What is your opinion on abortion?

I’m not “for” abortion. I’m for enlightenment and prevention, so it doesn’t have to be done.

Nevertheless, I can accept that sometimes a woman becomes unintentionally pregnant and, for reasons I have not to judge, wants abortion and then it is also “ok”.

In principle, I do not consider a ban on abortion to be a target.

Just because abortions are forbidden, that doesn’t mean there is no one. They then exist abroad or under medical, or hygienic, questionable circumstances. When the star published his famous “we have driven off” title story in 1971, 374 women have admitted publicly to have driven away even though it was completely illegal in Germany. (Yes, okay, 373 – Alice Schwarzer doesn’t count, she lied, I know).

After all, in a large German study, about one third of the unintentional pregnant women admitted to have been prevented. A third! Among those who are completely unintentionally pregnant, there are even 42% (source:Women’s life3, p. 183) So rarely is it that you get pregnant despite contraception.

There are women who just don’t want a child. And sterilization is even more difficult to get for childless women of a childless age than a affordable crib space in the aeration room. Then there is also not even a small number of women who simply cannot afford reliable contraceptives such as pill or spiral. What are they doing? Sustainability, clear. But if they are in a relationship and the partner “requires his right”?

It’s like this: you have a conflict of rights in this issue.

On the one hand, the woman and her rights and on the other is the unborn. In any case where there is a collision of different rights, it is necessary to consider which right weighs harder. A compromise is not possible in abortion.

I personally have a problem with the view that the unborn should be more important than the woman in which it grows. How far are you going? Can pregnant women not drive anymore because this could be dangerous for the unborn? Can pregnant women no longer enter a pub to be protected from passive smoke? How many rights of pregnant women can one limit to protect the unborn maximum?

With regard to the deadline, I think three months long enough to be able to determine pregnancy and make a well-considered decision.

I look forward to any unnecessary abortion. But sometimes, for reasons that I do not want to judge, it is the only way for those concerned. And this way should be available legally and under reasonable conditions.

“Adoption” point:

There are around 1300 foreign ad options per year in Germany. The number of adopted couples has fallen by 40% over the last 10 years because more and more couples can get their own child thanks to medical progress. Currently there are about 5 adoption-willing couples per child. On the other hand, about 100,000 abortions per year are falling. (Source:https://www.destatis.de/DE/Press/Press Releases/2022/06/PD22_261_22.html)

So it is completely obvious that there would not be a dear family for every child if these children were all born.

For example, as a man, you usually have to pay aliments that can drive you into economic ruin.

No. The maintenance depends on income and there is a self-sufficiency limit. And: In the end, both parents always pay maintenance, only the one where the child lives, in naturalia. So rent, food and so on. Only asks NIEMAND for self-sufficiency with this parent.

It is therefore quite cynical to compare the physical and psychological consequences of pregnancy and childbirth, followed by part-time cases and arrogance, with maintenance payments – which, by the way, is no later than 25 years.

Just as an example: A traumatic birth, on the other hand, affects the rest of life.

In Germany approx. 30% of all births of imperial cuts, i.e. a massive, large abdominal surgery with any amount of possible late sequences (cheeks, convulsions, impaired function of the ovaries, infertility, wound pain, increased risk of a placenta accreta,…) and complications (pulmonary embolism, severe blood loss, thrombosis, …) At the rest of the births, about 30% of the cases are made a dam cut – i.e. the tissue between vagina and after is cut through. It is also not so rare that the tissue tears by itself when the child’s head runs its way.

The pelvic floor is heavily stressed by pregnancy and birth. In a British study, 38% of women interviewed were still 12(!) Years after the first birth to have a persistent (permanent) incontinence. Imagine what that means: you can’t laugh, cough or bounce without peeing a few drops.

Not less than 85 percent of all vaginal-born women have to expect any injury to their genitals, overstretching and demolition of the supporting muscles and connective tissue plates of the pelvic floor, or even the tearing of the closing muscles of the end intestine, an overview work from 2015 is calculated.

The spectrum ranges from superficial dam cracks, for example, on the labia or the vaginal mucosa, which frequently heal untreated again, to deep dam cracks, which go transversely through the pelvic floor and in the worst case also reach the anal channel.

As a consequence of the birth trauma and the weakened pelvic floor, inner organs such as the uterus can later project outwards through the vagina, or the bladder, for example, worships the vaginal wall and presses into the vagina. Further impairments are urinary incontinence or loss of control over the intestinal muscles, which is accompanied by unwelcome leaving of winds or liquid-lubricated to even solid chair – a so-called fecal incontinence.

If the woman really dies, and this is secure,

This is never secured in the sense of “to 100%”.

Let’s take the HELLP syndrome. The motherly lethality here is 3 to 5%. Heavy maternal complications must be expected from 12.5 to 65% of cases. In the case of liver eruption, maternal letality is up to 50%. The problem: the cause is unexplained, it hits more (but not only) younger women and mostly (but not always) first-born and the course is incalculable. Grob said, everyone can meet.