  but the general sentiment holds I hope.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> Why wouldn't it be? Why SHOULD I pay for a medical procedure out of my own pocket on top of the money I already pay for medical care? Why? Your question was why 'many people' were against it having it done, I'm not, but I won't be paying for it quite frankly. And as I've stated many a time I have no issue with abortion so I would have one if necessary.


Because for me a life (be that a bunch of cells or a fully formed baby) is worth much more than a bit of money.

As I said originally I am all for choice, I will never condemn someone having an abortion if that is the right choice for them.

But to choose having an abortion over steralisation because you don't feel you should be made to pay is, is,... I can't think of a word that won't offend so I will step away now....


----------



## JAChihuahua (Nov 23, 2012)

Werehorse said:


> I do think "viable age" is open for debate, so yes I agree with you. I think it is acceptable to ask women to decided sooner in order to ensure no suffering to the featus. Clumsily worded  but the general sentiment holds I hope.


absoloutly! I wasnt meaning to offend you or pick out your wording of viability. Its just that its been bandied about on this thread alot, and no one has actually picked up on the differing views on viability (or at least I havent seen them but with so many pages its possible its there). xx


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

B3rnie said:


> Because for me a life (be that a bunch of cells or a fully formed baby) is worth much more than a bit of money.
> 
> As I said originally I am all for choice, I will never condemn someone having an abortion if that is the right choice for them.
> 
> But to choose having an abortion over steralisation because you don't feel you be made to pay is, is,... I can't think of a word that won't offend so I will step away now....


To me a foetus isn't a life. This is where we're at odds.

I can't chose to have sterilisation, I don't have the funds to have that done, therefore there is no choice. And as for saving up, you know nothing of my financial situation (but here we go: I support my entire household on a low wage and have literally pennies at the end of the month so tell me how I save up thousands please?).

You asked me why I wasn't sterilised, I gave you an honest answer. I also honestly believe that no good doctor would medically sterilise a young female without good medical reason.


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

newfiesmum said:


> I don't think counselling would have any effect on those women who get repeat contraception abortions. They obviously think there is nothing wrong with it, so why would they take any notice of a counseller? I think they should be locked up, personally, that there should be some sort of law against continually getting rid of pregnancies to suit themselves. And they most certainly should never be allowed more than one abortion on the NHS.


Perhaps, but I think getting oneself in the situation where one it continuously at risk of an un-wanted pregnancy shows a severe lack of self-esteem (given how easy it is to get hold of and use contraception). Some may be so lacking in empathy or self-respect that it wouldn't get through but some might benefit.

But perhaps that is my middle class, Catholic upbringing talking mixed with my later gained liberal ideologies.

(never mind them, _I_ need friggin counselling with this much mental baggage :lol

I wonder if asking for financial contributions to social abortions (after a set amount say) would reduce the number of abortions or just increase the misery.


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

I don't understand why people constantly talk about the risks of getting an abortion, _all_ medical procedures carry risks.


----------



## JAChihuahua (Nov 23, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> I don't think counselling would have any effect on those women who get repeat contraception abortions. They obviously think there is nothing wrong with it, so why would they take any notice of a counseller? I think they should be locked up, personally, that there should be some sort of law against continually getting rid of pregnancies to suit themselves. And they most certainly should never be allowed more than one abortion on the NHS.


I agree with a lot of your sentiments.

Repeat abortions horrify me, lesson learned once - yeah, but again and again. For the record I am not talking about a woman who had a termination when she was 15, and another when she was 46, I'm talking about those women who have repeat social abortions within a couple of years (so no I'm also not talking about the woman who has had terminations for medical reasons or disability).


----------



## sligy (Jul 3, 2012)

Everybody keeps talking of sterilization, but i don't understand how this is a option. At 20 or even 30 you may never want a baby, but then at 35 you might want a baby and would then have no choice you have ruined the chance of ever having a baby at all. 
That is even more tragic to me, a baby could have had a loving home and now will never exist because they have ended up hacking up there insides.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

sligy said:


> Everybody keeps talking of sterilization, but i don't understand how this is a option. At 20 or even 30 you may never want a baby, but then at 35 you might want a baby and would then have no choice you have ruined the chance of ever having a baby at all.
> That is even more tragic to me, a baby could have had a loving home and now will never exist because they have ended up hacking up there insides.


Good point. I think this is true for many women especially nowadays when women want to have a family later in life. For us there's no going back on sterilisation unlike with some male procedures. I don't want kids, although I'd be foolish to say never, but when the time comes that I do get 10 years or so older I will just get my tubes tied and be done with it all.


----------



## Reverie (Mar 26, 2012)

sligy said:


> Everybody keeps talking of sterilization, but i don't understand how this is a option. At 20 or even 30 you may never want a baby, but then at 35 you might want a baby and would then have no choice you have ruined the chance of ever having a baby at all.
> That is even more tragic to me, a baby could have had a loving home and now will never exist because they have ended up hacking up there insides.


This happened to me, if you'd asked me a couple of years ago, I _never_ wanted kids, the idea was abhorrent to me. :lol:

Then I met my OH  and I really want to have a family with him some day.

My mum is very pleased I've changed my mind.


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

I would say I am pro choice. I think the limitation of when it is too late for an abortion is a very iffy subject but in the same breath I have not read a single pro life post on here that makes me reconsider my view on being pro choice. None of the stuff that's been written emotively makes me reconsider at all.

I don't think abortion is something I could go through with if I was in a good relationship like I am now. On a personal level I probably wouldn't be able to justify it. But I do think there should be a choice.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

Well that was a long read....



Phoolf said:


> I suppose rape is a modern phenomenon then! Having a child is not the only aim of sexual urge...some people actually happen to enjoy it for its own sake.


I certainly don't have sex to procreate!



Phoolf said:


> I don't. Just look at the pro life movement in the US (I hate the term pro life, as if pro choice people are running round extolling the virtues of abortion and recommending them to everyone they know!), they care about foetuses but have no compassion for actual children living in poverty, or the mothers forced to birth them for that matter.


There's a Bill Hicks quote I can't remember - something to do with how funny it is that those who are so vehemently "pro life" have a tendency to be so keen on the death penalty 



emmaviolet said:


> People still believe it today, I don't know if you saw any of the us election but mitt romneys fellow believed that if raped a womans body will most likely reject a baby!


A woman's body has a way of dealing with these things, he said. Yes, it does, by voting for Obama!



JAChihuahua said:


> Does anyone remember the series call the midwife?
> 
> Aside from the poverty, death due to lack of medical care, single parents, squalid conditions, and *mothers churning out a baby a year*, the author also saw the dark side of unwanted babies.
> 
> ...


Not just that far back, either. My mother had her last child in the early 90s, very much against medical advice. She almost died after refusing an abortion during a miscarriage when I was 11. She knew that there was no chance of the foetus surviving, but refused it when the medical team begged her to allow it to save her life. One of them even used the words "what about the 8 children you have, don't they need their mother?". She still refused, on religious grounds.......I thought then and still do that this was a despicable thing for her to do, to put her beliefs before her children.



Starlite said:


> you find whatever you want petal, condoms have been deemded accptable by the Church in 3rd world countries but as many people have stated, you cannot force people to use them.


Some Catholic clergy in Africa may allow it, but the current pope's stated view is still that any kind of artificial contraception is an abomination against God's will. Giving this advice about condoms to a nation where babies are raped in the erroneous belief that sex with a virgin will cure HIV is my definition of evil. And I don't often use that word.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

newfiesmum said:


> Why do you assume that because a child was not planned, and not wanted, that it will not be loved?


im just going on how i would feel myself


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

emmaviolet said:


> This is a highly insensitive thing to say to a victim of rape. How would a victim know to be prepared with protection.
> You do not have to be sexually active for your BF to then rape you.
> 
> Emma I'm so sorry for the hell you must have been through.


Just thought i would quickly reply to this!

Luckily I am of a strong mind to be able to deal with these sorts of beliefs. I made my 'peace' with what happened a long time ago as I refuse to be a victim and let the hate colour my life. Dont get me wrong, I still have issues (such as not liking things tight round my throat as he tried to throttle me). He only got 18 months, had his job kept open and the mortgage paid on the house. He even finished a degree in prison so his life has not changed too much since he got out. I however dont go to my home town much these days as I was a "slut who deserved everything I got" and him and his friends are still there. My mum still sees him around occasionally and mentions it.

He was my ex. We had been together for 8 years when I left him for someone else (hence me being a slut) as he was a very controlling and aggressive man who started dating me when i was 14 and he was 25. We had been split up 3 months when this happened.

I was also "lucky" in that I had the full backing of the police behind me with this. Normally its very hard to prove rape, but he had gone a bit nuts and held me at gun point for 10 hours, at some point firing on the police during the night. Note i said he got 18 months!

When I found out I was pregnant I really struggled with the idea of abortion. The decision was taken out of my hands which i am thankful for as i dont know how i would feel about that child, should it have existed.

My life experiences have taken me to where i am now and i have a lovely husband (who's a police officer - maybe some underlying issues there after all?) and after another miscarriage this year we are expecting our first child. It sounds awful but had i had a child that was the result of rape, i am not sure i would love it as much as i know i will love this one. And i'm not sure its fair to give said child up for it to find out, years later, that it was a result of rape.

Sorry, a bit long and off topic there!

Moral of the story - morning after pill doesnt always work!


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> im just going on how i would feel myself


But you don't know how you would feel till it happens. I am not a child lover. In fact I would say quite frankly that I do not like children, and I was never thrilled to be pregnant. But once I held that baby in my arms, that was something else again.

Being pregnant by mistake, I went from shock, to worry about how I would cope, to concern about space, to loving her just as much as the others.

I am not saying that everyone would feel that way, but it happens more often than not.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

newfiesmum said:


> But you don't know how you would feel till it happens. I am not a child lover. In fact I would say quite frankly that I do not like children, and I was never thrilled to be pregnant. But once I held that baby in my arms, that was something else again.
> 
> Being pregnant by mistake, I went from shock, to worry about how I would cope, to concern about space, to loving her just as much as the others.
> 
> I am not saying that everyone would feel that way, but it happens more often than not.


i know how i would feel


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

WelshOneEmma said:


> Just thought i would quickly reply to this!
> 
> Luckily I am of a strong mind to be able to deal with these sorts of beliefs. I made my 'peace' with what happened a long time ago as I refuse to be a victim and let the hate colour my life. Dont get me wrong, I still have issues (such as not liking things tight round my throat as he tried to throttle me). He only got 18 months, had his job kept open and the mortgage paid on the house. He even finished a degree in prison so his life has not changed too much since he got out. I however dont go to my home town much these days as I was a "slut who deserved everything I got" and him and his friends are still there. My mum still sees him around occasionally and mentions it.
> 
> ...


How extremely traumatic for you. I am glad you have come through it, and I don't think I would blame you for aborting such a pregnancy. It isn't something anyone knows about till it happens.

I hope all goes well with this baby.


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

newfiesmum said:


> How extremely traumatic for you. I am glad you have come through it, and I don't think I would blame you for aborting such a pregnancy. It isn't something anyone knows about till it happens.
> 
> I hope all goes well with this baby.


Thank you.

Like you say, its a tough decision to make and its hard to be adamant about a choice until you are in that situation.

I will be honest, I really struggled with the decision and to this day do not know what I would have chosen.

Whilst abortion may not be something i could do, i would never take away someone else right to it.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Welshoneemma. You are clearly made of strong stuff and a true fighter.

I wish you every happiness with your hubby and congrats on the baby!! So happy your life has turned out so well.


----------



## Reverie (Mar 26, 2012)

WelshOneEmma, what a traumatic life you've had. I'm so sorry you had to go through such a horrific experience. The b*****d should have got more. 

I wish you every happiness for the future, congratulations on your pregnancy, good luck!  xxx


----------



## sligy (Jul 3, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> But you don't know how you would feel till it happens. I am not a child lover. In fact I would say quite frankly that I do not like children, and I was never thrilled to be pregnant. But once I held that baby in my arms, that was something else again.
> 
> Being pregnant by mistake, I went from shock, to worry about how I would cope, to concern about space, to loving her just as much as the others.
> 
> I am not saying that everyone would feel that way, but it happens more often than not.


This is very true, motherly instinct just kicks in i think, but not always.

When i found out i was pregnant i was heartbroken. It was not something i had planned at all. I was on the pill and thought that would do the trick.

I had a appointment at the clinic to have a abortion, a lorry overturned in the road and i could not make the appointment as the roads were blocked.

I spent most of my pregnancy feeling very sorry for myself, eventually i did feel a mild excitement.

Once i held her it was a whole different ball game. She became my most precious and adored person in my life. It took only minutes to feel that love, its a love that overpowers any other.

I do think she has not had the greatest start, i was badly prepared, i was young and naive to the responsibility, but i will always choose my daughter over anything else. I have grown up and pulled my socks up and done it mostly on my own with no help from the father who so desperately wanted to keep her something i am very proud of.

Unfortunately it does not always go that way. So while i think alot of mums would just fall in love with there babies the same as we did, i dont think everyone would.


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

Reverie said:


> WelshOneEmma, what a traumatic life you've had. I'm so sorry you had to go through such a horrific experience. The b*****d should have got more.
> 
> I wish you every happiness for the future, congratulations on your pregnancy, good luck!  xxx


He should have, but he plea bargained (after 6 hours giving evidence as he pleaded not guilty, he changed his plea if they didnt pursue him firing at the police).

Now I know that he was in the process of a nervous breakdown when all this happened and (as much as i could) forgave him for what he did. Doesnt mean it hasnt had an effect, but like I said I wont let the experience and hate colour my life as i would be the one suffering, not him.

However if it had been by someone i didnt know? i would be more messed up. had he given me anything etc. As i said earlier, proving the rape is also very difficult these days and not everyone wants to deal with the police. Its not nice having the internals, the photos etc, giving the evidence. I can understand why someone wouldnt report it. Then you have the stigma from society - did you really encourage it etc, especially if the man was upstanding in the community as my ex was. This is why the rape argument is difficult too - how do you prove it? mine happened in the April - he was found guilty and sentenced in October. long time to wait for an abortion.

Unfortunately, as with everything, its not black and white.

yes people do abuse the system and that is wrong, but it cant be too difficult to obtain either.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

newfiesmum said:


> *I am not a child lover.* In fact I would say quite frankly that I do not like children, and I was never thrilled to be pregnant. But once I held that baby in my arms, that was something else again.


You are always saying that. But I really don't believe you 
I've thought for a long time that with children you might be like my eldest brother who claims not to like animals, but when my pets climb on his knee and I offer to move them, he says, oh no, don't disturb them.

WelshOneEmma - I didn't want to "like" your post because I don't like what happened to you. But I think you're amazing.


----------



## Wobbles (Jun 2, 2011)

B3rnie said:


> I had already said that it does depend on how far along the pregnancy is, but after seeing the state of some women after a chemical abortion I can safely say that mentally it can be very invasive
> 
> As for the second part that isn't really asking my question, money shouldn't come into it because if you were that dead set about having a steralisation you will save the money up some how.
> 
> ...


In a nutshell B3rnie, yes. When it comes down to it money does matter. Morals won't put food on the table or electric in the meter but money will. If you don't have the money, you go with what you can. I couldn't afford sterilisation, but I'm sure I could manage a free abortion. Maybe that's the answer, make sterilisation free and abortions cost.

And yes sterilisation is permanent. But some people adamantly know they never want babies. I know I don't, I'm no good around them, can't stand them crying, could never deal with the barf or dirty nappies. I'm also too selfish, I'd like to keep my figure thanks, I starve myself some days so I don't put on weight, I'd never ever cope going massive with a baby bump. I wouldn't have time for it either. I like playing with my dog and rodents, being on my iPad/ iphone/DS, watch tv, on the computer. What money I have spare I like to spend on my animals, gadgets, or getting my hair done. A baby for me would be an utter nightmare, it would literally ruin my life and be extremely inconvenient, so I don't want one, and won't have one as much for its benefit as mine. I am not mum material, never will be. When the rest of the family are cooing over someone's new baby, I'm cooing over the new puppy. I've offended some people taking more interest in their dog than their kid. I dogsit, but I could never babysit. i dint mind cleaning after un-housebroken puppies but no way could I change a nappy. I don't have a maternal bone in my body and never will have, my parents know full well the only bundle of joy I'd bring home is of the furry four legged variety. I think anyone that adamant they don't ever want kids are unlikely to change their minds. My dog Meg is my baby, and she's as much of a baby as I'll ever want.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2012)

Wobbles said:


> In a nutshell B3rnie, yes. When it comes down to it money does matter. Morals won't put food on the table or electric in the meter but money will. If you don't have the money, you go with what you can. I couldn't afford sterilisation, but I'm sure I could manage a free abortion. Maybe that's the answer, make sterilisation free and abortions cost.
> 
> And yes sterilisation is permanent. But some people adamantly know they never want babies. I know I don't, I'm no good around them, can't stand them crying, could never deal with the barf or dirty nappies. I'm also too selfish, I'd like to keep my figure thanks, I starve myself some days so I don't put on weight, I'd never ever cope going massive with a baby bump. I wouldn't have time for it either. I like playing with my dog and rodents, being on my iPad/ iphone/DS, watch tv, on the computer. What money I have spare I like to spend on my animals, gadgets, or getting my hair done. A baby for me would be an utter nightmare, it would literally ruin my life and be extremely inconvenient, so I don't want one, and won't have one as much for its benefit as mine. I am not mum material, never will be. When the rest of the family are cooing over someone's new baby, I'm cooing over the new puppy. I've offended some people taking more interest in their dog than their kid. I dogsit, but I could never babysit. i dint mind cleaning after un-housebroken puppies but no way could I change a nappy. I don't have a maternal bone in my body and never will have, my parents know full well the only bundle of joy I'd bring home is of the furry four legged variety. I think anyone that adamant they don't ever want kids are unlikely to change their minds. My dog Meg is my baby, and she's as much of a baby as I'll ever want.


And as I said previously I can never and will never agree with that.
As for not wanting kids, you are very young so your mind could very well change.

As I have said I am pro-choice, however it is the serial abortionists that get to me (not actual accidents). And using the excuse that money is the reason why they would chose abortion over steralisation is abhorant to me :001_unsure:

If you (general you) really don't want kids (and have no plans for kids in the future) then either cross ya legs or steralise.... It really is that simple for me, now I know many won't agree but quite frankly I don't care...


----------



## Wobbles (Jun 2, 2011)

B3rnie said:


> And as I said previously I can never and will never agree with that.
> As for not wanting kids, you are very young so your mind could very well change.
> 
> As I have said I am pro-choice, however it is the serial abortionists that get to me (not actual accidents). And using the excuse that money is the reason why they would chose abortion over steralisation is abhorant to me :001_unsure:
> ...


I really really doubt I will, I'm 25 and happy with my life and my pets, I want a career, I've just set up working for myself, a baby would seriously mess those plans up. If I want something to nurse I'll scoop up one of the wabbits

But then you miss out on the only fun part of a baby:ihih: :devil:


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

goodvic2 said:


> Should abortion be made illegal? Or does a woman have the right to choose what she wants to do with her body?


You only have to look historically at the desperate measures women went to in order to terminate pregnancies when it was illegal - often developing life threatening infections that left them sterile, or worse still, dead.

Many of these women ended up in hospitals with little option than to have a hysterectomy.

Women who had children out of wedlock and weren't in a position where they had family to take the child on and raise it as their own, were locked up in mental institutions WITH their children.

Do we want to see more babies being abandoned in places they believe will offer safety to new-borns they can't take care of? (yes this still happens, but making abortion illegal would increase the numbers ten-fold without question).

Do we REALLY want to go back to those days?

===================================

Only recently a young, fit and healthy young woman died because she was denied a termination in Ireland, even though it was clear she was going to miscarry.

It is bad enough that we still have mothers and babies not surviving birth in a technological age where we can cure / control many complex conditions.

==========================

So in a nutshell, NO - I don't agree that abortion should be made illegal.

I also agree that it shouldn't be seen as a form of contraception - and that there should be VERY strict limits on how late abortions should be permitted for "social reasons" -

In the same breath - many of these women still become desperate and for these women, there needs to be an efficient support network where no family support is available

It is still isn't beyond the bounds of possibility that these women will seek interference (including many old wives tales) in an attempt to remove a foetus at a later stage of pregnancy.

Personally, I think there should be improved sex-education across all age and socio-economic groups to make women aware that they can (or rather MUST) take control of their bodies and / or their partners to prevent pregnancy.

I've been told more than once by people in the know it's frequently the adults "flying by the seat of their pants" whilst the 14/15 year old girls are fully informed.

I am uncertain on whether enforcing greater responsibility on men who don't support their children or not would be of any benefit.

I speak from experience, and know that support and contact often go hand in hand - even when inappropriate, even to the length of women being forced to declare they don't know who the father of their baby is to prevent outside interference 

=============================

When I returned to live with my parents with a tiny baby in tow, it was rather unusual to have single parents (other than through divorce) - but generally, I don't think sex or pregnancy outside wedlock are new in any way

It's just that historically people dealt with the situations far more discretely, plus of course, we didn't have the social and media networks in those days to spread the word about what is happening in pretty much any part of the globe


----------



## Miss.PuddyCat (Jul 13, 2009)

I believe it should be a womens choice but I also feel sorry for the men who may want the baby but dont get a choice I would never ever want to be in that position myself.

This past summer I came to this roadblock in life and thankfully after many preg tests, clinic tests all negative as well as getting treated for any nasty bugs I was able to calm myself down with the news I was not pregnant! I still have the odd fear now even tho Ive had my period every month. My over active paranoid mind I have.

BUT

Had I been pregnant yes I would have had abortion it was a stupid mistake and I did feel pressured. Im not mentally able to coupe with the idea of a kid I mean if I was I wouldnt have sent myself in hysterics and deep depression over the thought of it. I also am not stable money wise enough to have a kid either.

Am I happy with the choice I had made this summer with unprotected sex - no

Would I have opted for abortion - yes

Do I regret it - yes/no. I regret that I allowed myself to be bullied and pushed into that corner. But I learned alot about myself things that I have buried for years under shame.

I dont think anyone will agree about abortion, it will always be a hard subject. Id respect any womens choice and I hope theyd respect mine.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2012)

Wobbles said:


> I'm also too selfish, I'd like to keep my figure thanks


you've said this a few times on the thread and it's really bugging me are you more concerned about your figure during a pregnancy or afterwards?

having a baby don't mean you have to loose your figure i'm still the same size i were when i had my first and last! just that age is dragging me downwards a little!


----------



## ~Cookie~ (Aug 7, 2010)

Of course not.

If woman are trying to prevent it by using contraception etc then she becomes pregnant why should she have to keep it if she was obviously trying to avoid it in the first place? Why push the rights of women backwards? It is her body and she knows what is best for it - not others or society. 

I hate when people say think of people who cannot have children, think of adoption etc. 

Women are free in this country - lets keep it this way.


----------



## sligy (Jul 3, 2012)

diablo said:


> you've said this a few times on the thread and it's really bugging me are you more concerned about your figure during a pregnancy or afterwards?
> 
> having a baby don't mean you have to loose your figure i'm still the same size i were when i had my first and last! just that age is dragging me downwards a little!


My figures the same too, if not better, i grew boobs after i had my daughter and they stayed, so that was a bonus


----------



## Wobbles (Jun 2, 2011)

diablo said:


> you've said this a few times on the thread and it's really bugging me are you more concerned about your figure during a pregnancy or afterwards?
> 
> having a baby don't mean you have to loose your figure i'm still the same size i were when i had my first and last! just that age is dragging me downwards a little!


Both! I desperately don't want to go any bigger than I am now (smaller would be great though,)8-10, so I'd do anything to avoid it! Like I said I skip meals, and eat as little as poss some days. I check the calories in stuff, and if they are quite high, I eat very little next time. I generally eat no more than 900-1000 cals a day,less usually. I sometimes have one dry slice of toast for breakfast, nothing until lunch at 1ish, nothing between until dinner 5.30ish, and a cookie or 2 for supper. I'm a bit OCD with it tbh. Yes I am more bothered about fitting into my jeans than if I'm hungry, so being so strict, having baby weight, even temporarily would seriously bother me. Quite frankly I couldn't stand it, I'd find it unbearable.


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

harley bear said:


> well its about time folk took responsibility for their actions.


I notice you said that after you told us all to 'forget about rape'.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I always said I would _never_ have an abortion. But until you are in a position to actually have to think about that possibility, you can't say 'never'.

I had been with my OH a few months, and I was taken off of the combined pill and put on the mini pill (because I was over 35 and a smoker  )

Not _one _person told me the mini pill would stop my periods.

So you can imagine what I was thinking when it didnt turn up. I had been with my OH for about 6 months, I had a 17 year old son, and I am buying a pregnancy test in Superdrugs fearing the results, and a lot closer to 40 than to 30.

There would be a huge gap between my children. It was a relatively new relationship. We didn't live together and hadnt even thought of living together. There were more risks to the baby due to my age. So many things to consider, my head was spinning.

I was in a state, and told my OH before I took the test - and I was honest with him. I told him that I didn't believe in abortion, but at that time I really didn't know if I could have another baby, if the test was positive, there was only one way I would _not_ be having another baby.

He was really supportive, and he told me he would support me whatever happened, and whatever I decided (yeah he's a keeper).

I'm really glad I didn't have to make the decision. The test was negative, but I honestly don't know _what_ decision I would have made if it had been positive.

Before I was in the position of taking that test, I was 'there is no way on earth I could have an abortion' - but as I said, until you are in that position you really don't know for sure.

When I fell pregant with my son, I was scared (I was 19), but I knew 100% that I was having him. His dad told me to choose - I chose my baby - there was never any doubt in my mind.

Nearly 18 years on, I had to think about it.

I am really glad I didn't have to make that choice, and also really grateful that I was _allowed _to _have_ a choice.

A couple of years on and I had the chat with OH. He doesn't have children of his own. If he wanted them, then I would be happy to try, but it would have to be within the next 18 months. I didn't want to be pregnant at 40, and have a 20 year age gap between my kids.

He didn't want to try, and I was _really _happy about that!

I think its a very hard decision to make, even if you are adamant you don't want children, when you actually know you have one inside you, it kinda changes things for a lot of people.

I _don't_ think abortion should be used as a contraceptive method.

But I _do_ think women have the right to say what they do and don't want to be happening to their bodies.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2012)

Wobbles said:


> Both! I desperately don't want to go any bigger than I am now (smaller would be great though,)8-10, so I'd do anything to avoid it! Like I said I skip meals, and eat as little as poss some days. I check the calories in stuff, and if they are quite high, I eat very little next time. I generally eat no more than 900-1000 cals a day,less usually. I sometimes have one dry slice of toast for breakfast, nothing until lunch at 1ish, nothing between until dinner 5.30ish, and a cookie or 2 for supper. I'm a bit OCD with it tbh. Yes I am more bothered about fitting into my jeans than if I'm hungry, so being so strict, having baby weight, even temporarily would seriously bother me. Quite frankly I couldn't stand it, I'd find it unbearable.


pregnancy definitely wouldn't suit you then , skipping meals no matter how bad you feel is an absolute no no , have to take care of yourself much better than that!
theres absolutely no reason at all why you wouldn't beable to shift baby weight after pregnancy , i was back in my size 12's about 4 weeks after my first! same again happened with my last!


----------



## auspiciousmind (Sep 2, 2012)

> Not _one _person told me the mini pill would stop my periods.


They don't tell you sometimes when you stop taking it all together that you could continuously heavy bleed for 6+ weeks either


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

See I'm pro choice, but I also think it should be joint decision made by both the mother and the father, as yes I know it's within the mother but its half the fathers as well.

But I don't agree with a women being forced to abort or keep a baby by the father, but also I don't agree when a mother keeps the baby to have a hold over the father and to get money out of him.

So I know for myself right now I don't want kids so I'd put every method possible in place to prevent this from happening.


----------



## sligy (Jul 3, 2012)

MrRustyRead said:


> See I'm pro choice, but I also think it should be joint decision made by both the mother and the father, as yes I know it's within the mother but its half the fathers as well.
> 
> But I don't agree with a women being forced to abort or keep a baby by the father, but also I don't agree when a mother keeps the baby to have a hold over the father and to get money out of him.
> 
> So I know for myself right now I don't want kids so I'd put every method possible in place to prevent this from happening.


Trust me the majority of fathers i know do not pay anything, i have about 10 friends i can think of off the top of my head that don't get a penny including myself, which angers me greatly, he does not care if his child starves to death as long as he gets to see her for a few hours here and there, and the courts allow this, totally outrageous in my mind but that's another story. 
And as no woman can make a man stand up and take responsibility for the child i see they get no rights while the woman is pregnant. Many of these men are the ones who wanted babies in the first place.
Sounds harsh, and i try not to be, i think im just old and bitter now lol


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

MrRustyRead said:


> See I'm pro choice, but I also think it should be joint decision made by both the mother and the father, as yes I know it's within the mother but its half the fathers as well.
> 
> But I don't agree with a women being forced to abort or keep a baby by the father,* but also I don't agree when a mother keeps the baby to have a hold over the father and to get money out of him.
> *
> So I know for myself right now I don't want kids so I'd put every method possible in place to prevent this from happening.


Just for the record, my sons father and I stayed together until my son was 18 months old. When I had enough of explaining away bruises I kicked him out.

He did everything he possibly could to get out of paying anything towards our son, to the extent of making up a false business, registered to his mums home address, with his then wife a managing director and writing his payslips, £95 a week, so he got a zero assessment from the CSA.

Amazing. A qualified electrician who was_ bringing home_ over £1000 a month 3 years previously, is suddenly surviving on £95 a week 

The only reason I even went through the CSA was because I was told if I didn't, my income support (of £65 a week) would be stopped.

Please don't assume a woman keeps a baby to have a hold over the father and to get money out of him.


----------



## sligy (Jul 3, 2012)

MCWillow said:


> Just for the record, my sons father and I stayed together until my son was 18 months old. When I had enough of explaining away bruises I kicked him out.
> 
> He did everything he possibly could to get out of paying anything towards our son, to the extent of making up a false business, registered to his mums home address, with his then wife a managing director and writing his payslips, £95 a week, so he got a zero assessment from the CSA.
> 
> ...


My ex has apparently earned £8 a week since the day we split up, funny as i wonder why he does not need to sign on, i have even given csa the address he has been working at, but apparently that proves nothing 
Then to add to that he took me to court, got legal aid while i had to pay and then the last day of court dropped everything and told me he was just doing it cos it was free and would cost me money. 
I lost my home because my legal fee's cost me so much and i got into so much debt and he still gets the right to see his daughter. How i wonder can a man who pushes his own daughters mother into complete poverty to the point she looses her house be a good father, and have rights to see the child? it really grinds my gears


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

myshkin said:


> You are always saying that.* But I really don't believe you *I've thought for a long time that with children you might be like my eldest brother who claims not to like animals, but when my pets climb on his knee and I offer to move them, he says, oh no, don't disturb them.
> 
> WelshOneEmma - I didn't want to "like" your post because I don't like what happened to you. But I think you're amazing.


You sound like my bloody in-laws; if you don't agree with them, then you don't really mean it.

If someone's kid climbed on my lap, I would find some excuse to pass them on to someone else, and if someone plonks their baby in my arms I will quickly pass it on. If I go into a shop and there are loads of young kids in there, I go back later.

Sorry, I do not like children. I wouldn't hurt one, and if I see one lost I would help it, but I would do the same for anyone else.

I must have told my sister-in-law umpteen times that I don't like kids but still she says I don't really mean that and keeps shoving photos of her boring grandchildren under my nose.


----------



## Golgotha_tramp (Feb 27, 2011)

I find it so offensive when people with kids talk to you like you are a ninny when you say you don't want kids..

"Oooh, you'll change your mind"
"You'll be a great mother one day"

I smile politely and tell them no I won't. The saddest was a woman who said to me "but you are getting married?! What'e the point of having a husband if you don't want kids - just be alone" I thought to myself what a sad, sad life you. Must lead that your husband is just a walking sperm and money bag to you. My OH is my best friend, lover, co conspirator - kids have nothing to do with our relationship.

OT - I am very, very careful about not getting pregnant as I would never, ever keep it but it would be the worst thing I had to do - if I couldn't get an abortion I truly believe I would kill myself as I could not deal with the pregnancy (I too am severly Tokophobic).


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

Golgotha_tramp said:


> I find it so offensive when people with kids talk to you like you are a ninny when you say you don't want kids..
> 
> "Oooh, you'll change your mind"
> "You'll be a great mother one day"
> ...


I will be honest, I personally dont understand the not wanting kids. I get they are scary and life changing, but I have been broody for years and always known I have wanted them. HOWEVER, i do understand there are those that dont and would never dream of being so rude.

Yes, you may one day wake up and want them, but you may not. The world is made up of many different people and thats what makes it interesting. Like you, my hubby is my best friend, lover and many other things, he's not just a walking sperm bank (although being 8 months pregnant I have used him for that too ).

What annoys me now is all the anti-kids people having a go these days saying only the really intelligent dont have kids! I suppose theres rude people on both sides of the coin.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Golgotha_tramp said:


> I find it so offensive when people with kids talk to you like you are a ninny when you say you don't want kids..
> 
> "Oooh, you'll change your mind"
> "You'll be a great mother one day"
> ...


When I told my SIL that I didn't think my youngest daughter would ever have children, she said: Oh, don't worry. She will. I wasn't worried, ffs, just stating a fact.

I did have a moslem woman tell me that the only reason she had married was to have children, that were it not for wanting children she would definitely not have married.

I don't know what tokophobic means, sorry.


----------



## JAChihuahua (Nov 23, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> When I told my SIL that I didn't think my youngest daughter would ever have children, she said: Oh, don't worry. She will. I wasn't worried, ffs, just stating a fact.
> 
> I did have a moslem woman tell me that the only reason she had married was to have children, that were it not for wanting children she would definitely not have married.
> 
> I don't know what tokophobic means, sorry.


I was never broody, and there are very few children apart from my own that I actually like, does that make me a bad parent? I dont think so.

Equally if childhood behaviour dictacts adult tastes (and many studies suggest a significant correlation), then my son wont be having children unless he adopts , cool with me and I'll have someone to shop with!!


----------



## x PIXIE x (Feb 9, 2012)

Having lost two babies through natural causes and having such difficulty with conceiving I cannot understand how someone could kill their baby. It just doesn't feel right. That said I am pro-choice and I suppose if a woman feels that strongly then that's their choice. I agree with terminations for medical reasons if there's a chance the mother could die. Personally with what I've been through I couldn't do it for any reason. 

All I can say is that for a woman who dreams of being a mother the thought of abortion is very sad.


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

sligy said:


> Trust me the majority of fathers i know do not pay anything, i have about 10 friends i can think of off the top of my head that don't get a penny including myself, which angers me greatly, he does not care if his child starves to death as long as he gets to see her for a few hours here and there, and the courts allow this, totally outrageous in my mind but that's another story.
> And as no woman can make a man stand up and take responsibility for the child i see they get no rights while the woman is pregnant. Many of these men are the ones who wanted babies in the first place.
> Sounds harsh, and i try not to be, i think im just old and bitter now lol


they need to make some way that they have to pay, like with student finance it gets taken out of your pay before you actually get it. because once this baby is in the world he needs to man up and pay for it as its his as well.



MCWillow said:


> Just for the record, my sons father and I stayed together until my son was 18 months old. When I had enough of explaining away bruises I kicked him out.
> 
> He did everything he possibly could to get out of paying anything towards our son, to the extent of making up a false business, registered to his mums home address, with his then wife a managing director and writing his payslips, £95 a week, so he got a zero assessment from the CSA.
> 
> ...


no not all, some but not all. Ive heard of so many people fiddling their income to pay less, i just dont get it. why would you not want to pay for your child, i just cant understand it.

my mum was very lucky and my dad has always paid her money for us, but then when we decided we didnt want to go round and see him he took my mum to court. and did they listen to what we wanted? nope!


----------



## sligy (Jul 3, 2012)

MrRustyRead said:


> they need to make some way that they have to pay, like with student finance it gets taken out of your pay before you actually get it. because once this baby is in the world he needs to man up and pay for it as its his as well.
> 
> no not all, some but not all. Ive heard of so many people fiddling their income to pay less, i just dont get it. why would you not want to pay for your child, i just cant understand it.
> 
> my mum was very lucky and my dad has always paid her money for us, but then when we decided we didnt want to go round and see him he took my mum to court. and did they listen to what we wanted? nope!


They can take it out there pay, but alot of men decide to work self employed and make their earnings up as they go along.

The excuses i have had for not paying towards his daughter are

He would not want me to get it (urm i do wonder what he thinks i spend nearly all my money on if not our child)

The latest, my partner earns enough so he can just pay for "it" despite the fact when i was totally broke he still didnt help.

You will be surprised how many men will fiddle their earnings to get out of paying the CSA. I was in the pub a few weeks back, a friends ex was in the pub telling everyone how much he has to pay, only thing is i knew he pays nothing. So many men will big themselves up saying how much it costs when they dont pay a penny really.

Lol ok sorry thats my rant over, its a subject thats so close to home i cant help but shout it from the roof tops lol


----------



## JAChihuahua (Nov 23, 2012)

oh dear, I dont think I'm going to make many fans for this but....

I would like there to be a way for a father to legally object to a pregnancy (where the pregnancy is through, accident, misadventure-alcohol, or ignorance). I also believe that its the womans right to continue the pregnancy or not as she wants, but I do not believe in forcing a dad to become a parent when he has objected to the pregnancy from the beginning.

If there was a way for a father to terminate ALL his parental rights either before or at birth then yes I would be happier. 

Sadly I dont know how that would be policed or controlled, it would be easy using my idea to abuse it and every feckless dad would be wanting to step out of his responsibilities.

I just think that there should be some way for a dad to "not" be a parent when an unwanted (to him) pregnancy has taken place and the wife/gf/aquaintence has decided to continue with the pregnancy. She has the choice to continue or not, he should have a way of legally removing himself from the situation too.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

JAChihuahua said:


> oh dear, I dont think I'm going to make many fans for this but....
> 
> I would like there to be a way for a father to legally object to a pregnancy (where the pregnancy is through, accident, misadventure-alcohol, or ignorance). I also believe that its the womans right to continue the pregnancy or not as she wants, but I do not believe in forcing a dad to become a parent when he has objected to the pregnancy from the beginning.
> 
> ...


But that would take us back to the days when a pregnancy out of wedlock was all the girl's fault. If he had a part in creating the child, he should have a part in paying for it.


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

newfiesmum said:


> But that would take us back to the days when a pregnancy out of wedlock was all the girl's fault. If he had a part in creating the child, he should have a part in paying for it.


Exactly. throughout this thread people have been going on about how "sluts need to learn to keep their legs shut" if they dont want pregnancy. i fail to see how its a girls fault - it takes two to make a baby. If a guy doesnt want it, he's welcome to use a condom as well.

if the attitude of "you have sex, be prepared for the consequences" can be applied to a girl it can most certainly be applied to a bloke!


----------



## JAChihuahua (Nov 23, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> But that would take us back to the days when a pregnancy out of wedlock was all the girl's fault. If he had a part in creating the child, he should have a part in paying for it.


I know, like I said this is just something that niggles at me, and I dont know how on earth one would go about sorting the rules and regulations needed.

Leaving aside the whole - should have thought before hand, its not constructive to this part of the discussion.

Assuming pregnancy has happened....

Its her body and the control of her body and that decision absoloutly the right thing, however if a dad can be denied a baby he wants, he should also have a get out clause too.

It seems its ok to condemn a man to grieve for a baby he never had (just as many women do after abortion, or miscarriage), and to condemn him to parenthood when its not wanted.

A mother has the decision to keep or terminate, the dads feelings are legally not taken into account (although in most relationships its a mutual decision), and whilst I dont think he should have any say over her body, he should be able to decide whether or not he plays a role in that baby's future.


----------



## JAChihuahua (Nov 23, 2012)

WelshOneEmma said:


> if the attitude of "you have sex, be prepared for the consequences" can be applied to a girl it can most certainly be applied to a bloke!


absoloutly

what your missing here though is the decision process. We have already established on this thread that unwanted/unplanned pregnancy happens, the reasons are the same whether its the mother or the father we are talking about.

However as mum (rightly!) has the only say as to whether that pregnancy continues or not, what happens to the dad who wants the opposite?

He (rightly again) cannot force her to continue with a pregnancy she doesnt want. 
She however (rightly again - her body) can force him to become the parent to a baby he doesnt want.

Surely as she has the option of a "get out clause" (ie termination), then so should he. He cannot make a woman keep or abort her baby, but if that baby is born he should have the option to relinquish all rights and responsibilities if its so unwanted.


----------



## sligy (Jul 3, 2012)

JAChihuahua said:


> absoloutly
> 
> what your missing here though is the decision process. We have already established on this thread that unwanted/unplanned pregnancy happens, the reasons are the same whether its the mother or the father we are talking about.
> 
> ...


I think you will find millions of fathers are already doing this, they up and leave and are never seen again.


----------



## noogsy (Aug 20, 2009)

this subject is a bit yucky for me this morning when one of us on the forum has died.so im going to opt out :001_unsure:


----------



## JAChihuahua (Nov 23, 2012)

sligy said:


> I think you will find millions of fathers are already doing this, they up and leave and are never seen again.


I know and that in itself is disgusting, if nothing else but for the reason he will still have parental rights and be allowed his parental responsibilities, and so should he so choose could walk back into the childs life and start shouting the odds and demanding access.

It also means that should mum meed a dashing new knight in armour he cannot adopt the little one as his own.


----------



## JAChihuahua (Nov 23, 2012)

noogsy said:


> this subject is a bit yucky for me this morning when one of us on the forum has died.so im going to opt out :001_unsure:


sorry to hear that, I had no idea and dont know anyone here really.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

myshkin said:


> Some Catholic clergy in Africa may allow it, but the current pope's stated view is still that any kind of artificial contraception is an abomination against God's will. Giving this advice about condoms to a nation where babies are raped in the erroneous belief that sex with a virgin will cure HIV is my definition of evil. And I don't often use that word.


babies arent raped in the name of Catholicism! Poor sex education is to blame for those backward practices. Contraception is available and no Pope Benedict has accepted condom use in places like Africa in the hopes of helping stop this epedimic. You can ttake a horse to water but you cant mae it drink.



diablo said:


> you've said this a few times on the thread and it's really bugging me are you more concerned about your figure during a pregnancy or afterwards?
> 
> having a baby don't mean you have to loose your figure i'm still the same size i were when i had my first and last! just that age is dragging me downwards a little!


Have to say I agree. I was back to a size 6 a week post partum and now have a lovely set of knockers to boot, thankyou breastfeeding


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Starlite said:


> babies arent raped in the name of Catholicism! Poor sex education is to blame for those backward practices. Contraception is available and no Pope Benedict has accepted condom use in places like Africa in the hopes of helping stop this epedimic. You can ttake a horse to water but you cant mae it drink


And in the meantime how many babies have died from AIDS due to the Catholic churches stance on condoms in the past handful of decades? Take a horse to water indeed, I wish someone would have done that 50 years ago with certain religions.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

Starlite said:


> babies arent raped in the name of Catholicism! Poor sex education is to blame for those backward practices. Contraception is available and no *Pope Benedict has accepted condom use in places like Africa in the hopes of helping stop this epedimic.* You can ttake a horse to water but you cant mae it drink.


No, he hasn't. If you read his own words, he says that condom use by a prostitute may show a faint glimmer of recognition that they were taking part in a harmful act, but that condoms are not the solution to HIV.

Just a year earlier than that interview, he said to the African bishops that AIDs is a problem, "that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems"

This is by no means an approval of the use of condoms.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

newfiesmum said:


> You sound like my bloody in-laws; if you don't agree with them, then you don't really mean it.
> 
> If someone's kid climbed on my lap, I would find some excuse to pass them on to someone else, and if someone plonks their baby in my arms I will quickly pass it on. If I go into a shop and there are loads of young kids in there, I go back later.
> 
> ...


Sorry NM, it was meant as a fairly light hearted compliment, but I've just remembered how annoying I find it when people try to tell me what I like or want 

[myshkin puts herself on the naughty step]


----------



## Merenwenrago (Sep 5, 2010)

I am fine with abortion as long as it's only for rape victims and not used for people who fool around, since they should live with the consequences of their actions.

So illegal to average people using it as birth control and legal to rape victims


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Merenwenrago said:


> I am fine with abortion as long as it's only for rape victims and not used for people who fool around, since they should live with the consequences of their actions.


You want people who fool around and don't think of consequences to be forced to parent?

Won't someone actually think of the potential children?


----------



## Merenwenrago (Sep 5, 2010)

Phoolf said:


> You want people who fool around and don't think of consequences to be forced to parent?
> 
> Won't someone actually think of the potential children?


Yes since it will make them think twice before doing it again without birth control pills or other methods

There are tons of ways for people to stop getting pregnant and still have fun


----------



## BananaBassett (Apr 24, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> You want people who fool around and don't think of consequences to be forced to parent?
> 
> Won't someone actually think of the potential children?


I agree with this.

Obviously abortion should not be used like a form of birth control but forcing a person to keep their child that they do not want is simply not the answer. They could end up hating the child, and even harming it / dumping it.

It's a difficult question to answer, how do you limit it?

In short, no, i don't think it should be illegal - it is a very sad thing but unfortunately that is life. Accidents happen and you will also always get people who deliberately are not careful.


----------



## Merenwenrago (Sep 5, 2010)

BananaBassett said:


> I agree with this.
> 
> Obviously abortion should not be used like a form of birth control but forcing a person to keep their child that they do not want is simply not the answer. They could end up hating the child, and even harming it / dumping it.
> 
> ...


They can easily take the child to an adoption center if they don't want the child and help parents who can't have children, who desperately want one.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Merenwenrago said:


> They can easily take the child to an adoption center if they don't want the child and help parents who can't have children, who desperately want one.


Easily? I take it you haven't given a child up for adoption?

There are lots of child up for adoption and thousands in foster care, why add to the problem? Being in foster care or being adopted isn't a perfect start for most people and can lead to a very troubled life for that child.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Merenwenrago said:


> Yes since it will make them think twice before doing it again without birth control pills or other methods
> 
> There are tons of ways for people to stop getting pregnant and still have fun


And yet none of them are foolproof ways? I take birth control but god forbid I would ever get pregnant, I would have to abort. It would be awful but the alternative (having a child) is unthinkable for me. As much as my own mother loves me I wish she had considered aborting me, having kids at a young age like she did has set her life back 20+ years, she's only now back on track with where she would like to be now that her youngest is 18. It would have been far more prudent of her to wait another 5-10 years and then have kids instead of working full time to support kids, going to night schools and failing due to lack of time and now only getting able to enjoy her life for what it is and what she loves which is her career. And yes, my mother was using contraception when I was conceived.


----------



## sligy (Jul 3, 2012)

Merenwenrago said:


> They can easily take the child to an adoption center if they don't want the child and help parents who can't have children, who desperately want one.


OMG really?

People bang on all day long about how you should think of the responsibility before you get a pet.
But a baby, dont want it lets send it to the adoption agency who are struggling to find foster homes for children let alone permanent ones, better still we could advertise them on preloved and gumtree "one child free to good home" 
Or we could get abort it before it even knows anything, but no no no, thats cruel we will have it shipped from pillar to post so it can have the chance of a life all 200,000 of them each and every year


----------



## Merenwenrago (Sep 5, 2010)

Phoolf said:


> Easily? I take it you haven't given a child up for adoption?
> 
> There are lots of child up for adoption and thousands in foster care, why add to the problem? Being in foster care or being adopted isn't a perfect start for most people and can lead to a very troubled life for that child.


Nope but I have fostered a few children until their parents were able to take them up or when I found them suitable parents.

One of them was a black child who we took in for a few months and eventually found who took his older brother and reunited them and they were so happy together so we left him with his older brother's foster parents.

We visited them a few years later and they were doing quite well in school.

So they can easily have a good life


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Merenwenrago said:


> Nope but I have fostered a few children until their parents were able to take them up or found suitable parents.


And you don't think this upset their lives? My OH was in a child home as a teenager, he recently confided in me that it was a childhome notorious for sexual abuse of the children. He thankfully was never abused (thanks to being quite tough and boxing since the age of 8) but I dread to think what the unfortunate ones have had to deal with in their life.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Phoolf said:


> You want people who fool around and don't think of consequences to be forced to parent?
> 
> Won't someone actually think of the potential children?


How is it thinking of the potential children by killing them off instead? I don't buy that argument at all. If you are stuck with an aged parent with alzheimers, incontinent, confused, miserable, frightened and tying up your life while being desperately unhappy, where is the law that says they can be euthanised?

I don't see a difference between that person and an unborn child, except that the child may have a good chance of being loved by adoptive parents or loved by its own parents once it comes along.

I know people will say one is a human being the other just a bunch of cells, but I do not believe that. I believe that life is life at the moment conception and as a spiritualist I also believe that any unborn children you conceive and who die before birth will grow up in the afterlife and you will meet them there.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> How is it thinking of the potential children by killing them off instead? I don't buy that argument at all. If you are stuck with an aged parent with alzheimers, incontinent, confused, miserable, frightened and tying up your life while being desperately unhappy, where is the law that says they can be euthanised?
> 
> I don't see a difference between that person and an unborn child, except that the child may have a good chance of being loved by adoptive parents or loved by its own parents once it comes along.
> 
> I know people will say one is a human being the other just a bunch of cells, but I do not believe that. I believe that life is life at the moment conception and as a spiritualist I also believe that any unborn children you conceive and who die before birth will grow up in the afterlife and you will meet them there.


I believe in euthanasia though, as do a lot of other people in this country...


----------



## sligy (Jul 3, 2012)

My best friend at primary school was a girl in care, she was shipped from pillar to post her hole life, she finally got a nice place to live when she was 14 only to find out that the lady fostering her was pregnant so she had to go.
She cant even count how many homes she was put in, she is jail now and has been in and out of jail since she was 18, but i can see how this is a better alternative to a abortion.


----------



## BananaBassett (Apr 24, 2012)

Oh be serious.

Many girls and women a like go through abortion because they are not ready. Their families do not / will not approve. It doesn't suit them. They do not want a baby. They can't afford it. Many many reasons.

MOST women are not PROUD of the fact that they got pregnant when they did not want to be. LOTS of women could not go through with a pregnancy and then let it go for emotional reasons. Not just because it will hurt because it is embarassing and heart breaking to explain that yes they were pregnant but wheres the baby??

Maybe it is "their fault" to a degree. Sure. Maybe they should be made to feel a little bit bad - but i don't think being forced to carry a baby is the answer.

What about the people that do not cope with that. It would be beautiful if nobody got pregnant by accident or through carelessness and those that did gave them to people desperate for babies.

But that is not real life. What about the girls and ladies forced to carry a baby and feel so passionately about that , that they kill themselves - or try to force miscarriage?

I certainly am of the opinion that you should not be allowed to have continuous abortions - a limit and they cut your fertile bits out! But of course that is mean and unrealistic also.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

BananaBassett said:


> Oh be serious.
> 
> Many girls and women a like go through abortion because they are not ready. Their families do not / will not approve. It doesn't suit them. They do not want a baby. They can't afford it. Many many reasons.
> 
> ...


I think the thing with so called 'continuous abortions' is that (as tashax I think worked out) it only counts for 0.21% of all abortions, it really is anomalous and insignificant.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Phoolf said:


> I believe in euthanasia though, as do a lot of other people in this country...


At least we agree on something.



sligy said:


> My best friend at primary school was a girl in care, she was shipped from pillar to post her hole life, she finally got a nice place to live when she was 14 only to find out that the lady fostering her was pregnant so she had to go.
> She cant even count how many homes she was put in, she is jail now and has been in and out of jail since she was 18, but i can see how this is a better alternative to a abortion.


And I know girls from perfectly good and loving homes who have ended up the same way and boys too. If social services were not so ridiculous about who they allow to adopt, there would not be nearly so many kids in care. Look at the foster parents whose kids were removed because of their politics.


----------



## RachJeremy (Sep 14, 2012)

I don't think it should be illegal... But again, it shouldn't be used as birth control. And they should stop giving abortions to the same girls/women if they go more than a good few times for one... But women need to wake up and realise unprotected sex can and will eventually lead to an unwanted baby. Perfect example is a friend of mine. She's 17 now, but a while back she came to me and someone else telling us she thought she might be pregnant, explaining she'd gone out and had a bit too much to drink, and obviously got into that situation with a boy, who refused to wear a condom, saying he would 'pull out'... Which my friend stupidly believed would work! Me and the other friend who is older than both of us really told her off for that. Then she stated how she didn't want to go on birth control for some reasons like is petrified of needles, the idea of the coil makes her feel sick (much like me to be honest!), and the pill makes you fat... Of which point i corrected that saying it doesn't... I have been on the pill three years now, and if anything i've lost weight! But she didn't know what to do, if she had the baby, she'd lose pretty much everything, she was finished A-Levels and going to college and all this, and literally had a very life plan ahead, and she's a smart girl, so we advised her to get an abortion because it wouldn't be fair on her to throw her life away and wouldn't be fair on the baby to live a life like that, to know it was a mistake, i'd hate that to be how i was conceived. Overall it wouldn't be a happy life for either of them. She had moments where she thought it was wrong, but like i said to her, the baby isn't even out of your body, it's small, it knows nothing of life yet, and all this stuff about it hurting them... The way i see it, is if we're allowed to chose the right of life for all our animals, why can't we for an unborn baby? If we know we can't give it a life. 
And in fact, it's something i know i will have an abortion if i ever fall pregnant and don't want to be... I'm on the pill and use condoms, so the changes are slim, but that's one thing that me and my boyfriend have discussed, is what's going to happen if it does ever happen. As i'm only 20, i still live at home with my mum, i don't get paid much, he's currently seeking a job, it wouldn't be fair on anyone if i had a baby... 

But making it illegal... That's not fair in my opinion. It would lead to more babies being born, more women living on benefits and getting council homes because they can't afford a life for their new baby themselves basically. It's wrong. And most of these girls and boys who make these mistakes are the stupid ones who think unsafe sex won't cause pregnancy for whatever reason.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> At least we agree on something.
> 
> And I know girls from perfectly good and loving homes who have ended up the same way and boys too. If social services were not so ridiculous about who they allow to adopt, there would not be nearly so many kids in care. Look at the foster parents whose kids were removed because of their politics.


So why do you agree with euthanasia but not abortion?

I also find it odd how many people are for the death penalty but against abortion, considering their argument is often regarding the 'sanctity of life'. But I guess that's another argument altogether.


----------



## sligy (Jul 3, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> At least we agree on something.
> 
> And I know girls from perfectly good and loving homes who have ended up the same way and boys too. If social services were not so ridiculous about who they allow to adopt, there would not be nearly so many kids in care. Look at the foster parents whose kids were removed because of their politics.


Yes there policy's are quite ridicules and yet they still manage to put children in dangerous foster homes time and time again. 
Half of all the under 25's in jail have been in care, that stands for something surly.
Everybody has different stress levels and different levels of coping, some might cope really well, but others not so much, add that to the emotional questions they will have and half the time it will be a recipe for disaster.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Phoolf said:


> So why do you agree with euthanasia but not abortion?
> 
> I also find it odd how many people are for the death penalty but against abortion, considering their argument is often regarding the 'sanctity of life'. But I guess that's another argument altogether.


It has nothing to do with the sanctity of life and everything to do with free choice. A person who has reached the end of their life, who is ill and suffering and not going to recover, should be allowed to choose if they want to die. An unborn child does not have that choice, and it is not ill and dying.

I am not against the death penalty in some cases, but the convicted person has done something horrendous to deserve it, what has an unborn child done except be an inconvenience.

If someone buys a puppy and shortly decides it is too much work, an inconvenience and goes to have it pts, everybody is up in arms about it. But it is ok to have an unborn child pts? Makes no sense to me.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> It has nothing to do with the sanctity of life and everything to do with free choice. A person who has reached the end of their life, who is ill and suffering and not going to recover, should be allowed to choose if they want to die. An unborn child does not have that choice, and it is not ill and dying.
> 
> I am not against the death penalty in some cases, but the convicted person has done something horrendous to deserve it, what has an unborn child done except be an inconvenience.
> 
> If someone buys a puppy and shortly decides it is too much work, an inconvenience and goes to have it pts, everybody is up in arms about it. But it is ok to have an unborn child pts? Makes no sense to me.


The puppy is alive, the unborn child isn't, that's where the sense is. It's like having a mismate jab, something I think we've both advised people to get before.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Phoolf said:


> The puppy is alive, the unborn child isn't, that's where the sense is. It's like having a mismate jab, something I think we've both advised people to get before.


I don't agree that one is alive and one isn't. That is the point isn't it? I believe they are both alive. As to the mismate jab, I am not convinced it is moral, but then I am not happy about unwanted puppies ending up in rescue or pts because of illness or carelessness.

I am not against the morning after pill as it does not destroy a forming pregnancy but stops it from happening, so I understand.


----------



## sligy (Jul 3, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> The puppy is alive, the unborn child isn't, that's where the sense is. It's like having a mismate jab, something I think we've both advised people to get before.


Thats so funny you should use the mismate jab, i am currently searching the forum posts for just that and it amazes me how many people who are anti abortion dont mind the mismate jab.
Wonder what the difference between a puppy and a child is???


----------



## sligy (Jul 3, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> I don't agree that one is alive and one isn't. That is the point isn't it? I believe they are both alive. As to the mismate jab, I am not convinced it is moral, but then I am not happy about unwanted puppies ending up in rescue or pts because of illness or carelessness.
> 
> I am not against the morning after pill as it does not destroy a forming pregnancy but stops it from happening, so I understand.


Whats the difference with a rescue or a foster home??


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> I don't agree that one is alive and one isn't. That is the point isn't it? I believe they are both alive. As to the mismate jab, I am not convinced it is moral, but then I am not happy about unwanted puppies ending up in rescue or pts because of illness or carelessness.
> 
> I am not against the morning after pill as it does not destroy a forming pregnancy but stops it from happening, so I understand.


1. The mismate is often suggested when there could be illnesses to the unborn puppies. With DNA testing advancing we can now tell if someone is predisposed to things like breast cancer, wouldn't you agree that aborting a foetus that is likely to result in having breast cancer is the same as advocating the mismate where genetic tests indicate the resulting puppy would likely suffer ill health? One of the many reasons I do not want children is that depression can run in families, I would not wish my mental illness struggles on any resulting offspring I may or may not have.

2. The MAP can be taken up to 3 days after sex, do you not think the pregnancy has already 'formed' 3 days after conception?


----------



## CavalierOwner (Feb 5, 2012)

I am pro choice, accidents can happen when you are using contraception! Just because *some* people abuse the choice it doesn't mean that *everyone* should have the choice of abortion taken away from them.

As a child/teen I always said that I didn't want children, as I got older (I'm 23) it turned into a "I don't mind either way" I can't say that I feel like I have anything missing from my life without a child BUT If I did accidentally get pregnant (I'm on the pill) I would keep the baby. I know that I would be a good mum if I was to have a child but I'm just not desperate to have one if that makes sense?

I couldn't have an abortion but I would never judge anyone that had or has one, unless they had/have abortions often as a form of birth control.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

sligy said:


> Thats so funny you should use the mismate jab, i am currently searching the forum posts for just that and it amazes me how many people who are anti abortion dont mind the mismate jab.
> Wonder what the difference between a puppy and a child is???


No idea, but then I'm not speciesist like most humans. Call me extreme.


----------



## sligy (Jul 3, 2012)

The most important aspect of terminating a pregnancy is to confirm that there actually is a pregnancy to terminate. With one breeding, the dog has only a 40 percent chance of actually being pregnant. The drugs used to terminate a pregnancy can have significant side effects so confirming a pregnancy is important. Giving a drug unnecessarily can result in serious illness.

Pregnancy can be confirmed after about 20-22 days after breeding. Abdominal palpation and abdominal ultrasound can diagnose the presence of fetuses. At this point, termination can be done appropriately. It is important to confirm pregnancy as early as possible because if the pregnancy is over 40 days along, termination is not recommended due to the potential trauma of expelling live premature babies.

Unfortunately, due to differences in reproduction between humans and dogs, the "morning after" pill has yet to be thoroughly tested and found to be effective in pets.


----------



## Wobbles (Jun 2, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> It has nothing to do with the sanctity of life and everything to do with free choice. A person who has reached the end of their life, who is ill and suffering and not going to recover, should be allowed to choose if they want to die. An unborn child does not have that choice, and it is not ill and dying.
> 
> I am not against the death penalty in some cases, but the convicted person has done something horrendous to deserve it, what has an unborn child done except be an inconvenience.
> 
> If someone buys a puppy and shortly decides it is too much work, an inconvenience and goes to have it pts, everybody is up in arms about it. But it is ok to have an unborn child pts? Makes no sense to me.


Their all different that's why.

I agree with death penalty, as those that would get it would fully deserve it.

I agree with euthanasia, as I watched my Nan get so ill, a shell of her former self, in constant horrendous pain. Had this been my pet, I would of had it put out of its misery, yet they won't do that to a person, so thy have to hang on until the bitter end? Not right IMO.

I am against putting a puppy down because its too much hard work, because it is an actual living breathing existing creature. More so you deliberately went out to buy it so its your responsibility to look after it.

I am not against abortion, because its a bunch of cells, it does not actually exist in front of you, it is not yet real. The puppy is there alive, an actual being, an unborn baby isnt. Unlike the pup you bought, you didn't deliberately ask for this, so you should be allowed the option to get rid if you choose. You should not ever be forced to have a baby you don't want.


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

Wobbles said:


> I generally eat no more than 900-1000 cals a day,less usually.


I'm pretty sure your body goes into starvation mode if you eat fewer than 1200 calories a day, and holds onto whatever it can get. I used the MyFitnessPal app a while back, and it told me off on the few occasions I had fewer than 1200!



MCWillow said:


> I always said I would _never_ have an abortion. But until you are in a position to actually have to think about that possibility, you can't say 'never'.
> Nearly 18 years on, I had to think about it.
> 
> I am really glad I didn't have to make that choice, and also really grateful that I was _allowed _to _have_ a choice.


This is really how I feel, although I'm coming at it from the opposite end to you. A few years ago, I wouldn't have been confident I could be a good mother, so would certainly have considered an abortion. Now, I wouldn't. I considered this when I switched from using an implant and pills to just the implant (Welsh doctors don't like both!) - my cycle changed to 8 weekly, and I'd started getting a bit worried. Realistically, I'm about to graduate from uni, have decent prospects, and am more mature now than I was then, so while it wouldn't have been planned, I could have brought a child up properly, with my OH. I still don't plan to have children for a good few years yet, but if it happened, then I wouldn't get rid of it, as I feel there would be no real reason to.



JAChihuahua said:


> oh dear, I dont think I'm going to make many fans for this but....
> 
> I would like there to be a way for a father to legally object to a pregnancy (where the pregnancy is through, accident, misadventure-alcohol, or ignorance). I also believe that its the womans right to continue the pregnancy or not as she wants, but I do not believe in forcing a dad to become a parent when he has objected to the pregnancy from the beginning.
> 
> ...


As others have said, this definitely has its flaws, but then most laws do. There are many more methods of contraception available for women than men, and in my experience, they are more reliable. The woman can have an abortion without the man's say so, so why should it not go the other way? Obviously he shouldn't be able to force her not to have a child, but I do think he should be allowed to opt out. Not in the sense that some men do now, by just cutting off contact and disappearing, but fully and legally, so he never has anything to do with the child, or is expected to. In an ideal world, this would never happen of course, and everything would be planned and discussed, but accidents happen, and people are stupid or ignorant or careless.
ETA: When both parties have been careless, the ultimate decision does rest with the woman, so I think the above would be fair.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

sligy said:


> Whats the difference with a rescue or a foster home??


If you mean a foster home for a child, that child is not going to be shoved in one cold room with little human contact and put to sleep if a home is not found for it.



Phoolf said:


> 1. The mismate is often suggested when there could be illnesses to the unborn puppies. With DNA testing advancing we can now tell if someone is predisposed to things like breast cancer, wouldn't you agree that aborting a foetus that is likely to result in having breast cancer is the same as advocating the mismate where genetic tests indicate the resulting puppy would likely suffer ill health? One of the many reasons I do not want children is that depression can run in families, I would not wish my mental illness struggles on any resulting offspring I may or may not have.
> 
> 2. The MAP can be taken up to 3 days after sex, do you not think the pregnancy has already 'formed' 3 days after conception?


As to the latter, I have no idea how long it takes to form. Certainly more than three days I believe. As to the former, breast cancer can be cured if caught early enough, especially if one knows there is a strong risk.



Wobbles said:


> Their all different that's why.
> 
> I agree with death penalty, as those that would get it would fully deserve it.
> 
> ...


But you could say you deliberately got pregnant by having sex, especially unprotected sex which is let's face it where the majority of pregnancies come from.

As I have already said, i do not believe that a pregnancy is just a bunch of cells and a baby is a living being whether you can see it or not.

I am now going to ban Goodvic2 for starting this thread which has kept me away from anything else for nearly two days.:dita:


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

newfiesmum said:


> I am now going to ban Goodvic2 for starting this thread which has kept me away from anything else for nearly two days.:dita:


*Dare ya! :devil::lol::lol:*


----------



## sligy (Jul 3, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> If you mean a foster home for a child, that child is not going to be shoved in one cold room with little human contact and put to sleep if a home is not found for it.
> 
> As to the latter, I have no idea how long it takes to form. Certainly more than three days I believe. As to the former, breast cancer can be cured if caught early enough, especially if one knows there is a strong risk.
> 
> ...


No that's true, they wont, or at least that is the plan, it does still go wrong sometimes and children are left in dreadful conditions, and why? because some are only interested in the money they get from fostering. But what happens when they leave school, and end up with no family support and are shoved into the cold to fend for themselves, is that ok?


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

sligy said:


> No that's true, they wont, or at least that is the plan, it does still go wrong sometimes and children are left in dreadful conditions, and why? because some are only interested in the money they get from fostering. But what happens when they leave school, and end up with no family support and are shoved into the cold to fend for themselves, is that ok?


Actually when a foster child reaches 18, they are given a place to live, money and help to find a job. They are not shoved out to fend for themselves, according to a friend of mine who is a foster parent.

Certainly if prisoners get all that when they are released, a foster child get at least the same.


----------



## sligy (Jul 3, 2012)

I have to ask newfies mum, would i be allowed a abortion should i find myself pregnant?. 
I have 2 children one i had when i was very young, and since my last child i have had 2 pregnancy's both planned, those pregnancy have miscarried at nearly 5 months. 
My 4 year old daughter tried to wake me in bed, but she could not wake me, she noticed i had bleed all over the bed. After playing with my mobile in panic to get someone to wake her mum she accidently called my mum, who managed to get me to hospital in time
I had been so tired as i had stayed up with my mums dog who was having puppies that the bleeding didn't wake me, then i lost so much blood i became too hard to wake. 
I am now to scared to ever have a pregnancy again, doctors wont sterilize me as i have 2 children of the same sex so may want to try for a boy and because of my age. I am adamant i don't want anymore but cant afford to go private. I take every precaution to not get pregnant but if i should i would want to have it aborted. 
I was not the only one who suffered from my miscarriage, my children were and my partner. My eldest daughter was so upset she was sent home from school. 
So should for some reason i have a accident would it be right for me to have a abortion, chances are it would die anyway.


----------



## sligy (Jul 3, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> Actually when a foster child reaches 18, they are given a place to live, money and help to find a job. They are not shoved out to fend for themselves, according to a friend of mine who is a foster parent.
> 
> Certainly if prisoners get all that when they are released, a foster child get at least the same.


That lasts for a short time, then there on there own. My friend had no support at all, she got given a room in a shared house with a bit of money to last her a couple of weeks and then dupped to fend for herself.
No wonder she ended up in jail really.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

newfiesmum said:


> Actually when a foster child reaches 18, they are given a place to live, money and help to find a job. They are not shoved out to fend for themselves, according to a friend of mine who is a foster parent.
> 
> Certainly if prisoners get all that when they are released, a foster child get at least the same.


*I know of someone who was in foster care until he was 18 and got the help you have said.
Prisoners i thought didn't get help unless they were " lifers "..I might be wrong though.*


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *I know of someone who was in foster care until he was 18 and got the help you have said.
> Prisoners i thought didn't get help unless they were " lifers "..I might be wrong though.*


No idea about the prisoners - I am going by what I've seen on the telly!


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> No idea about the prisoners - I am going by what I've seen on the telly!


Most prisoners are released with about £46 and no accomodation


----------



## waggy Tailz (Sep 14, 2011)

I do not think abortion should be used as a contraceptive, but if made illegal, it would cause many people to too underground fake Doctors offering this procedure untrained and not hygienic.


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

newfiesmum said:


> I am not against the morning after pill as it does not destroy a forming pregnancy but stops it from happening, so I understand.


I hate to say this but it does.

The main point of the MAP is to stop a pregnancy, but that doesnt always happen. You may find (in my case) you still become pregnant, but then a few weeks in miscarry due to the damage caused by the MAP. We dont know thats why i miscarried, but the Dr told me he thinks thats what happened.

As someone has stated, you can take the MAP 72 hrs after sex. When fertile, you have a 36 hr window to get pregnant, so it can destroy whats already forming.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

WelshOneEmma said:


> I hate to say this but it does.
> 
> The main point of the MAP is to stop a pregnancy, but that doesnt always happen. You may find (in my case) you still become pregnant, but then a few weeks in miscarry due to the damage caused by the MAP. We dont know thats why i miscarried, but the Dr told me he thinks thats what happened.
> 
> As someone has stated, you can take the MAP 72 hrs after sex. When fertile, you have a 36 hr window to get pregnant, so it can destroy whats already forming.


That is what I meant to say. I said forming, when I should have typed formed pregnancy.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

newfiesmum said:


> But that would take us back to the days when a pregnancy out of wedlock was all the girl's fault. *If he had a part in creating the child, he should have a part in paying for it*.


not if he doesnt want it

if a woman doesnt want the baby but a man does he cant make her have it so i dont see why she should be able to make him be a part of it if she wants it and he doesnt


----------



## JAChihuahua (Nov 23, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> not if he doesnt want it
> 
> if a woman doesnt want the baby but a man does he cant make her have it so i dont see why she should be able to make him be a part of it if she wants it and he doesnt


yay you understand what I was trying to say.

In every pregnancy:

A woman has the choice to become a mother or to abort (rightly so, its her body).

A man has no choice whether he becomes a father or not.

Surely there must be a way for him to relinquish ALL rights pertaining to that pregnancy and any resulting offspring - similar to mothers putting baby for adoption? . It shouldnt be an easy thing to do (as abortion, adoption or raising a child is not easy), and he would need to attend court and be counselled about his decision.

Too many fathers "disappear" and dont support their children, but then waltz back into their kids lives (often when dad has matured a bit and has his "own" family - realising what he's missed), messing up a family unit, disrupting and confusing his child. Interferring with how that child is now raised and causing no end of upset. It also complicates mum when in a new relationship, should her new OH want to adopt the child he has invariably raised as his own.

Currently dads so just flake out and disappear, and many do so years after that baby has been born... this isnt about those feckers, its about giving the dads who object from the beginning a way of opting out. I just cant see it being fair that a father has no way of choosing his future when an unplanned pregnancy happens.


----------



## MissShelley (May 9, 2010)

My opinion is from the moment of conception to birth, that baby is developing the vital skills needed to function. At 3 weeks gestation the central nervous system and spinal column are forming. To me that is more than a bunch of cells. 

Babies hearing develops at 20 weeks gestation  By the time they are born they can recognise their Mothers voice and songs played. I can remember playing a particular song to Michael when he was in my tummy, after he was born, the same song would soothe him, which implies babies have recognition and remembering skills. 

Inbetween 7 and 9 months gestation babies can use 4 of their five senses, they are opening and closing their eyelids. 

To me abortion isn't right, but each case should be assessed on it's own merit. Definately lower the gestation age of abortion.... The abortion methods to dispatch a pregnancy later on is horrendous and the procedure itself is unethical. The sooner something is done the better, for the welfare of everyone involved.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

JAChihuahua said:


> I just cant see it being fair that a father has no way of choosing his future when an unplanned pregnancy happens.


I hear where you are coming from - but in the same breathe, as my late father used to say (and he had a point) - there is no such thing as a "surprise pregnancy" - if you have sex, there is a chance of pregnancy, as few methods of contraception are completely infallible - even sterilisation can fail.

=======================

I didn't want children and was horrified when I discovered I was pregnant - her dad OTOH was desperate for a baby - it didn't stop him being an alcoholic violent prat which eventually led to me leaving him for good when my daughter was just 3 weeks old.

I didn't want a penny from him, and it was made clear to me by the powers that be, that any claim for support would be counterclaimed with trying for access (or even custody).

Thankfully, we managed to keep him out of our lives for 19 years (curse you Facebook ) - thankfully it took her just a few weeks to realise what a prat he was - I never felt it was my place to tell her.

On the upside, she now has a very much loved half brother and sister and now also a niece who she adores.


----------



## JAChihuahua (Nov 23, 2012)

swarthy said:


> I hear where you are coming from - but in the same breathe, as my late father used to say (and he had a point) - there is no such thing as a "surprise pregnancy" - if you have sex, there is a chance of pregnancy, as few methods of contraception are completely infallible - even sterilisation can fail.
> 
> =======================
> 
> ...


some men really are cnuts!


----------



## RockRomantic (Apr 29, 2009)

Haven't read all the replies on this, thought i'd put my 2 cents in and then read them all, 

I find out i was pregnant just after my GCSE's, just before my 16th birthday, i kept a secret until after my 16th then due to severe stomach pains (doctors worried it was ectopic) after telling them i didn't want anything sending to my address they sent a letter, which my mum opened. I'd just turned 16, and i didn't see the father for dust, due to medical conditions (which i didn't fully understand at that point) which meant there was a high possibility of the baby having severe disability or disfigurement, I had a termination. I still feel like rubbish over it and was angry and confuse over it many years later. Looking back I made the right choice, in the waiting room on the very first appointment when i had to see there counsellor and go through things there was a form and one of the questions was 'have you had an abortion previously' a girl was going through it with another woman i assume friend, could have been a family member, she looked young and she commented 'do you reckon i should tell them i've had 2 already' 

I don't think abortions should be made illegal at all, that leaves girls who would be vulnerable to go to back street abortionists, risking there own health and lives probably,or harming themselves in some way to lose a baby. I really dislike people who seem to think they don't have to use any form of contraception cause they can just have an abortion, accidents happen however (some are questionable) but still they happen. It should all be down to the individual circumstance

Also to B3rnie who said this 'Too many women think an abortion is an easy fix, but I can tell you it isn't easy to fix the mental scars which WILL come back to haunt you one day.' you are very very right


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

RockRomantic said:


> Haven't read all the replies on this, thought i'd put my 2 cents in and then read them all,
> 
> I find out i was pregnant just after my GCSE's, just before my 16th birthday, i kept a secret until after my 16th then due to severe stomach pains (doctors worried it was ectopic) after telling them i didn't want anything sending to my address they sent a letter, which my mum opened. I'd just turned 16, and i didn't see the father for dust, due to medical conditions (which i didn't fully understand at that point) which meant there was a high possibility of the baby having severe disability or disfigurement, I had a termination. I still feel like rubbish over it and was angry and confuse over it many years later. Looking back I made the right choice, in the waiting room on the very first appointment when i had to see there counsellor and go through things there was a form and one of the questions was 'have you had an abortion previously' a girl was going through it with another woman i assume friend, could have been a family member, she looked young and she commented 'do you reckon i should tell them i've had 2 already'
> 
> ...


I think you are a very brave person.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

swarthy said:


> I hear where you are coming from - but in the same breathe, as my late father used to say (and he had a point) - there is no such thing as a "surprise pregnancy" - if you have sex, there is a chance of pregnancy, as few methods of contraception are completely infallible - even sterilisation can fail.
> 
> =======================
> 
> ...


You could be telling the story of my daughter and her baby. The only difference is that I managed to prise her away from the b**tard before the child was born.

He was never told what an absolute waste of space his father was, although it was very difficult for me not to say something, and he had a photograph of him so when the lowlife showed up outside his school when he was 15 he knew exactly who it was.

Didn't take him long to figure him out either.

Unfortunately with men like that, it is too late to abort them!:ihih:



RockRomantic said:


> Haven't read all the replies on this, thought i'd put my 2 cents in and then read them all,
> 
> I find out i was pregnant just after my GCSE's, just before my 16th birthday, i kept a secret until after my 16th then due to severe stomach pains (doctors worried it was ectopic) after telling them i didn't want anything sending to my address they sent a letter, which my mum opened. I'd just turned 16, and i didn't see the father for dust, due to medical conditions (which i didn't fully understand at that point) which meant there was a high possibility of the baby having severe disability or disfigurement, I had a termination. I still feel like rubbish over it and was angry and confuse over it many years later. Looking back I made the right choice, in the waiting room on the very first appointment when i had to see there counsellor and go through things there was a form and one of the questions was 'have you had an abortion previously' a girl was going through it with another woman i assume friend, could have been a family member, she looked young and she commented 'do you reckon i should tell them i've had 2 already'
> 
> ...


I don't think you need to feel bad given the circumstances. I am not a believer in abortion unless there are extenuating circumstances like yours, but to be honest I am more shocked that your mother opened a letter addressed to you! I would never have done that.


----------



## K9Steve (Oct 5, 2012)

I think it should be legal in cases of incest or some terminal disease or other terminal health problems that effect mother and unborn child. Rape victims, on the other hand, could put their child up for adoption; otherwise, what did the child do wrong?

Where I can see it being "illegal" is if it is used as some sort of "birth control", and to that I say, "Ladies, keeps your legs together and say 'NO!"


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

K9Steve said:


> Rape victims, on the other hand, could put their child up for adoption; otherwise, what did the child do wrong?
> 
> Where I can see it being "illegal" is if it is used as some sort of "birth control", and to that I say, "Ladies, keeps your legs together and say 'NO!"


Seriously? Can you imagine having to carry the offspring of a rapist for nine months, and then giving birth to it? I don't doubt some women do; I certainly couldn't. And how about the effects on the child if they trace their parents when they are older, knowing they were the result of such an evil act?

Also, it really isn't practical to assume that telling men and women to, 'Just say no!' and making abortion illegal will reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies. Rather, it would just give women no option other than to turn to back street abortionists, try to abort the foetus themselves, or have to have a child they don't want. It's all very well making idealistic rules, but this isn't an ideal world.


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2012)

RockRomantic said:


> Haven't read all the replies on this, thought i'd put my 2 cents in and then read them all,
> 
> I find out i was pregnant just after my GCSE's, just before my 16th birthday, i kept a secret until after my 16th then due to severe stomach pains (doctors worried it was ectopic) after telling them i didn't want anything sending to my address they sent a letter, which my mum opened. I'd just turned 16, and i didn't see the father for dust, due to medical conditions (which i didn't fully understand at that point) which meant there was a high possibility of the baby having severe disability or disfigurement, I had a termination. I still feel like rubbish over it and was angry and confuse over it many years later. Looking back I made the right choice, in the waiting room on the very first appointment when i had to see there counsellor and go through things there was a form and one of the questions was 'have you had an abortion previously' a girl was going through it with another woman i assume friend, could have been a family member, she looked young and she commented 'do you reckon i should tell them i've had 2 already'
> 
> ...


I am so, so sorry that you had to go through all that. No one could ever blame you for what went through at such a young age. It is reasons like yours that makes me pro choice.
I just wish more girls took notice about the scars that abortions leave, but then saying that I doubt the serial abortioners will care until it hits them square in the face :001_unsure:

I really don't think that abortions should be as easy as they are, I don't mean make it so hard that it stops woman having the choice. But a lot more questions should be asked to the serial offenders, rather than just the usual eye roll they get now.
I'm almost of the opinion that serial offenders should be made to take up counseling to try to get to the route cause of all the pregnancies, I don't know how that would work in the real world... but I can dream lol

I also really think the SOMETHING needs to be done about all the early starters when it comes to sex, where I grew up you didn't get 13, 14, 15 year olds having sex in fact the youngest from my school was 17. There are far too many young girls jumping into sex without realising the full consequences and I have no idea how to change that, but I feel it needs to be addressed,,,


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Megan345 said:


> Seriously? Can you imagine having to carry the offspring of a rapist for nine months, and then giving birth to it? I don't doubt some women do; I certainly couldn't. And how about the effects on the child if they trace their parents when they are older, knowing they were the result of such an evil act?
> 
> Also, it really isn't practical to assume that telling men and women to, 'Just say no!' and making abortion illegal will reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies. Rather, it would just give women no option other than to turn to back street abortionists, try to abort the foetus themselves, or have to have a child they don't want. It's all very well making idealistic rules, but this isn't an ideal world.


Totally agree - it is hard enough when the child meets their father who their mother had a willing relationship with and discovers he's a pillock never mind discovering their father was a rapist - that could seriously emotionally scar someone for life.

Kids who don't have contact with their fathers whilst growing up can develop all sorts of insecurities about themselves whilst simultaneously putting the absent father on a pedestal they don't deserve.

Although I still believe more damage can be done by telling the child how their father was - this is something unfortunately they have to learn for themselves.

For us as a family, my daughter meeting her father was the best thing that ever happened to us, because it made her realise what a good man her step-father was - she gave him hell when she was younger, a lot of lesser men would have walked away.



Megan345 said:


> Also, it really isn't practical to assume that telling men and women to, 'Just say no!' and making abortion illegal will reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies. Rather, it would just give women no option other than to turn to back street abortionists, try to abort the foetus themselves, or have to have a child they don't want. It's all very well making idealistic rules, but this isn't an ideal world.


Of course it would, it would push women into the same desperate measures so many took before abortion became legal - using back street abortionists and old wives tales to try and abort their babies - leaving many women physically and emotionally damaged - and a fair number of them dead 

For many of those who went on to have their children, and not fortunate enough to have family support or to be able to make a life for themselves / give their child up for adoption - they ended up in mental institutions WITH their babies.

*God forbid we go back to those "good old days" NOT *

I've alluded to this in my other posts, but I don't think for one minute there has been exponential growth in sex before marriage and unplanned pregnancies - it's just that these days it is more acceptable for a mother to raise a child alone and not for the child to be given to the grandparents and raised as theirs. In the "good ole days" those women who were able to, used to change their name to "Mrs", move away and tell everyone their husband had died.

In our case, my daughter had an unusual, but very loving upbringing, first with me and my parents, then my partner, me, my parents and (which may surprise some) my partners ex-wife who treats her as the daughter she never had.

She is very close to her step brother and his half brother - and now to her own half brother and sister and her niece and their mother.

I also get on well with the kids and their mother and used to go on holiday with my partners ex-wife.

It's not a usual situation - but it is one that has worked for us and led to a hugely extended and very loving family.

==============

It may surprise some to know I didn't tell my parents I was pregnant until I was 8 months gone - they weren't aware I was in a violent relationship until my daughter was about 8 months old (I lived 200 miles away from them until my daughter was 3 weeks old when I left her dad).

I was VERY lucky I had friends to talk to who supported me, but I don't think even now I could put into words the depths of isolation and desperation I felt - I didn't want a baby - I knew my parents had very strict views on sex outside marriage - it was a truly horrific time that coupled with the relationship I was in, I am sure contributed to the fact that both my daughter and I nearly died during her birth

For the first couple of hours, all they could tell me was "she was a nice pink colour" - I know she wasn't breathing at birth having been strangled by the cord - she spent the first 6 days of her life on a ventilator in an incubator, then when she was 10 days old, I was rushed back in for emergency surgery as they had badly screwed up the birth 

The so called "experts" told me that if my daughter lived, she would amount to nothing. She is now a beautiful intelligent 24 year old young woman with a sound career and is an excellent nurse - what would have happened if I had listened to these so called experts?

My parents pushed aside their own values and supported me - but it wasn't easy at times, if it hadn't been for them when I transcended into a post-partum psychoses, I don't know what might have happened.

I was in my very early 20's when I fell pregnant - so I can only begin to imagine how desperate some young girls must feel when they have no-one to turn to, and frequently, their fellow teenage friends won't be mature enough to support them.

If the right to abortion is taken away from them (and yes, I agree it shouldn't be used as a form of contraception) - but nevertheless - there MUST be a safety net there otherwise we will ultimately see far more young mothers and babies abandoned and dying through sheer desperation.


----------



## RockRomantic (Apr 29, 2009)

WelshOneEmma said:


> I think you are a very brave person.


Brave isn't the word I'd use lol but thank you x



newfiesmum said:


> You could be telling the story of my daughter and her baby. The only difference is that I managed to prise her away from the b**tard before the child was born.
> 
> He was never told what an absolute waste of space his father was, although it was very difficult for me not to say something, and he had a photograph of him so when the lowlife showed up outside his school when he was 15 he knew exactly who it was.
> 
> ...


I always thought due to medical conditions and being in and out of hospital she opened it thinking it was regarding an operation I was due on my jaw, but the other month she called me and said a letterhad arrived at her house (my old address) did I want her to drop it of then said shed opened it and told me what the letter said, I'm 24!


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

RockRomantic said:


> Brave isn't the word I'd use lol but thank you x
> 
> I always thought due to medical conditions and being in and out of hospital she opened it thinking it was regarding an operation I was due on my jaw, but the other month she called me and said a letterhad arrived at her house (my old address) did I want her to drop it of then said shed opened it and told me what the letter said, I'm 24!


I wouldn't have that! I wonder how she would feel if you started opening her letters? Perhaps you should ask her.


----------



## piglet2003 (Jan 21, 2012)

I am on the fence on this one. I have had numerous miscarriages I was lucky in the end to have two wonderful children and then after due to health reason was told no more as two dangerous for my health. Anyway years down the line and after having a dexter scan it was found out that i was pregnant due to medicians i take i was sent up to London for a detailed scan and was told the baby was downs and they offered me an abortion. After seeing the baby on the scan i couldn't have an abortion. After emegerncy c section and me ending up in intensive care due to complications my baby didn't have downs so medics can get it wrong.


----------



## Grace_Lily (Nov 28, 2010)

K9Steve said:


> I think it should be legal in cases of incest or some terminal disease or other terminal health problems that effect mother and unborn child. *Rape victims, on the other hand, could put their child up for adoption; otherwise, what did the child do wrong?*
> 
> Where I can see it being "illegal" is if it is used as some sort of "birth control", and to that I say, "Ladies, keeps your legs together and say 'NO!"


As a victim of rape myself, I can't imagine ever being able to bear a child that was the result of an attack. Thank God I didn't find myself pregnant, the morning after pill (which I don't see as an abortion) was offered to me as part of the examination.

You say what did the child do wrong, what did the woman do wrong to experience rape? The psychological impact of rape cannot be put into words. I wanted my life to be over as it was, let alone having to deal with an added trauma of carrying a child as a result of the attack. Also, up until a certain point it isn't a child at all, simply a clump of cells. The health and well-being of a human being should always come before a clump of cells that has the potential to become a child.

With regards to your last point, last time I checked it took two people to have sex and make a baby. Birth control is not just the responsibility of the woman.


----------



## oggers86 (Nov 14, 2011)

It is all very well for people to say "just say no" but what about those in long term relationships/marriages? Should they completely abstain "just in case"? Or is this aimed at the people who have sex without giving any thought to contraceptives because abortion will take care of it?

I believe the majority of cases of accidental pregnancies can be prevented by using contraceptives properly but you will always get those who dont care so preaching to them isnt going to do any good. Hopefully though, for those that do care, it can give them a jolt to see that these things can and do happen so they need to continue to use their contraceptives properly so perhaps we can learn something from these situations.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Better a child is not born at all than born to a parent and suffer neglect or abuse. I think abortions should be carried out as quickly as possible because having seen a fourteen week old foetus recently it is virtually fully formed, fingernails, tiny fingers and toes and quite heartbreaking. Aside from debilitating malformation I don't think our current legal abortion limit is humane and am concerned the foetus may feel pain in some way. 

I thought I was tough but seeing that little human in a tiny 'crib' covered with a pretty blanket was very sad, even more sad was the parents didn't even want to see it to say goodbye. A little life lost through no fault of its own and not any grief shown to it. 

I definitely agree with abortion but I wish a little compassion could be shown to the life taken, often through careless or no birth control. So many people use abortion as a form of birth control and to me that's just not right. I had a baby I didn't plan, was going to split from my husband had it not happened but no way could I take her life and so very glad I didn't as she means the world to me now. I personally could not snuff out the life of a child of mine, whether a foetus or simply a bunch of cells but that's just my personal choice. I cannot judge other peoples reasons as I know some cases are very genuine but I just wish people didn't take it as flippantly as I have seen some do.


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

> my baby didn't have downs so medics can get it wrong.


I'm so glad that your baby doesn't have Down's Syndrome and that you both survived what must have been a terrible ordeal, Piglet2003.

Surely you were told that the scan is NOT 100% accurate? That wasn't a mistake by medics just the limitations of the testing method. The only accurate tests for Down's are through cvs and amniocentesis.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

piglet2003 said:


> I am on the fence on this one. I have had numerous miscarriages I was lucky in the end to have two wonderful children and then after due to health reason was told no more as two dangerous for my health. Anyway years down the line and after having a dexter scan it was found out that i was pregnant due to medicians i take i was sent up to London for a detailed scan and was told the baby was downs and they offered me an abortion. After seeing the baby on the scan i couldn't have an abortion. After emegerncy c section and me ending up in intensive care due to complications my baby didn't have downs so medics can get it wrong.


I have heard of so many of these downs tests being wrong, and recently too. Personally i dont think they should be offered unless they do the one that is 100% but then you have the increased risks of miscarriage along with that.
y midwives always questioned why i refused to have them done..to me they are not worth the worry because they are not accurate and also i would love whatever that little person no matter what condition they had.

My OH's cousins friend opted to terminate after having a positive downs test and was so late on she had to give birth..she gave birth to what would have been a perfectly healthy baby, such a sad shame.


----------



## JAChihuahua (Nov 23, 2012)

The nuchal screening and 20 week scans are there not only to check for things like downs but any other anomoly. The same markers which could point to downs can also point to other anomolies (edwards, pataus, spina bifida occulta to name 3). Its important to remember that they are Markers, they are NOT (and should never be used as) a diagnosis. Obviously scans are there to look for other potential problems too, such as heart, lung, hernia, gastroschesis, facial clefts (not limited to cleft lip and palate), growth deficiencies, amniotic band syndrome, haematomas, placental problems, umbilical problems... the list goes on and on and on.

Diagnosis is only possible with ivasive procedures CVS and amniocentesis, and this is only for genetic anomolies, physical anomolies cannot be detected with these.

There is a part of me which admires a parent who refuses tests for the "markers", but personally a scan is looking for so much more than downs, and if they detect an illness which could be treated at birth, I would want that scan. Sometimes knowledge isnt a bad thing, it can save a babies life. My neice was born with hypoplastic-left-heart syndrome, and this was detected on the scan. It meant she was on the operating table within 24 hours of birth, her birth was micromanaged and treatment was there in the delivery room when she needed it. Without that scan, the doctors would not have been prepared for her birth and the outcome may have been (probably would have been) very different. She has since had a heart transplant and is doing extreemly well - although she is a spoilt brat lol.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

comfortcreature said:


> My son read that story and presented it to me. It has been reported in a sensationalized manner without facts (what is new?).
> 
> The death of the mother was from a blood infection. The circumstances in which she was told not to abort were the same that I know of in 5 circumstances in which family members, miscarrying, were told it was safer to allow the miscarriage than to abort.
> 
> ...


Thought I'd add as there has been updates to this story and it seems there was some muddling and unwarranted hype with there being doubt surrounding whether there even was a request for an abortion.



> "Kitty Holland, the Irish Times reporter who broke the story about the death of Savita Halappanavar that launched a global crusade against Ireland's pro-life laws, has admitted that the story of Mrs. Halappanavar asking for an abortion may have been a little bit "muddled" in the retelling, and there may have been no such request after all."- LifeSiteNews Mobile | Reporter who broke Savita story admits: there may have been no request for a 'termination'


CC


----------

