MPs vote to decriminalise abortion

As you say, women who have an abortion outside of the framework after 24 weeks without medical need will no longer risk facing prosecution. There is no mention yet that they must still use one of the approved medical methods from the Abortion Act to do so, even if operating outside of the framework.

We are going round and round in circles here. I have said that I am not anti abortion, when there’s a medical need after 24 weeks then absolutely. However the fact that someone could still have an abortion at say 40 weeks with a healthy baby (even outside the framework) does not sit right with me and I’m unlikely to change that opinion to be honest.

You are assuming there that the pills that end an early pregnancy (by blocking progesterone and softening the cervix) will kill the foetus directly.

But they don't. It's the removal of the support from the woman's body that does.

Oh yeah.

The vast majority are pro-birth rather than pro-life. They don't give a fuck about the life of the woman who is actually here, she's nothing more than an incubator. They also care very little about a baby once it's actually here and are often against benefits or think they should be heavily reduced, are against free breakfasts/lunches at schools and shame women for having babies in less than ideal circumstances.

Not to mention some who value a foetus differently depending on how it is conceived and think a baby should be used as a punishment for having consensual sex. Naturally, the man gets to walk away consequence free.

It absolutely isn't.

This section of the Abortion Act 1967 sets out when an abortion is legally permissible: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/87/section/1

Women who undergo abortions outside that legal framework will not now face criminal prosecution. Those who perform or facilitate unlawful abortions may face prosecution. So in your 'coathanger' example (and let's keep in mind this is not the way in which late stage terminations are being carried out, even by women terminating outside the legal framework) the person performing the backstreet abortion could face criminal prosecution but the woman would not.

Stabbing / strangling / bludgeoning / whatever other insane crime you're envisaging a baby which is being born is 1) as good as logistically impossible and 2) not an abortion, since it would not be the termination of a pregnancy. Pregnancy is terminated by labour. Once labour has commenced, the question of whether a pregnancy is continued or not becomes moot.

But there are lots of very good reasons why a woman might want to end a pregnancy. Later abortions happen not because she doesn’t want a baby, they happen because of medical advice in the vast, vast majority of cases. Earlier abortions might happen for a huge variety of reasons including impacts on other people, such as siblings, or the mother’s own mental or physical health or financial status. She might be homeless, addicted, depressed, already have children, the list is endless. A healthy pregnancy creates a child, and if you can’t be a good parent to that child for whatever reason, shouldn’t you have the right to say so before it’s born?

It’s all very well to talk about right to life, but if the mother can’t parent then we know that most children will face enormous challenges and possibly be deprived of the chance to have a good life. Anti-abortion campaigners most often seem to be pro-birth campaigners, as they’ve nothing to say about those babies once they’re born.

So why does God perform the majority of them?

I’m all good with abortion thanks - I place actual value on a living breathing autonomous human

as early as possible- as late as needed

I realise lots of people (most?) believe that a fetus is not a morally valuable being, I don’t agree, that’s all.

Your example flattens the debate to a point where there is no acknowledgment of the total bodily integration with another being, which is literally what being pregnant is. Donating organs is a totally unnatural medical procedure, being pregnant is not. Yes, they both involve others, but to say they have the same meaning, purpose….function….it’s just not true.

Women’s bodily autonomy is undoubtedly, obviously, integrated with another being. The only way you can be all good with abortion is to place no moral value on the fetus, as we see in this thread.

Well, let's say you get a call from a hospital. They say you're a perfect match for a patient in need of a kidney or 4 pints of blood. You're legally required to donate; the penalty for refusing is up to three years prison.

That would be a violation of your bodily autonomy. Just as it would be if you were legally required to host an unwanted foetus and give birth.

Abortion. Absolutely. Is. Murder!

Those are the facts, take it or leave it.

I agree with @TyrannasaurusJex, you are talking bollocks.

Not bollocks-facts.
Mothers will be able to administer abortion pills at home at any point.
These mothers will not be prosecuted even if they abort a full term baby.
There will be an infant's body to dispose of.
Doctors will not be involved after 24 weeks due to likelihood of prosecution for the doctor.
Thus the mother will effectively be in a back-street abortion nightmare-in the comfort of her own home.
Horrific.

I think there will be cases where a woman tries to abort her baby using dodgy info from the Internet which doesn't involve the use of pills but eg coathangers. This could result in damage to the baby and/or produce an early labour rather than the hoped for abortion.

The thing is, the intent is to kill the foetus/baby. If it's born alive/ damaged, dont you think there would be a huge incentive to kill the baby? Now the mother is looking at murder charges.

I do think they should make it clear in the bill that they are talking specifically about taking pills only. Otherwise I suspect that vulnerable women will be advised to try all manner of awful ways to abort the baby. And it will be them looking after a disabled child if it goes wrong.

So what you posted could also be untrue because’ no one knows’?

Oh dear - I’m not a lawyer so why not ask one or read the actual legislation?

if it was up to me it wouldn’t even be an issue because we’d have abortion on demand with no limits

You seem a tad hung up on having answers so go read up on it

Who knows. The practice is virtually unregulated.

Ok so your interpretation is that any DIY coat hanger style abortions are still not decriminalised past 24 weeks.

As far as I can see this hasn’t been specified yet so will have to see what is actually said.

Routinely?

Oh for crying out loud I never said that

look abortion is controlled by law - an abortion is defined by law - ergo anything deemed to be an abortion has to fit the legal definition

so anything deemed to be an abortion out side of the law ( and decriminalised) still has to fit the legal definition of abortion

EG abortion via pill - v stabbing a baby to death

if that’s too complicated then I give up

The problems have arisen from the misuse of the abortion pills supplied by post. They are only supposed to be taken to abort pregnancies of 10 weeks or less. They are being used for late abortions.

Could you send me the link you have please where it specifies that any woman carrying out her own abortion after 24 weeks must still use one of the official medically approved methods for it be decriminalised.

I genuinely haven’t seen that on the sites I’ve been on, so feel it’s important for that to be clear.

Obviously it seems to need to be crystal clear to you - so why not read up on it?

im sure most law enforcement and lawyers already have

but it has to be an medically approved abortion method, not a backstreet style one or she’ll still possibly face charges?

I think this needs to be crystal clear if that’s the case,