Home› Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options

question about anti-abortionists

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
in Politics & Debate
I was just wondering, anti-abortionists who say that abortions are against nature so its wrong ect....does that mean they're against IVF treatment, especially for post-menopausal women? Because it's un-natural conceiving? Or is it just killing babies that they don't like?

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    so for some its about going against nature, and for some its killing babies?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ballerina wrote:
    so for some its about going against nature, and for some its killing babies?
    yes, like sophia said, theres no collective reason that all pro-choicers or anti abortioners have. Everyone has their own reasons for their beliefs.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Many pro-'lifers' are against IVF because of the number of embryos it creates and destroys. Others believe you shouldn't be having children unless in the perfect 'natural' circumstances, they're normally the ones against contraception.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    IVF is and should always be a personal choice up to the individuals involved but it should not be funded by the NHS.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Disillusioned wrote:
    IVF is and should always be a personal choice up to the individuals involved but it should not be funded by the NHS.

    Why not, we will abort a foetus...?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Man Of Kent wrote:
    Why not, we will abort a foetus...?

    Yep killing babies is supported by the NHS but helping people who want some having one shouldn't... :yeees:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    When has the NHS ever supported killing a baby? :confused:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    When has the NHS ever supported killing a baby? :confused:

    Well NHS does provide abortion innit...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What does abortion got to do with killing babies?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    What does abortion got to do with killing babies?

    Depends at what level you consider a baby a baby... I think that's why you don't get me here... I assume for you a baby is a baby when it is born only... When for me it is before.... And ok maybe it's not killing, it's termination which is basically the same... All I am saying is that if abortion is supported by the NHS I don't see why IVF shouldn't...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If there was enough money around I wouldn't see a problem with it. There is always the problem of what should take precedence over what though.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why should abortion pass before IVF tho?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Because it is a lot more important and grave.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How come? If you had told me because it would cost more to the country to have all those babies and pay for them I would have seen your point, but what is grave and important on having a baby... If you don't want a baby abortion is not the only solution... And most of the time you need abortion because you did a mistake... And most of people having an abortion will have/want children later... When people needing IVF might never have kids on their own if they can get it through NHS...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Having an unwated baby is a life changing, extremely serious situation. There are not 'maybes' or 'possibilities'. You are suddenly faced with the issue of having a baby or not.

    IVF treatment is nothing of the sort. At the most, it allows a woman the chance to have a treatment that one day might just lead to pregancy.

    As I said, if we can afford both that's fine by me. But if someone suggests whether we should have to choose between the two, the choice is clear.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well I see and understand your point, also I don't think abortion should come first, but I am pro-life and against abortion unless it is a case of health issue, rape victims and such, so don't really want to get going about that cos we will never agree as our beliefs are different on it, I think it's quite clear already at this point, so might as well agree to disagree now :)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hope you don't mind me adding to this but I wanted to extend Aladdin's point.

    No access to safe, legal abortion maims, injures and kills women around the world, even today. About 200 women a day the WHO predicts. For those who can afford to pay over £500 for MVA under 14 weeks gestation, they can go privately. For those who can't, some are lucky to wait about 2 weeks for a referral. Others aren't. I have heard stories from women who have waited up to 13 weeks between seeing their GP and having the abortion on the NHS. So the system is by no means perfect for them, but it's necessary as they wouldn't have been able to afford the funds either way. If you look to Northern Ireland, a lot of women who can't afford to cross the channel are forced to continue pregnancies they don't want, if they haven't already attempted to do something dangerous themselves. I wouldn't wish an unwanted pregnancy on anyone.

    Now, this is obviously a very sensitive subject, but while the journey to having a baby can be painful, frustrating, expensive etc, it's not a situation where every day that goes by is a day closer to a 'legal limit' as such. It's not a situation where someone may do very dangerous things to themselves to have control of their bodies back. 200 women are dying a day because they have no choice, it may be crass of me to say (and I'm not expecting an answer to this), but how many people die a day because of no access to aided fertility provisions. Relationships may crumble, certainly, but I don't see it as a life/death issue.

    Terminating an unwanted pregnancy guarentees the end of pregnancy. IVF is not certain, is very expensive and has variable failure rates. I'm not saying it should be charged for on the NHS, but abortion care is a whole different issue, and needs to take precidence, because the system at the moment needs vast improvement to those who have no choice but to use the NHS. I think it's important to separate the issue of abortion with assisted conception, because it breeds a lot of negative feelings to those who terminate pregnancies for very valid reasons. Of course it's unfair, life is unfair, but it's not their fault that others might need help along the way.

    In a perfect world, I'd happily see couples having access to both TOP provisions and assisted conception provisions without money being an issue.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm sure that few women would agree J.

    Although TBH with that kind of thinking I'd be surprised if your woman would get far enough away from the sink inorder to concieve in the first place...!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But then I believe woman should give birth at home etc, everything natural as nature intended. No drugs pain killers etc.

    And in the 'unnatural' event of shoulder dystocia/meconium aspiration/cord prolapse?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    but unless you've actually given birth yourself, you don't really know what the right environment is
    some women want to do it natural, some want to be on as much painkillers as possible. I don't see how a natural birth makes it any better...as long as the baby is delivered safely and is well - what does it matter?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think that the use of labels such as "pro-life" and "anti-abortionist" is very demeaning. It simplifies the debate of some extremely important issues (such as those mentioned throughout the thread) to nothing more than the level of playground name-calling.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What would you prefer then? A lot of people who are anti-abortion aren't what you'd call 'consistently pro-life' because they may support the death penalty, or animal testing etc.

    I think specifically to abortion, 'pro-life' is one of the biggest misnomers out there, I'd be happy to see it change.
Sign In or Register to comment.