MPs vote to decriminalise abortion

I read that differently, 19ptrialprice. I thought the poster meant 'for any reason, even if the reason seems thin', rather than 'no matter how strong the reason'.

You are obviously obtuse if you can’t understand many woman are forced to have medical terminations in late pregnancy to save their own life. You did say any reason is disgusting.

And the fail-safe method of keeping one's circumstances the same once pregnant, without losing a job, a spouse, a relationship or a house; and the failsafe method of retaining physical and mental health rather than getting prenatal depression or hyperemesis.

Or the fact that sex is consensual 100% of the time and rape never happens and abusive relationships with coercive sex also never happens.

Please tell us about the 100% perfectly failsafe method of contraception that all men will joyfully use/that all women irrespective of medical conditions can use. Please also tell us about the failsafe method for sustaining a marriage or long term relationship whilst abstaining from sex for those of us who cannot use the current not failsafe contraception, especially those whose partners won't use barrier methods because 'it doesn't feel nice'.

Alternatively, develop some knowledge and human compassion.

Punish women rather than give them a choice to abort, nice.

And if you don't want to be pregnant, either abstain from sex or use contraception.

It's really not difficult.

I quite like people obeying the law. I believe that the law was put in place following discussion
This law has stood in its current form since 1870, when the law also considered women to be barely people in their own right, but mere chattels.

I believe that new ideas which are to become law should be properly debated.
There has been a campaign asking people to contact their MP about this amendment and it was debated in Parliament; it will continue to be open to scrutiny as this bill makes its way through parliament to become law. Doesn’t this process- our democratic process- count as being properly debated? Did you watch the debate on the amendment and find it wanting?

I believe that there is a good reason for a 24 week limit
and that limit remains unchanged.

ordering pills from India and taking them at 39 weeks, no, I dont think that should be given a bye.

ok really, how often do you imagine this will happen? It’s the most ridiculously unlikely scenario that you are using in order to object to the whole decriminalisation (which, by the way, is not the same as legalising. The process you describe would still be illegal, and people could still be prosecuted for it).

I am suspicious of the organisations that want this because I believe they have not considered all the issues.

Wow, all those experts in this area, professional bodies, people who spent their whole career working with women who go through the vast array of different situations around maternal and gynaecological health, different areas of women’s health, and you don’t think they have considered all the issues. Either you are incredibly arrogant to say this, or incredibly deluded.

They are 100% on the side of women having all the rights and the foetus having none

I don’t actually think you know what the legal position was, or what it will be after this change. I also don’t see you showing much interest in finding out, you just stick to your misinformed position.

Do you know what a vested interest is? Could you set out what you think it means?

ok fine—the question is one of where you draw the line. So we draw it one place, balancing the interests of society, woman, autonomy in one way and you would balance it elsewhere. this is in fact how laws are made. The new decision is just as lawful as the previous one.

And the MP’s, agreeing with professionals and many women’s rights organizations, have suggested drawing the line in a different place than 29 weeks. Its not actually a world shattering risk as vanishingly few women choose to risk their health and safety in an at home late abortion just as vanishingly few self amputate a limb.

Here in the US the pendulum has swung radically in the opposite direction with women forbidden abortions after 6 or 9 weeks. With a taxi driver or a friend who accompanies a miscarrying woman to the ER liable to be sued as a confederate in an abortion. Stricter laws “protecting” the fetus always end up hurting and even killing the woman around the fetus. This is a proven fact in countries that criminalize abortion.

Quite rightly the MP’s have balanced the issue on the side of the adult, pregnant, woman. To do otherwise creates a slippery slope where do tors, patients, pregnant women, and eomen who need to end their pregnancies but are unable to freely access early abortion, are all at risk.

As far as I'm concerned, it is as simple as ''my body, my choice''.

I quite like people obeying the law. I believe that the law was put in place following discussion and we all agree to obey the law as part of the wider social contract.

I believe that new ideas which are to become law should be properly debated.

I believe that people, including women, can hold a range of views on any subject and are entitled to make their points.

I believe that there is a good reason for a 24 week limit and I dont agree that women shouldn't be prosecuted. I would prefer to see a bit of discretion tbf but ordering pills from India and taking them at 39 weeks, no, I dont think that should be given a bye.

I am suspicious of the organisations that want this because I believe they have not considered all the issues. They are 100% on the side of women having all the rights and the foetus having none and I accept that - this is their position and they ate entitled to it. But I think that's extreme and the 24 week limit is a good compromise.

You are still confused about the words you are using. I would say that health care workers have a responsibility or duty of care towards their patients. That is distinct from the common meaning of “vested interest” which means something more selfish, material, or exploitative with respect to the patient.

I agree that’s a very strong principle, but I think it runs up against another very strong one, and at that point it’s too simple to say simply ‘but it’s my body’ or ‘but it’s a life’, end of discussion.

These organisations have an interest in abortion. They are not impartial.

Politics isn’t impartial. People have opinions which they use to influence and shape policy according to their interest(s). Healthcare isn’t impartial. It can’t be. But being informed doesn’t automatically make you favour one point over another; HCPs have been far more divided over the assisted dying bill, but they are allowed to put their opinions forward. In fact we generally welcome informed opinion. And two informed opinions may still be in opposition. The interesting thing about this amendment (as opposed to Stella Creasy’s for example) is that informed opinion very much agrees with it, which suggests to me that it will serve the causes of women and women’s healthcare well.

Why don’t you want something that will support women and women’s healthcare?

Because women are human beings with human rights and are not incubators.

Forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will isn't a society I want to live in.

Ah, so you DO agree they have vested interests: "support for the woman requires one to be partial". So why tell me they do not have vested interests?

I have no problem with vested interests per se. I do believe though that we need to identify these and take this into account when we listen to what they say. And we should do the same with people making opposing arguments.

Why should they be “impartial? In your terms. They have patients—the thousands of pregnant women whose lives are on the line every day throughout pregnancy and delivery. Support for the woman requires one to be partial.

In addition I absolutely challenge your absurd views on “interest” here. Where is the profit motive here? No one profits off surgical abortions in the first place. In an NHS surgeons and doctors get assigned to specialties due to demand. No need for their services means they will do other work. And of course the real money is in charging for labour and delivery and all attendant services.

Lastly: what is at issue here is decriminalizing the woman who may be accused of self aborting—what vested interest does the evil medical profession have here? The woman is not a source of income here. The whole line of reasoning you are using is captious snd meretricious.

Of course these are vested interests - the surgeon who performs say gender affirming ops on the NHS has a vested interest in discussions to ban it because it relates to his/her career. Its not just about money.

But if you like I will remove the word "vested" from my comment. These organisations have an interest in abortion. They are not impartial.

A vested interest suggests a benefit arising from the activity. Obs and gynae drs and other women’s healthcare providers may have an interest but not a vested interest- that changes the message quite strongly. In the colostomy example a vested interest would be the surgeon holding shares in the manufacturers of colostomy bags, and therefore benefitting from increasing numbers of people with colostomies- and arguably anyone practising colorectal surgery should not have that interest as it would be a conflict with the patient’s best interests.

But abortion is a women’s healthcare matter, which was the point of the amendment. Naturally HCPs who work in women’s health and who see these cases day in, day out are going to take an interest and lobby for the cause they see as the right one, based on their professional experience.
Which other groups do you feel should have been lobbying MPs to vote a particular way, that weren’t “heard from”? And what makes you think they weren’t heard from? Do you think some groups were silenced?

As I understand it, this links to a case where a lady had a telephone/video call appt and told the health professional she was under 10 weeks pregnant, and was prescribed medication to terminate the pregnancy, but it turned out she was much further along, well around 32-34 week, and delivered a stillborn baby at home and was then jailed. It's unclear if she knew this or genuinely thought she was under 10 weeks. This scenario puts both mum and baby at risk as did not receive medical care appropriate to her needs.

Personally I have really mixed feelings, but I'm not sure it should be up to MP's to decide this, the decision should be made between a women and her doctor as to what is appropriate in each scenario.

My personal experience may also skew my views - DD2 had an anomaly scan which showed significant brain damage, confirmed by a fetal MRI in my womb. We were told to consider 'whether proceeding with the pregnancy would be in the best interests of our unborn child, as she was very likely to have severe disabilities'. After a lot of tears and soul searching we decided to continue with the pregnancy. DD2 is now 6, top of her mainstream class, bright happy sociable and amazing. That we could have potentially terminated her based on medical advice haunts me every day and I'm not sure I will ever move past it fully.
It was an incredibly hard decision and my heart goes out to other parents having to make a similar decision. Having the threat of prosecution on top of all that pain an uncertainty would be unbearable I think.

Why not though? They are both very strong arguments, but why should one trump the other in all circumstances?

Er, yes, exactly. That's how it works. They get to say their piece because of their particular interest and experience, but that doesn't mean other people dont have other useful ideas to contribute. We normally hear from them too.

I am surprised more concerns weren't raised about the danger to women if those drugs are taken in late pregnancy. Giving birth alone resulting in a live baby or still birth. Sounds horrific.

@pikkumyy77

You wouldn't allow dentists to dictate the law on dentistry though, as at least part of their motivation will be maximising their own interests and income.

It is no different with abortion providers.