Abortion

[JoC]

I absolutely do not accept the argument that abortion is 'OK' for a rape victim, but not for someone else. If a baby is an innocent life, that has a right to life, then that right is absolute, regardless of any wishes of the woman, or how it came to be conceived. How can it be OK to abort that baby, but not one that was just the result of contraception failure or even just carelessness? No matter how vicious or disturbing it's conception, it's not the baby's fault. The only 'logic' I can see behind it is basically mysogyny. A woman's emotional distress is recognised after a rape because she is 'innocent' too, but other women's distress is somehow less valid or relevant, after all there is a long social history of women being 'punished' for having sex.

 

I never thought of that before, good point

[staffymonkey]

Aside from population control, I would still be in favour of abortion being legal. I absolutely do not accept the argument that abortion is 'OK' for a rape victim, but not for someone else. If a baby is an innocent life, that has a right to life, then that right is absolute, regardless of any wishes of the woman, or how it came to be conceived. How can it be OK to abort that baby, but not one that was just the result of contraception failure or even just carelessness? No matter how vicious or disturbing it's conception, it's not the baby's fault. The only 'logic' I can see behind it is basically mysogyny. A woman's emotional distress is recognised after a rape because she is 'innocent' too, but other women's distress is somehow less valid or relevant, after all there is a long social history of women being 'punished' for having sex.

 

In my opinion, very well said.

 

Kazz -

[phoebejo]

I know there are exceptions, but at 24 weeks a baby is still unlikely to survive, but is at that point labelled "viable"

 

Not having a go Kathy, but that statement is untrue. Babies born at 24 weeks are more likely to survive than not.

 

An electronic paper published in the journal Pediatrics last year reported that 66% and 81% of those infants born at 23 and 24 weeks of gestation respectively survived to be discharged home

 

That was a quote from this site: Christian Medical Fellowship

[scotslass]

I tried to google the answer to my next question but could not actually find the answer

does any one know if the number of baby's placed for adoption has fallen since abortion was legalised in the UK

 

Here is some info from the National Statistics office - if you google "government statistics" it should show up.

 

"A longer-term trend is available from the number of entries in the Adopted Children Register. Based on date of entry in the Register, there were 21,495 adoptions in England and Wales in 1971. The number fell rapidly during the 1970s and steadily over the 1980s and 1990s.

 

The rapid decline in the number of children available for adoption followed the introduction of legal abortion in the Abortion Act 1967 and the implementation of the Children Act 1975. This latter act required courts dealing with adoption applications for children of divorced parents to dismiss applications for adoption where a legal custody order was in the child’s best interests.

 

The increased use of contraception and change in attitudes to lone parents also contributed to the long-term fall. "

 

As far as I recall from the site, there are only around 5 thousand adoptions now.

 

Liz.

[KathyM]

Not having a go Kathy, but that statement is untrue. Babies born at 24 weeks are more likely to survive than not.

 

24 weeks is the point at which a foetus becomes "viable" as I said. Being more likely to survive than not is saying that a baby has a better than 50:50 chance of survival, that's not a "good" chance in my books. My son was born at 36 weeks and 5 days, that's 3 months after the above "viable" stage, and was classed as "premature", had a collapsed lung, hole in the heart (very common in prems) and RDS and was in special care for some time. He also had to have light therapy for jaundice, and another 2 weeks in hospital for premature related illness soon after he came home when he nearly died. He couldn't even suck and had to be tubefed. He has had long term blood sugar disorder that has nearly killed him on numerous occasions. He is dyslexic and under observation/assessment for ADSs, most likely the professionals believe because of oxygen starvation at birth.

 

I don't think anyone can say that just because a baby is possibly able to survive at 24 weeks means that it has a good chance. It has a good chance of brain trauma from lack of oxygen, liver failure, stroke and just about every other ailment linked to being premature, and then as an older child, a high chance of autistic spectrum disorders, ADHD, dyslexia, etc etc etc.

 

Yes a baby born at 24 weeks are likely to survive physically. And then they're likely to go on to suffer long term physical and educational problems.

 

I know that noone's saying these baies would be born at 24 weeks - they'd most likely and certainly nearly all go on to full term and be born "normally" with few complications.

 

But if the guidelines are going to go on how young a foetus can survive, then surely all this plays a part in that decision? It's certainly not natural for babies to survive that are born at that "cut off" point.

 

God I've waffled! sorry

[elricc]

I think I have complex (to me) views on this. While not wanting to take away anybodies choice I am Pro life. I can't envision a reason to kill a baby, to take a life. Looking at the PETA thread about supporting extremists who act violently, I would class the removal and termination of a life in the same way.

I have had to take my mum (twice) and my sister to the abortion clinic and know how harrowing it is to everyone involved.

I cannot understand why we feel we have the right to take a life, hearing people say it didn't fit into their lifestyle at the time etc. I really don't understand it.

However, I still believe that before 12 weeks it should be on demand for those who can/need to make that choice.

[KathyM]

I don't know if things have changed since I had Connie, but aren't some of the important tests only available after a certain gestation? I thought the amnios were done at about 20 weeks, but it might have changed.

[Gemstone]

Ok its a bit late, I know, but I am for the choice. I had an abortion when I was 16. My parents were unaware as I went through Leamington family planning clinic. Please dont judge me. I was too young to bring up a child. I was an apprentice hairdresser on £27.50 a week. How could I have given a child a good upbringing. I was a baby myself.

 

I don't regret the decision, but, my daughter knows. I was honest with her from when she was old enough to understand. 12 years old when I told her the truth. We were talking about unwanted pregnancies etc. I won't lie to my flesh and blood. Although my Mum went to her grave not knowing. Not even my Dad knows. My daughter knows, Dave my OH knows and my ex hubby.

 

Ok slate me tomorrow, but it was the right thing to do at the time. I will understand if I get ignored tomorrow but I feel that I should be honest here and hope I'm not judged.

 

Kazz xx

 

 

Kazz Just because I am pro life, I would never feel it my place to judge you or others

[wickychoo]

I don't know if things have changed since I had Connie, but aren't some of the important tests only available after a certain gestation? I thought the amnios were done at about 20 weeks, but it might have changed.

 

My sister's only just had the spina bifida test and she's 16 weeks gone. She went private for Nuchal Transparency (sp?) and other tests for Down's as she couldn't wait for the regular amnio, that was all prior to 12 weeks, but it cost her £400-odd.

[scotslass]

I don't think I could ever rule out abortion altogether - each case is different. BUT...while most of us (on here) may not fit into the category, there are undoubtedly women who regard early abortion as a minor op to remove a problem, on a par with having a mole removed. I'd like to think that women contemplating abortion know exactly what's involved; for the foetus and for the medical staff. A foetus aborted at 20-odd weeks for example may well be delivered alive. Who has to take responsibility for its death? Not the mother. She may have set in motion the actions which cause its death, but she won't actually be the one doing the killing.

 

Note that I am not talking about a grossly deformed foetus with no chance of an independent existence, even if allowed to mature to full term; I am talking about a healthy foetus which just isn't wanted, for whatever reason. There are those who say that even those terribly damaged babies have rights to life, of course.

 

May I say that I have nothing but sympathy for anyone who's had to make such a decision. I have had miscarriages and the trauma and after-effects of those was harrowing enough.

 

Liz.

[KathyM]

My sister's only just had the spina bifida test and she's 16 weeks gone. She went private for Nuchal Transparency (sp?) and other tests for Down's as she couldn't wait for the regular amnio, that was all prior to 12 weeks, but it cost her £400-odd.

 

 

Thanks. Yeah I had the nuchal transluscency as part of a trial, and that was part of my 12 or 13 week scan if I remember rightly but like I said it was a trial so I didn't know if that was the "norm". When I had Connie the amniocentesis or the other test I can't remember the name of, was done at 20 weeks because of the risk of miscarriage (I assume it's safer the later on you are, but dunno).

[staffymad]

Firstly Kazz I am pro choice for various reasons. I am a rape victim and when it happened the first thing I was thinking was 'Oh my god what if I am pregnant'. Lucky I wasn't however if I would have been I can say 100% I would have had a abortion.

 

I think one thing people should really look into when they say 'Pro Choice' do they only mean its the woman's right? I personally think the father (if known) should have as much right as the mother to say Yes or No to a abortion. What if the father says No but the mother say Yes, I know legally the woman can go ahead but is this right?

 

Cindy

[sproggie14]

for Kazz and Cindy and any other fugees for whom this thread may bring back some dificult memories

[wickychoo]

Thanks. Yeah I had the nuchal transluscency as part of a trial, and that was part of my 12 or 13 week scan if I remember rightly but like I said it was a trial so I didn't know if that was the "norm".

 

No probs, I knew it was nuchal trans-something

[KathyM]

You know, I didn't even notice until you just posted!