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.

baby's rights versus women's rights..

123468

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, pregnancy is much harder than that for most people. 90% of people suffer sickness for the first few months and some for the entire 40 weeks which is bad enough (it really is - 3 or 4 months of constant nausea isnt easy), some to the extent where they cant even keep fluids down and have to be admitted to hospital to be kept on a drip. My cousin had this (hyperemesis gravidarium) with both pregnancies, and a friend of mine also had it recently and was so ill, apparently she even considered terminating because she felt she just couldnt cope anymore. Its not that uncommon, nor is pubis symphysis, incredible pelvic pain throughout pregnancy where the pubic bone starts to seperate. I know several people who this has happened to, one ended up in a wheelchair for the last few months, and one it didnt go away after the birth. I know someone else who tore vagina to anus in childbirth.
    People sometimes think that pregnancy and childbirth is just a walk in the park. Get pregnant - no worries, breeze along, get a bit fat, out pops baby, and if you dont fancy it, just give it to someone else.

    Im afraid it doesnt work like that.

    Relax, my sisters have been through it, I know it's not as simple as I made out. I was just trying for some thought provoking thingy....whatever.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    go_away wrote:
    It really depends on the circumstances. Some women I've seen are in what are outwardly happy relationships, but only stay because of existing children, and accidentally fall pregnant. Or their relationships are violent, and they're in the process of going into refuges for women. One lady didn't tell her boyfriend because his previous partner had a termination, which destroyed him, and she didn't want to put him through that again. And sometimes, humans being human, the woman might not know if the partner is the person who fathered the pregnancy. I could go on, but there wouldn't be enough room on here, because day in, day out, it really varies.
    yeah. It's still a shame though, all those situations. They make me sad.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah, they are sometimes, and in an ideal situation, they wouldn't have to deal with an unintended pregnancy to add to it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    yeah. It's still a shame though, all those situations. They make me sad.

    Oh definitely.

    In an ideal world a woman would only get pregnant when both people wanted it and were in a position to look after it. But the world isn't ideal, and sometimes termination is the better choice, for woman and baby alike.

    Even adoption isn't a way of removing all responsibility from a child, because these days adopted kids have a habit of turning up on your doorstep 15 years later wondering why mummy didn't want them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sofie wrote:
    I am trying to do that, but all I get from you lot is more questions or criticism.

    Possibly because you don't seem to read what people actually write, and you keep raising the "so you'd be happy to tell them their father was a rapist" comment. It's isn't about that.

    You argued that there were three exclusion to your anti-abortion stance. Rape, woman's health, child's health. What has been pointed out to you is that in each ofthose cases the mother is making a choice driven by the starting point of not wanting the baby, for the exclusions you mention.

    Fundamentally therefore the abortion is based on "not wanting" the baby.

    The question which has been asked of you, as a result, is how "not wanting" because of rape is morally any different from "not wanting" for any other reason - whether that is choice or cicumstance.

    If you are funamentally opposed to choice, then it matters not what the woman's justification is and therefore your exclusions become null and void.

    If you have exclusions then you are accepting that a woman should have choice.

    Rather than criticise you, people here are trying to understand the basis of your stance and trying to make you see that there is no logic to it.

    Does that help?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sofie wrote:
    So, you think it's right to abort a baby because a woman didn't use contreception? (or however it's spelt)

    Wrong question, really, IMHO.

    The question is do I think it's right that a woman should have the choice to abort because she didn't use contraception. And the answer to that is yes.

    On a moral point, I personally don't think that is correct but it's not my place to make such a moral judgment on how other people behave.

    I can see, even with my av., a moment when I would consider abortion. Like you there are circumstance where I personally would understand why Mrs MoK would want to do it, but morally I would find it difficult to understand or accept if her reasoning was becasue of an "accident". Having said that, it is ultimately her choice and not mine.

    When it comes to abortion rights, I could not support a law which imposed my moral stance on other people and placed them in a position where they had no choices available.

    I guess that makes me one of the "anti-abortionists" who are pro-choice, mentioned earlier.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    Well, the rasing of the child would be, at least that's how most families work

    Not in my experience.

    It's never a precise 50/50 split, even when Dad is around and a big part of the care of the child. It's usually one parent who take smore of the "demand" than the other - partly due to the relationship with the child. It could be that only one can calm the child, that only one can change a dirty nappy without puking, that only one can feed the child etc.

    That said, that says more about my pedantry than your comment though.
    so all you're really talking about is the 9months between conception and labour, in which only 2 or 3 of them can really affect the woman's mobility and activity.

    Mrs MoK is 14 weeks. Since we found out, she has not been able to lift anything heavy (and that includes simple tasks like the hoover/putting washing out etc - NB she is housewife, it's not that I'm chauvanist ;) ), recently she has started to find that her bladder need emptying more frequently, that she needs to do more pelvic floor exercises (otherwise sneezing brings a wholly different discharge of bodily fluids :yuck: ) etc. That's a three months in.

    Obviously, if she reads this, she'll also find that her temper is harder to control and I won't be around much anymore ;)

    To suggest that preganancy is only tough towards the end, is frankly false.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    me wrote:
    Relax, my sisters have been through it, I know it's not as simple as I made out. I was just trying for some thought provoking thingy....whatever.

    So shut up






    :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    When it comes to abortion rights, I could not support a law which imposed my moral stance on other people

    Is this position limited to abortions ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    So shut up






    :p
    so why did you say that women only really have a hard time in the last 2 or 3 months then if you knew it was blatantly not true?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Interestingly the opening poster has not bothered contributing any further- to this or any other thread in thesite.





    Therefore confirming my suspicions.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Interestingly the opening poster has not bothered contributing any further- to this or any other thread in thesite.





    Therefore confirming my suspicions.
    Oh well, maybe te other posters took away some valid points and info from this.
    Never a thread wasted and all that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    so why did you say that women only really have a hard time in the last 2 or 3 months then if you knew it was blatantly not true?
    Do I really need to quote myself again? Or are you happy enough to read what I've already posted?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's the way it goes isn't it? We're all like that
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Do you reckon the reason is becasue you want people to know your opinion or because you want others to change theirs?
    I'm a bit of both i reckon
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'd say that's probably the reason most people discuss things. Occasionally I'll get involved with something because I want to know what other people think. Sometimes that's easy, and sometimes that requires a little bit of being a devil's advocate.

    Most of the time people hold an opinion and think they're correct, and therefore want other people to think the same way
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Because on this issue I know only too well that there's nothing, nothing in the world that anyone could say that would make me change my mind. Nothing. And if everyone else is the same, then what's the point?

    You'd be surprised, to this day, I've had 4 lifers turn to the dark side :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    and at the very least, it's worth at least trying to understand why other people think the way they do.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    Most of the time people hold an opinion and think they're correct, and therefore want other people to think the same way

    Not true.I don`t care what other people THINK. I do care when other people want to take ACTION to,in their opinion, correct me(no pun intended)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I guess that makes me one of the "anti-abortionists" who are pro-choice, mentioned earlier.
    Nope. You're still pro-choice - you just chose to have the kid. :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Possibly because you don't seem to read what people actually write, and you keep raising the "so you'd be happy to tell them their father was a rapist" comment. It's isn't about that.

    You argued that there were three exclusion to your anti-abortion stance. Rape, woman's health, child's health. What has been pointed out to you is that in each ofthose cases the mother is making a choice driven by the starting point of not wanting the baby, for the exclusions you mention.

    Fundamentally therefore the abortion is based on "not wanting" the baby.

    The question which has been asked of you, as a result, is how "not wanting" because of rape is morally any different from "not wanting" for any other reason - whether that is choice or cicumstance.

    If you are funamentally opposed to choice, then it matters not what the woman's justification is and therefore your exclusions become null and void.

    If you have exclusions then you are accepting that a woman should have choice.

    Rather than criticise you, people here are trying to understand the basis of your stance and trying to make you see that there is no logic to it.

    Does that help?
    I think something else people are wanting to know, & I don't think Sophie answered (unless I missed it) was whether she was against abortion personally or in general. Someone asked this at the beginning of the thread, & I don't think the thread would have gone on for so long if it had been answered - sure people would have debated, & it would still be fairly long, but I think what's got people's backs up is that Sophie seems to be implying that abortion is bad full stop & nobody should have one except in the special circumstances she listed. If she'd just turned round & said 'I wouldn't have an abortion but it's your personal decision if you have one or not' I think people would have just been curious about her views & left it at that.

    Also, why would you HAVE to tell the kid its dad is a rapist? OK so it might get suspicious when you avoid the issue when it's brought up, but why not just tell it daddy was a one-night stand?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think something else people are wanting to know, & I don't think Sophie answered (unless I missed it) was whether she was against abortion personally or in general.

    Never actually answered this question. In general, I am aginst abortion.

    and please spell my name right
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's good people are always debating this issue and trying to find a balance.

    The world health organisation estimates are that there are over 40 million abortions carried out every single year, so with those kind of numbers it should be discussed.

    Since medical technology is always improving the age at which an unborn baby can be born and survive is always moving

    Certainly not an easy debate and even more complex when you take into account the father's right, for instance if a woman wants an abortion and the father doesn't..
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    and at the very least, it's worth at least trying to understand why other people think the way they do.
    Exactly. In my honest opinion, having a discussion about anything at all is completely pointless if either party is determined to never change their minds. They both need to understand what the other "side" is saying, consider the possibility that they have a point, and then either counteract the other side's point with a point of their own, or if they don't have one that can accept that they weren't entirely fair.
    I'll say it again: If your mindset is like "I know I'm right and I'll never change my mind on this, now let's go convince others to agree with me" then, in my honest opinion, you should stay out of discussions.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I am pro-choice by the way, i think abortion is a fair enough thing to have.

    However i am opposed to the women who have abortions as their method of birth control, having several, like 4 or 5 when they could easily use a contraceptive.

    But i do stand by it being the womans choice...though i would hope in the case of a married couple or relationship that is heading towards marriage, she would talk the husband about it and take in his concerns for the child too.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I am pro choice, believe a woman should have the choice to abort, for whatever reason. I don't believe a man's opinion on the matter should hold any weight, other than the amount a woman does/ or does not take his opinion into consideration when deciding to abort. I don't see the need for the 24week limit. I have had two unplanned pregnancies. I have not had an abortion. I have not ruled out having an abortion in the future.

    As far as I'm aware it is technically impossible to use abortion as a form of contraception, isn't it? I agree that men and women aught to be equipped with the knowledge and necessarys to prevent as any unwanted pregnancies as possible.

    If I had the child of a rapist, I might tell the child when it was old enough to understand if I thought knowing the truth would not be overly damaging. I doubt I would enjoy the conversation.

    Statistically, it is safer to abort than to go through labour. I wonder if those who agree with abortions for a woman's safety include the risk of dying in labour?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I am one of the people this thread has contributed to. In all honesty, I do not know where I personally stand on the issue of abortion at the moment. I guess I would class myself as generally pro-life, but in reality things aren't black or white, so I usually find myself making exceptions one way or the other. This means I don't have things clear in my head, which for my highly structured self is quite disturbing. :nervous:
    This thread has brought interesting points to discussion, which have helped me I think. So I would like to carry it on for my sake :D(and for others' if there are others out there like me of course).
    sophia wrote:
    I never quite get why people who are anti-choice will frequently make exceptions in the case of rape. If you're against murdering innocent babies, then you should always be against it, why is rape an exception to this?

    I suspect the real reason people make an exception in the case of rape is because the rest of the time they blame the woman for getting into the situation in the first place and therefore think she ought to suffer the consequences of her sluttish behaviour by being forced to have the baby -- that'll teach her to open her legs, the dirty whore.

    On this point particularly Sophia, I find I make exceptions for abortions resulting from rape not because of the reason you meant here -at all-, but more from a position of being it easier to empathise with an action driven from an act which was not done willingly. I'm perfectly aware this doesn't change things for the baby, but nevertheless I find it more difficult to morally condemn that action. If you had no freedom in the previous choice, then I find easier to open the choice later on in the chain of consequences, even though it does bring a harm (in my view) to the unborn baby. I'm not sure this argument holds philosophically, but from my gut it does, does that count? :p

    I know you said you signed out of this debate Sophia but I'm sure your over-opinionated self won't resist the urge to answer :p
Sign In or Register to comment.