Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tbag1)
    Oh and your assumption that the difference in mental health between unmarried and married couples is proportional to unplanned and planned pregnancies is ridiculous.
    Excuse the vagueness; the difference in mental health in pregnant married mothers and pregnant unmarked mothers can reasonably be extrapolated to the fact that more pregnancies in married couples are planned than are pregnancies in unmarked couples, since the mental health is similar between non-pregnant married and unmarried mothers.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    Excuse the vagueness; the difference in mental health in pregnant married mothers and pregnant unmarked mothers can reasonably be extrapolated to the fact that more pregnancies in married couples are planned than are pregnancies in unmarked couples, since the mental health is similar between non-pregnant married and unmarried mothers.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Actually I did read. This is not what you said the first time.

    And I disagree with the extrapolation. The differences could be due to a number of different reasons, not least the instability of the unmarried unit, but thats a different discussion.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    I concur with what you have written in bold, I have had two abortions and they were both very traumatising both physically and mentally. However due to my own mental health issues, carrying on with the pregnancy would, in my opinion, have been even more detrimental to my mental health and to the baby had I kept it and attempted to raise it. I can even go so far as to think that I probably would have abused or neglected the baby, because I was in no way able to take care of myself, let alone a small dependant child.

    However, on both occasions, I was given counselling (regardless of my mental health problems as the counsellors were unaware of them until I brought them up) both before and after the abortions, and more than one doctor came to speak to me about the choice involved and whether I was sure of my decision.

    At the end of the day, it's not like you can just swan into a clinic and get an abortion that same day. It's quite difficult to actually get one - I had to get the termination on Christmas Eve because it was the only day they had free before I went past the time limit. It was not an easy experience nor was it undertaken with any less sensitivity or tact by the staff involved than if I were keeping the baby. I think that the current system clearly works, and while for some individuals abortion can be and often is very traumatising, the professionals who are performing them are certainly not doing it willy nilly - they really talk to you and take time to find out that it's your choice and you are happy with the decision.

    Just to let you know, you win over the vile opinions that are riddled within this thread. I've been in the same situation and I agree it is very emotionally draining and not a decision I took lightly! I think if half of the people attacking in the thread got pregnant tomorrow a majority of them would change their views on abortion or rely on mummy and daddy to bring their child up, or something along those lines. I still cry to this day about the whole issue and it was almost a year ago! Xx
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sammyjade92)
    Just to let you know, you win over the vile opinions that are riddled within this thread. I've been in the same situation and I agree it is very emotionally draining and not a decision I took lightly! I think if half of the people attacking in the thread got pregnant tomorrow a majority of them would change their views on abortion or rely on mummy and daddy to bring their child up, or something along those lines. I still cry to this day about the whole issue and it was almost a year ago! Xx
    Thanks, I know how hard it is, don't let the negativity get you down :hugs:

    I often find it interesting how many pro-lifers are male, though. Since they're never going to get pregnant, it is oh so easy for them to judge women who are going through something they cannot even imagine. For being open about my experiences I've gotten a fair load of stick on this forum, be it in threads or in PMs - I think the OP of this thread even said something along the lines of "spare me your emotional torment, you're as bad as a butcher slashing the throat of a lamb whilst saying they wish they didn't have to do this".

    Their cruelty and lack of empathy is appalling. Women don't just go skipping into abortion clinics going "yippee, I can't wait to kill this unborn child, then I can go shopping and have more unprotected sex!" :rolleyes:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tbag1)
    Actually I did read. This is not what you said the first time.

    And I disagree with the extrapolation. The differences could be due to a number of different reasons, not least the instability of the unmarried unit, but thats a different discussion.
    The fact that mental illness (as said in the quoted post) is equivalent in non-pregnant, unmarried couples means that the 'instability' is not a factor in mental illness. When the studied couples are pregnant, and we find the prevalence to be higher in the unmarried, it is reasonable to assume that the issue is the different plan behind the pregnancy, as the 'instability' has been shown not to skew the rates towards the unmarried.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robbie242)
    **** off this isn't North Dakota, or republican america for that matter.

    Having an abortion is better than bringing at child into life without loving parents or care, or nurturing or good living conditions etc

    better for whom - the child or mother
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady_L)
    Does a foetus not have a right to its own body? Why should the woman have more rights? She chose to have sex...she knows the possible consequences.
    When the embryo/foetus is little more than a cluster of cells, with no nervous system and entirely dependent on its mother's circulatory and digestive systems, it is basically just a part of the woman. It isn't a person at that stage in the pregnancy, and the mother's rights should come first.

    Once the foetus is capable of feeling pain or surviving independently (whichever comes first, I believe it's a matter of contention among developmental biologists), then it probably shouldn't be aborted - but I don't have a uterus, so that's not my decision to make.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Octopus_Garden)
    PS:



    On behalf of every female who has miscarried a dearly wanted fetus... You're an offensive personage, with a disgusting lack of knowledge about pregnancy. HTH
    I really don't know what to say... I wrote "You end a natural cycle before its definite end" the miscarriage isn't the mothers fault which is what you are implying and it is a natural end.

    How about you stop twisting my words and use the tears of expectant mothers for your own gain.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gray Wolf)
    I really don't know what to say... I wrote "You end a natural cycle before its definite end" the miscarriage isn't the mothers fault which is what you are implying and it is a natural end.

    How about you stop twisting my words and use the tears of expectant mothers for your own gain.
    Since you insist on coming back to the "natural process" thing, isn't cancer a natural process? So is curing cancer wrong?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dendodge)
    When the embryo/foetus is little more than a cluster of cells, with no nervous system and entirely dependent on its mother's circulatory and digestive systems, it is basically just a part of the woman. It isn't a person at that stage in the pregnancy, and the mother's rights should come first.

    Once the foetus is capable of feeling pain or surviving independently (whichever comes first, I believe it's a matter of contention among developmental biologists), then it probably shouldn't be aborted - but I don't have a uterus, so that's not my decision to make.
    So the mothers right to do what exactly comes before the right for another to live?

    Going by that logic we should have killed many coma patients who couldn't have survived without life support and couldn't feel pain. It doesn't matter even when there is a chance for some to wake up...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dendodge)
    Since you insist on coming back to the "natural process" thing, isn't cancer a natural process? So is curing cancer wrong?
    Cancer is a disease when untreated will kill, it doesn't lead to anywhere. An undeveloped baby on the other hand wont kill (and if situations where the mothers life is threatened an abortion can take place) and will develop in to you and me.

    If you consider a baby on the same level as cancer then you really do need help.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    What would you rather... have the child and not be able to support both you and the baby meaning very little food and clothing etc. or abort the baby until you get yourself up on the feet? ITS THE SAME THING IN MY OPINION plus what if you got pregnant at 16 or something? i'd rather abort the baby than have the baby and not be able to raise it the way i want. My opinion. Im just saying. Dont hate.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gray Wolf)
    Cancer is a disease when untreated will kill, it doesn't lead to anywhere. An undeveloped baby on the other hand wont kill (and if situations where the mothers life is threatened an abortion can take place) and will develop in to you and me.

    If you consider a baby on the same level as cancer then you really do need help.
    Right, so your argument actually has nothing to do with natural processes, since you just admitted that interfering with a natural process isn't inherently wrong.

    So your new argument is that a baby could develop from it - in which case, all methods of birth control must be wrong.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HopefulMidwife)
    Infanticide is better than letting a child grow up in an unloving home.

    :rolleyes:
    It isn't infanticide because it isn't yet an infant. It's a foetus. Make the distinction.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gray Wolf)
    So the mothers right to do what exactly comes before the right for another to live?

    Going by that logic we should have killed many coma patients who couldn't have survived without life support and couldn't feel pain. It doesn't matter even when there is a chance for some to wake up...
    We do often pull the plug on patients who can't survive without life support, if we don't think their future quality of life will be particularly good. The next-of-kin is often asked to make that decision, even if they have no part in raising or caring for the patient. Plus, that patient has lived, made friends, and taken on responsibilities.

    A pregnant woman will need to raise and care for a child once it is born, and may have to give up her own hopes and dreams to do so. And rather than being dependent on a machine, a foetus is dependent on her body - a body which she has total control over. If she wants to abort the foetus because she thinks its quality of life will be less than what she wants for her child, why shouldn't she be able to do so?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dendodge)
    We do often pull the plug on patients who can't survive without life support, if we don't think their future quality of life will be particularly good. The next-of-kin is often asked to make that decision, even if they have no part in raising or caring for the patient. Plus, that patient has lived, made friends, and taken on responsibilities.

    A pregnant woman will need to raise and care for a child once it is born, and may have to give up her own hopes and dreams to do so. And rather than being dependent on a machine, a foetus is dependent on her body - a body which she has total control over. If she wants to abort the foetus because she thinks its quality of life will be less than what she wants for her child, why shouldn't she be able to do so?
    "We do often pull the plug on patients who can't survive without life support, if we don't think their future quality of life will be particularly good."

    In this case the quality of life is living in a vegetative state. I don't agree with pulling the plug but in a babies case the quality of life is living, like you and I.

    Giving up on hopes and dreams? Do you believe the propaganda you are uttering? No one gives up their hopes and dreams there are plenty of options and raising a kid is much easier than it was before the advent of modern technology. No one is asking you go to the nearest lake and pat away to wash your clothing.

    I am going to be laying of for now, I am getting very agitated.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Calllu-m)
    It isn't infanticide because it isn't yet an infant. It's a foetus. Make the distinction.
    I find it worrying that a prospective midwife doesn't know the difference between a foetus and an infant. I'll have to make a note of her face and avoid her if I ever have the misfortune of getting her as my midwife in future.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gray Wolf)
    I really don't know what to say... I wrote "You end a natural cycle before its definite end" the miscarriage isn't the mothers fault which is what you are implying and it is a natural end.

    How about you stop twisting my words and use the tears of expectant mothers for your own gain.
    That's okay, I have a suggestion for you.

    "I'm really sorry for wording myself so insensitively, and I fully acknowledge that my assumption that pregnancy always has a "definite" result of a full-term baby was crass, hurtful and ignorant. I intend to read up on the subject, in order to enable me to avoid such crass remarks in future".

    the miscarriage isn't the mothers fault which is what you are implying
    No, I'm not implying that miscarriages are the mother's fault. I'm stating that miscarriages actually happen. Babies do not definitely happen, just because one has successfully conceived. Your wilful denial of reality (for the sake of creating a faulty premise from which to argue against abortion) is very, very, very annoying/hurtful.

    I'll quote you for yourself again:
    you kill of the emotions, the experiences it was definitely going to have
    If was definitely going to have. It was definitely going to have. It was definitely going to have...

    Obviously the work of organisations such as SANDS is completely unnecessary! Miscarriages don't happen! Stillbirths don't happen! Babies don't die in neonatal intensive care! Gray Wolf off TSR said so!

    How about you stop twisting my words and use the tears of expectant mothers for your own gain.
    This is just strange. If you don't want people to tell you that you are being offensive, then don't be offensive. You were offensive. I told you so.

    As encouragement, be inspired by my example! I have restrained myself from using various four-letter words in my posts to you ever since reading that little offensive snippet in your opening post, despite the fact that I dearly want to use them! :cool:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gray Wolf)
    "We do often pull the plug on patients who can't survive without life support, if we don't think their future quality of life will be particularly good."

    In this case the quality of life is living in a vegetative state. I don't agree with pulling the plug but in a babies case the quality of life is living, like you and I.

    Giving up on hopes and dreams? Do you believe the propaganda you are uttering? No one gives up their hopes and dreams there are plenty of options and raising a kid is much easier than it was before the advent of modern technology. No one is asking you go to the nearest lake and pat away to wash your clothing.

    I am going to be laying of for now, I am getting very agitated.
    The feeling is mutual :rolleyes:

    If you really think that having a baby and raising it is that easy, please, go forth and adopt all the unwanted children in care. After all, it's not that hard, since you (a person who clearly has no children) definitely know best :rolleyes:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    I find it worrying that a prospective midwife doesn't know the difference between a foetus and an infant. I'll have to make a note of her face and avoid her if I ever have the misfortune of getting her as my midwife in future.
    Yes, in fact, she's skipped an entire step by not mentioning neonaticide!
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.