General Chat

Rollo, as others have said, all of us who were young women in the 50s, 60s and 70s, knew that abortions were available to those with money and connections but the vast majority of women had neither.

However, did you also know that a woman could not always protect herself from unwanted pregnancies because she had to be married and to have written permission from her husband to obtain certain contraception?

Back in 1967 my OH and I had two babies under 2 and not very much money. Not wanting to take the Pill at that time I opted for an IUD. I was furious when I found out that in order to have this intimate, invasive procedure carried out on MY body, my OH had to complete and sign a form giving permission. 50 years on it still makes me angry.

In our case we had discussed the pros and cons and reached a decision together but I had more than one acquaintance at the time whose husband would not give the necessary permission. They just had to hope that their partners would use contraception and that it would not let them down. If they got pregnant, then hard luck on them.

RTR
As usual you are talking a load of shite.
My mother was born 1921 illigetimately and was put up for adoption when her mother
decided she couldn't cope .

So don't be saying it was easy to get an abortion.

Also, RTR, as you have implied, with 'tax free' money, and prosecutions (though very rare), these abortions you 'declare' your mother assisted in were ILLEGAL!
A woman also needed to get her hands on quite a bit of money to have one.

So, for most, despite you attempting to state to the contrary, " the choice was either to have the baby or a dangerous back street abortionist. Or dodgy medicines come to that." the truth was exactly that!

Ireland has voted for LEGAL abortions.

You've written something we already knew, Rollo, as it was common knowledge that if you had the money and/or connections you could obtain an abortion, performed, as we used to say, 'on the sly'.

But did you know that when the contraceptive pill was first obtainable, a woman (again, without the means) had to be married before she could be prescribed it?

Also, years ago, even for those without the means, a woman who thought she may be pregnant could be prescribed something by a doctor to induce a period, thereby preventing a pregnancy as long as it was done quickly - a bit like an early version of the morning-after pill.

Of course Theresa May will do her utmost to keep Arlene sweet, as you put it. In addition to retaining power, who, in their right minds, would want Sinn Fein to gain an inch and risk bigger trouble again in Northern Ireland? The undercurrents are there, in the wings, they've never disappeared. Ooh, I forgot JC and JMcC would like to stir the pot - as long as they don't have to live there of course!

Mansplaining at it's best......

Good grief, RTR - have you ever watched 'Long Lost Family?
Many cases are of young unmarried women being sent to 'mother & baby' units - homes for unmarried mothers, then being FORCED to give their babies up for adoption - in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's.
If they could have had an 'oh so easy' abortion as you so fancifully describe, don't you think that would have been preferable to carrying a baby for 9 months, bonding with it, then handing it over to strangers?

How do you explain the ladies I saw whilst working in St James' Psychiatric hospital in the 1970's, who had been incarcerated because they got pregnant and wouldn't name the father?
Most were from very 'well to do' families. From their ages, they were 'put away' any time from 1910 to late1930's.
It was less embarrassing for their families to say they had a mental health problem than they had had sex and got pregnant.
Their babies were, of course, removed as soon as they were born, but their mothers stayed where they were - it was easy then, for the wealthy to get rid of 'inconvenient' daughters

Perhaps you didn't really hear what your mother said, or just heard what you wanted to hear, but your attitude has been the bane of women's lives in may aspects of life for a long time.
Hear what you want to hear, or quote one situation you may have heard something about, then act as though you had intimate knowledge of the situation, - when the truth is far from that - then state it as though it was fact, and commonplace!

Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me, Rollo

Were you a young woman in the 1940s through 1960s?

You apparently lived in London

Those of us in other areas did NOT have the luxury that you might well have had had you been a young pregnant woman, with money.

Especially ones faced with having a Catholic doctor.

Please do not dismiss those of us who know what we and our friends, mothers, aunts etc went through,



As far as the women in Eire are concerned, they had the same choices we had ............... get married in a hurry, carry a dead child to termination, find a back street abortionist or a friendly medical person, carry the child to term. They of course, have in more recent years have the added option that we did not have ............ take a plane to another country where they could get an abortion.


Those are NOT choices that any woman should have to make.

Nor should any man belittle any woman talking about what it was like for the,.

It is not true that in England 1930 - 1968 that the choice was either to have the baby or a dangerous back street abortionist. Or dodgy medicines come to that.

The reality was that for those with money and good connections it was possible to procure an abortion with few questions asked, Sometimes the abortion would be in hospital more often in a private clinic. All of the staff would have been full time medical professionals. Prosecutions were extremely rare.

Some of the professionals worked pro bono depending on the background of the client. More often they found the tax free money very useful. My mother, who was sister of the gyne ward at a major London hospital certainly did.

By the time that abortion in most of the UK was made legal the old impossible and immoral system was falling apart anyway.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11789784/Illegal-abortions-and-secret-euthanasia-What-Ive-seen-in-60-years-as-a-nurse.html

Women in ROI have not acquired any new "right" to have an abortion. They had the right to make the decisions about their own bodies all along. All that has changed is that a fundamental right has at long last been recognised in law..

The situation in Northern Ireland is farcical and tragic. Most of the population want change similar to that in ROI. Such change cannot even be debated because the Assembly is suspended on account of gross misuse of public funds by Arlene Foster - head of the DUP. May is not prepared to even allow a debate in the Commons because the powers are "devolved". The reality is that for the past 18 months N.I. has been run from London with Ulster civil servants. The only reason for refusing a debate ( and London has the legal power to change the abortion law in N.I. ) is that it wpould displease the Presbyterian Church and the DUP. May's majority of course rests on keeping Arlene Foster sweet.

Sinn Fein could end the current stand off by overlooking the Foster financial skulduggery (aided and abetted by May ) and dropping their demand for Irish to be taught in RC schools. They have refused to do so. As the DUP no longer has a majority at Stormont it can only resusicate the Assembly by aquiescing to Sinn Fein demands. They have refused to do so. May could call fresh elections anyway but the DUP vote would collapse undermining the legitimacy of the London MPs. So she doesn't.

In a nut shell women are suffering in Northern Ireland so that May can push through a "hard" brexit for the UK. Just to add to the irony although the DUP strongly support brexit 60% of the N.I. vote was to remain.

Funny sort of democracy.

Joy .......

when I was in my teens, it was drinking neat gin that was suggested!!!


But there was also safe help available for some lucky people

A woman I knew had 2 children in 14 months in the early 1950s, was living in a caravan (housing problems are not new!!), and became pregnant about 3 months after the birth of the second child ......... her doctor gave her a pill to take that ended the pregnancy.

Over the next 4 years they managed to buy a nice house in a nice area, and she had their 3rd child. Again she fell pregnant within 3 months of that child, went to her doctor (not the same one as before) and asked him for help. He apparently hummed and hawed a little bit, but then gave her either the same pill or something similar.

I have a feeling that she was probably exhibiting some major depression or other problems each time, as I only heard about these events later.


Something similar was also given by a pharmacist I once knew to a young 19 year old 1st year undergrad who became pregnant, in the mid 1960s.


I'm sure there were many other "hidden" cases such as this, that helped women who needed it.



As far as the pill was concerned, we got engaged in late 1966, decided to get married in August 1967, and he left the UK in February 1967 with no plan to return until the wedding. I opted to go on the pill, went to my doctor in April or May to ask for a prescription so I could start it while I still had a doctor in case there were problems.

He said he couldn't do it. I, being me, didn't clue in and said "But I thought doctors prescribed the pill."

He agreed, but then said he didn't because he was Catholic, although he would prescribe the pill for the reason that it was originally developed .......... menstrual problems.

In my case, and as my fiance was not in the UK, he gave me a 2 month supply, but then I would have to go to his partner to get a full prescription before I married and left the UK.

Sylvia, where I now live it was also common to have a D & C for an abortion and I knew a couple of girls who went for that.

I also recollect a teenager who recommended quinine but I would think one would have to take an enormous amount for it to be effective.


It looks as though there may be problems with Northern Ireland's acceptance of the abortion law though. If heels are dug in I can see that both sides will dig in so affecting the current NI government.

Amazing how much has changed over quite a short period (history wise) and where change is still needed.

In the early weeks a couple of pills will take care of an unwanted pregnancy.

Surgical intervention isn't always necessary.

Let's hope the women of Northern Ireland can soon have the same rights as their sisters in the south or on the mainland.

My sister a married mother of 2 asked to be prescribed the birth pill but was told to go to the family planning clinic as the practice had only 2 doctors who were both staunch catholics. This was in the West Midlands :-S

Dermot, if it’s to work like mainland UK, the female first has to approach their GP. If the particular doctor doesn’t agree on personal grounds, they refer them to a more open minded colleague.
Similarly, hospital doctors will know which of their colleagues will be willing to carry out the procedure.

What's the next step once legislation is in place?

Finding a local 'medic' who is willing to do the deed perhaps? :-S

maggie ..........

that is the misconception ............ that everyone would have an abortion.

Of course, they wouldn't

Nor would it be used as a form of contraception, as it apparently was in some of the Communist countries back in the day.

Most women who vote Yes wherever there has been a vote on the issue just wanted the opton to chose what they wanted.


Yes, my experiences are one of the reasons why I don't help much with finding living relatives.

The main reason of course is that I'm not up on methods of searching, but I could have been one of those women who gave up a baby on the promise that no-one would ever find out.

I'm not, obviously, but I'm the same or similar age to many of those who gave away their babies in the 1940s through 60s, and were told to forget all about them.

It's such a minefield ......... and I can see both sides of the issue of finding a birth family.


I did have to laugh back in 1968 ............. I had to see a doctor in the US, and had to provide a list of operations. I'd had a D&C for a problem about 18 months previous which had ended up keeping me in hospital for 10 days (that's another story!).

As soon as I said that, the nurse looked around, lowered her voice and whispered "was that for an abortion?".

I was totally taken aback! Had never even thought of that!

She was equally taken aback when I said "No, it wasn't. It was for xxxxx""

But apparently over here (US and Canada), D&C was the commonly used short hand for having an abortion ........ or so I was later told by a Canadian nurse!

Sylvia, your experience would explain the 'Grandfathers for 'Yes' at the polls!

Although it's about women's control over their own bodies, it affects 'decent' men as well - those who would stand by their girlfriend, and marry her out of 'duty' - and both would endure years of misery.

Have to admit to being slightly shocked, when expecting my first (I was 23) - we weren't married, but had been together for 6 years, and I'd decided it was his turn to be responsible for contraception - big mistake (or was it?) - but, hey, I'd been the 'responsible' one for years.
Anyway, upon going to the doctor, it was assumed I wanted an abortion - which I obviously refused - but I had the choice!

The way the anti's were talking, they made out that every woman would have a termination, if offered! :-(

maggie ............

I grew up in the 1950s when a back street abortion was the only option ....... those stories would have been enough to put anyone off even thinking of doing anything that might lead to pregnancy!!!

By my mid-teens, I think we all knew about various strategies to lose a baby, even if we didn't know how one got pregnant!

The alternatives of course were to get married in a hurry, or have the baby then have it adopted or try to bring it up on your own.

There was a huge relief in my age group when "the pill" came in, although the women who did the "back street abortion", and the knowledge we had, was still about.

Oh, the relief over here (and probably also in the UK) when abortions became legal.

Someone we knew had an abortion in 1991, and was referred by the GP to a gynaecologist who would do it at the Day Clinic at the local hospital because that was the one place that was not picketed by anti-abortionists shouting their slogans.

It was also interesting to me that the gynaecologist had retired, but still worked in his practice doing initial exams in a sort of triage system and doing abortions ........ he said he had had his career and it would do him no harm if he got into trouble whereas all his colleagues were in the midst of theirs.

As a side note ............. we met that man's widow on the train back in 2004. She referred to herself as Mrs Doctor XXXXXX, and was very proud of her husband's profession, although she never mention the latter part. I sorted out that it really was the man, and then said that I knew of him because I had been to see one of his early partners!

Which was perfectly true ............ the partner had done the caesarean I needed in 1974!

I agree, Sylvia.

What's really sad is the number of women who would have lived, had they been able to have an abortion - some dying, leaving children motherless.
Sometimes a termination is a life saving necessity, not a 'choice'.

Roll on Northern Ireland having a vote on the rights of women and their bodies!

Whenever there have been anti-abortion rallies here, and there were many back in the 70s though the 90s, it always seemed that men protesters way outnumbered women.

If any violence was committed, including killing doctors who performed abortions, it was usually men who committed the worst violence.


I always found that interesting .......... and considered it controlling


I don't call it pro- or anti-abortion

To me it is pro-choice or anti-choice ............... with the control of choosing handed to women