MPs vote to decriminalise abortion

Gruesome indeed - and while you were ruminating on these grotesque ideas did it not occur to you that stabbing an infant through the skull or strangling it - something you clearly could not do to a baby which had not been born - would not in any way be considered an abortion?

We aren't talking about infanticide, which remains as illegal as ever. We're talking about abortion, the termination of a pregnancy. They are distinctly different.

If it's a choice between the life of the mother or the life of the 25 week old foetus, clearly the mother comes first.

If it's a choice between the life of a healthy 25 week foetus and the mother's wish not to spend another 15 weeks being pregnant, the answer is less clear-cut.

Comprehension problems? As that is clearly not what the post to which you are responding says. Once a woman is 24 weeks pregnant, the baby is going to have to come out sooner or later - if anything has forced this situation on her, it is nature. So the poster concerned was essentially saying that at that point there are choices - to carry on with the pregnancy, have a caesarian or induce labour. The one option she suggests taking away is killing the foetus. Is that really so unconscionable?

Because killing a baby during labour isn’t abortion so not decriminalised and killing a baby post birth is illegal

do you not think these things are medically investigated?

Surely an abortion is the ending of a life prior to birth. Not necessarily with the assistance of a doctor. As you ask fir a potential scenario, in the cases where sadly women have killed their new born babies right after giving birth to them, a woman could instead strangle their baby before it has left her body completely or puncture their skull
sorry for being graphic but this is a pretty gruesome topic and you asked for examples

And an actual woman's life too... https://www.bearlypolitics.co.uk/p/faq-abortion-decriminalisation-and?r=2y2fft&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true

https://www.bearlypolitics.co.uk/p/faq-abortion-decriminalisation-and?r=2y2fft&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true

https://www.bearlypolitics.co.uk/p/faq-abortion-decriminalisation-and?r=2y2fft&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true

Late term abortions will only be for good reason - and not "easy". It's changing it to decriminalising it when it is - for awful reasons - necessary.
There is an excellent post from Bearly Politics on it on Twitter and a FAQ (linked at bottom):
"Please note. Abortion has not been “legalised” up to birth in the UK - it’s been decriminalised. This is an important distinction, especially when so many are deliberately blurring the lines for outrage clicks. Here’s what actually happened: What MPs voted for today was to remove criminal penalties for women who end their own pregnancies outside of the existing legal framework - usually in crisis, often alone. This follows harrowing cases like Carla Foster and others who faced prosecution under a 160-year-old law. In some cases, women were criminalised after experiencing miscarriage or stillbirth. That’s what’s changed. It does not mean abortion is now available “up to birth” on demand. Medical professionals are still bound by the Abortion Act 1967, which sets the gestational limit at 24 weeks (with very limited exceptions beyond that, e.g. grave risk to life or severe fetal abnormality). Women cannot access late-stage abortion legally without meeting those exceptions. Doctors can still be prosecuted if they act outside those laws. In other words, abortion remains regulated – but women are no longer treated as criminals for making desperate decisions about their own bodies. This change was backed by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the BMA, BPAS, and nearly every major health body involved in reproductive care. It brings us closer in line with public health best practice and human rights. Decriminalisation means treating abortion as a healthcare matter, not a criminal one. That’s it. That’s the story. So if someone tells you that MPs just legalised abortion “up to birth,” they’re either misinformed or misleading you. Either way, it’s not true."

https://www.bearlypolitics.co.uk/p/faq-abortion-decriminalisation-and?r=2y2fft&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true

Such remote cases though. Women only tend to do that when they’re struggling with severe mental health issues.

Sadly there have been cases of women killing their babies after giving birth, so if they could do this during labour legally and to avoid risk of prosecution, who’s to say they wouldn’t do this?

Just because I’m not comfortable listing the exact ways a mother could end the baby’s life during labour as I don’t feel it’s necessary (as it only takes brief imagination to think how) as I wouldn’t want to list how you could end a newborn’s life either for someone who claimed they didn’t know either, does not mean it’s not however possible.

Legal in the eyes of the law, however it wouldn’t be facilitated by the 2 doctors needed for it to be done in a hospital/clinic. You couldn’t before and can’t now just waltz into BPAS and abort a 40w baby just because. If a woman expressed at that late stage of pregnancy she didn’t want to raise her baby and had had you’ve thoughts of harming herself to end her pregnancy steps would be taken to keep her safe and probably immediately bring birth forward in whatever manner is safest.

Slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy. Legislation doesn't need to account for fringe hypotheticals invented by people acting in bad faith to undermine the entire premise of the law.

Saying that we shouldn't decriminalise abortion because it might lead to women terminating their pregnancies while in labour when 1) there has been no explanation of how that would occur and 2) there is not the smallest indication that this is something women would seek to do, is like saying we shouldn't we shouldn't allow gay marriage because it will lead to polyamorous marriages, or people marrying their dogs. These are moral panic arguments, introduced as a form of fear-mongering to suppress development of the law by pretending the law has no capacity to make meaningful distinctions between different types of consequences.

If you can provide a coherent and plausible explanation as to how a woman would procure an abortion while in active labour (I believe in the hypothetical posed the baby is in fact crowning), and evidence that this is something likely to occur, I'll concede that there might be a basis for considering whether the proposed legislation is adequate. Until then, I won't be persuaded that a lunatic assertion is a sound basis for avoiding a long-overdue development in women's rights.

Great.

Yup!👍🏻

Again to me it’s more confusing, as imagine some people will feel that ending the child’s life once labour had begun is no different to a woman managing to facilitate her own abortion at full term.

I think charges should only be taken in the most extreme circumstances anyway, but I don’t feel complete decriminalisation is necessary the right option either.

I would completely decriminalise abortion with no legal limit and have it simply be a medical discussion between a woman and medical professionals.

So it would be completely legal for a woman to arrange an abortion at 41 weeks, if she is able to do so. I’m certainly pro choice but honestly by this point if there aren’t any serious health concerns, I think abortion is too late and this could send out a conflicting message.

If the law is made clear that trying to end a pregnancy during labour isn't legal then the one ending the pregnancy during labour would know that charges would be possible.

This is all incredibly hypothetical anyway as the law regarding abortion hasn't changed.

If you take a position, you have to be able to defend it in all its potential outcomes—even the uncomfortable or likely rare ones. Dismissing extreme cases as ‘ridiculous hypotheticals’ or ‘insane’ avoids grappling with the full implications of your stance. Laws must account for edge cases precisely because they test the boundaries of our principles.

If your belief only works when the situation is easy, then maybe you haven’t thought it through properly. Saying ‘that’s an ‘insane’ hypothetical just sounds like a way to avoid admitting your stance falls apart when things get complicated.

That’s what happens when laws are made. They can’t leave gaping big loopholes because someone thought it was an unlikely scenario.

what you say isn’t what is looked at when laws are made is exactly what is looked at when laws are made

Yes it’s been decriminalised but the law on termination remains the same.

“Women who terminate their pregnancy outside the rules, for example after 24 weeks, will no longer be at risk of being investigated by police.” BBC

Not saying that in a lot of cases any prosecution should happen anyway, but completely removing the option to do so doesn’t quite sit right with me as there may be extenuating circumstances.

Well in scenario 1 that can happen anyway if the impact on her mental health is deemed a reason to terminate

in the second scenario what medical reasons would there be?

The law hasn't changed

i think making abortion legal without reason past 24 weeks just makes matters more complex and in the long run will play into the hands of those wanting to make legislation stricter than it is currently

that hasn’t happened though