Bid in Lords to overturn move to decriminalise abortion for women

If you have a ridiculous viewpoint, people are going to think it's ridiculous. You can't blame people for that.

No, the law would allow that. Whilst she wouldn't be able to obtain abortion on demand 35 weeks, if she does something to ensure at that gestation the baby dies inside her, then that would be perfectly legal.

@Mmmchocolatebuttons As I explained at the time, you inability to discuss this without calling posters ‘thick’ amongst other insults means that I will not justify or explain my views to you, because I don’t believe you are capable of engaging in respectful discussion. Starting a thread specifically about me is outrageous and further demonstrates your inability to engage maturely without feeling the need to run off to a different section of MN to tell me what a terrible person I am.

I have been genuinely gutted to read those comments today. I suspect that is what you wanted though.

So you would want access to TMFR if you needed it but you cant relate to any women's experience that they don't want the law involved in their decision to do that relevant?

You can advocate for a procedure but also think there needs to be guidelines to prevent abuses. Because there has been and certainly will be abuses.

You couldn't necessarily without suspicion which PP already linked you examples of. For example of you had been informed of a issue that for you would be a reason to terminate and then went on to naturally miscarry, you could face suspicion you procured a termination outside the proper methods. The only thing that would require a HCP to raise suspicion of that is them being anti abortion and a belief you may have done so

Again, most of the cases written up in those articles had very complicated situations, which is why they were reported.

Like, most people take their kids to the ER without a thought, even though there’s always a chance that a doctor will report you for suspected child abuse (and indeed we want that, because too many children fall under the radar).

I'm sure you're aware that those ales also affected Northern Ireland which is part of the UK which had massive burdens to northern Irish women accessing abortion compared to women from England

Women’s rights were held hostage to a political situation, you can blame your government for that one, totally

All just common women's experiences though so irrelevant to you

Again, misread me, never said their experience was irrelevant, only that those cases do not apply to the UK. Because they don’t.

Because I know my friend and I know the discussions she had with the HCPs who were very apologetic that the reason they couldn't proceed with her wishes and the care she needed was because they needed to sort the necessary paperwork to comply with abortion legislation. You still haven't answered to whose benefit?**

Its just hard to believe a surgeon prepared for a hysterectomy is going to be prepared for the extra complication of a fetus on that very appointment with no further examination, paperwork or procedural guidelines, if not the government then the hospital itself.

You kind of lost the standing of holding a reasonable position in your first post where you said decriminalisation was the same as infanticide, no?

In Carla Foster’s case, what is the difference? Just a few weeks?

Malicious intent could literally be the attitudes expressed by some that every pregnancy (that they know nothing about) is precious to them as an outsider and they're morally opposed to it

Yeah that could be a concern. I tend to trust medical professionals in their decisions tho YMMV

Where is this happening? This law change certainly doesn't allow that . Less than 1% of abortions are performed under 24 weeks and on those cases it'll be because of a risk to life of the mother or a medical issue, the idea that health viable babies are being terminated left right and centre is a bogeyman to paint the vast majority of abortions as immoral but that's not as easy to argue so an extreme example has to be given.

IMO, it is immoral that women can choose to terminate a healthy, viable baby at 34 weeks plus. If the baby were born at that stage, it would have full human rights - so why does it have no rights, because it’s unborn?

@Batties your constant side stepping of any questions about your beliefs make me think that you're haven't engaged in this discussion in good faith either tbh.

I am sorry that some posters were offensive. Someone asked and I thought that you being a woman with children was relevant.

It frequently happens where an interesting point is raised in a thread, and rather than derail it, it's discussed elsewhere. It might be borderline ambiguous on the rules, but it's something that IMO Mumsnet should allow because it means a topic can stay on track. Back a long time ago I was on the handbag.com forum, and they actually had a fork symbol you could press to fork a thread, so that offshoots about specific topics could continue. The prohibition on TAAT should be used with common sense in mind and not to stifle debate.

I mean, every post in the night watch is a TAAT, people are allowed dto post their own follow up threads.

But I'm any event, you claimed your view was the majority view, so if that's the case, buttons could have been talking about pretty much anyone right?

And yes, I have emailed MNHQ

@Mmmchocolatebuttons have you read some of the comments specifically about me that you invited. Comments about how I cant possibly be a woman or even a mother. Does that sit well with you given I shared details about my pregnancy losses? can you even imagine what it is like to open up a thread and read all of those comments about me?

Your inability to engage in discussion in a respectful manner is shocking. You have crossed such a line.

It wasn’t started as a general thread though. @Mmmchocolatebuttons wrote specifically about me in most of her posts, which obviously then invited criticism of specifically me, rather than the general issue. That crosses a line.

her opening post was “I had a discussion with someone, who believes that a foetus is not alive, until the point they are born. They also asserted that this was not an uncommon view”

she then added more details about me

“Female with children. In a discussion about the recent decriminalisation of abortion”

“There was no indication that they meant not having the legal rights of a person.”

“The person I was arguing with did not mention anything about personhood”

Are you ever going to clarify your belief on a foetus not being alive? I really am genuinely curious. Do you mean legal personhood? I kind of assumed you would have mentioned it by now, if that's what you had meant.

Apologies if you're offended by my AIBU thread. You can report it, if you like. I don't believe it comes under the TAAT rule and it's been very interesting to read.

Married a Brit. I haven’t lived in the US for a long time tbh. And yes, my home country is very uneven when it comes to this issue,
unfortunately, and I don’t think it’s going to improve anytime soon.

But that doesn’t mean I have to agree with this. It’s too far …

And you discern this from just a smattering of posts? It affects me as a mother and someone who is TTC at somewhat of an advanced age and would have a TMFR if necessary. I could have had this under the old system, though.
So you would want access to TMFR if you needed it but you cant relate to any women's experience that they don't want the law involved in their decision to do that relevant? You couldn't necessarily without suspicion which PP already linked you examples of. For example of you had been informed of a issue that for you would be a reason to terminate and then went on to naturally miscarry, you could face suspicion you procured a termination outside the proper methods. The only thing that would require a HCP to raise suspicion of that is them being anti abortion and a belief you may have done so. If you can't relate as a woman to the women who have been pardoned with this law but have before that had to declare that they were investigated for their miscarriages then again I'm very shocked.

It’s really tiresome. I’m not pro-life but you know that the pro-life movement (in the US anyway) is full of Catholic women. I suppose you think they are men too, spiritually.

Why would I think they're men? On ab anonymous forum where they barely acknowledge women's humanity and lived experience then I might. In person I tend to think they're completely misinformed about the harms they're promoting in wanting to restrict women's access to abortion because it they understood the risk to life I think they'd struggle to defend falling themselves prolife instead of anti choice.

Ireland is a completely different country, that’s why it’s irrelevant. You intentionally misread

No I didn't intentionally misread that the only response you had to a young woman who died from being denied an abortion was that it was irrelevant. I'm sure you're aware that those ales also affected Northern Ireland which is part of the UK which had massive burdens to northern Irish women accessing abortion compared to women from England. All just common women's experiences though so irrelevant to you.

I don’t think decriminalizing means they could just ‘proceed’ because the hospital is going to have its own procedures that won’t be dictated by the government. Why do you think otherwise?

Because I know my friend and I know the discussions she had with the HCPs who were very apologetic that the reason they couldn't proceed with her wishes and the care she needed was because they needed to sort the necessary paperwork to comply with abortion legislation. You still haven't answered to who's benefit?

I’m not going to be tone-policed for what has been a very reasonable position.

You kind of lost the standing of holding a reasonable position in your first post where you said decriminalisation was the same as infanticide, no?

Investigations by police would be very rare, and only opened by medical staff when they have a reasonable suspicion (although I grant that there could be people out there that could have malicious intent)
Malicious intent could literally be the attitudes expressed by some that every pregnancy (that they know nothing about) is precious to them as an outsider and they're morally opposed to it.

So, an American living in the U.K.? I only asked because obviously people living in a different country don’t have to live under the effects of our laws.

It's an offshoot discussion, and a very interesting one. It's not discussion this thread directly, but a point that was raised in it. That's not technically a TAAT. Would you rather this discussion is further derailed here?

Do you mean your an American living as immigrant in this country, or are you British living as an immigrant in the US?

@Mmmchocolatebuttons did you actually start a thread about me in AIBU? A thread about a thread is against MN rules, but you went even further a posted specifically about me. That obviously then invited criticism of me specifically, not just the issue.

American expat, I’ve never hid this.

@RingoJuice , are you from the U.K. or are you American?

It's not just because you don't agree with me it's because all your posts seem to discuss the issue in a way that's completely removed from you. You don't talk about women or mothers as though you're part of a group that this issue would affect personally at all

And you discern this from just a smattering of posts? It affects me as a mother and someone who is TTC at somewhat of an advanced age and would have a TMFR if necessary. I could have had this under the old system, though.

But it’s not really about me, is it?

You seem to have skipped over my friends story. She didn't need to have an abortion procedure, that would have delayed her care even longer. She was booked to have a hysterectomy for cancer and with the permission paperwork signed they were able to proceed with removing her uterus which contained a tumour and coincidentally a small group of cells which mattered a lot more than her

But do you know for certain they could have just removed the uterus right then and there? For one thing, she has the right to know and then review her options? The surgeons themselves may not have been able to proceed as normally, not a doctor though so don’t know.

It's this kind of gross ambivalence you have to women which I really don't care how much you deny it, I highly suspect you're a bloke

It’s really tiresome. I’m not pro-life but you know that the pro-life movement (in the US anyway) is full of Catholic women. I suppose you think they are men too, spiritually.

All you responded to women's deaths were that they're irrelevant

Ireland is a completely different country, that’s why it’s irrelevant. You intentionally misread it

when it could have been faster if she wasn't sent away on the day of her op when decriminalisation would have meant it could proceed

I don’t think decriminalizing means they could just ‘proceed’ because the hospital is going to have its own procedures that won’t be dictated by the government. Why do you think otherwise?

You don't express an ounce of empathy for any women's stories not even a "that sounds hard" and I can't believe there's a woman alive who haven't been through or seen a fellow women go through a miscarriage where they could relate that there could be distress at being treated with suspicion, or relate to a mother being scared to leave her kids behind that they'd have nothing empathetic to say

I’m not going to be tone-policed for what has been a very reasonable position.

Investigations by police would be very rare, and only opened by medical staff when they have a reasonable suspicion (although I grant that there could be people out there that could have malicious intent)

Irrespective of the law change, if a very premature baby is born and dies (or is found dead) outside of a hospital environment, there's going to be a postmortem, investigation etc. If a woman has a stillbirth at home, for example.

Whilst with the law change it will be entirely legal for her to cause a fetus to die inside her, they won't be sure whether it had been born alive, smothered at birth etc. Obviously if the baby was born alive but barely and the mum finished it off, it would be murder, and it may be manslaughter if she watched it die and did nothing due to the duty of care parents have to their children. The law would have an obligation to investigate. So the intrusive investigations will remain because they are necessary.

It's not just because you don't agree with me it's because all your posts seem to discuss the issue in a way that's completely removed from you. You don't talk about women or mothers as though you're part of a group that this issue would affect personally at all.

You seem to have skipped over my friends story. She didn't need to have an abortion procedure, that would have delayed her care even longer. She was booked to have a hysterectomy for cancer and with the permission paperwork signed they were able to proceed with removing her uterus which contained a tumour and coincidentally a small group of cells which mattered a lot more than her.

I’m not sure this could have gone much faster for her tbh

It's this kind of gross ambivalence you have to women which I really don't care how much you deny it, I highly suspect you're a bloke. All you responded to women's deaths were that they're irrelevant and to this case simply meh couldn't have been faster when it could have been faster if she wasn't sent away on the day of her op when decriminalisation would have meant it could proceed. You don't express an ounce of empathy for any women's stories not even a "that sounds hard" and I can't believe there's a woman alive who haven't been through or seen a fellow women go through a miscarriage where they could relate that there could be distress at being treated with suspicion, or relate to a mother being scared to leave her kids behind that they'd have nothing empathetic to say.

What? Apart from the 50 organisations, including medical Royal Colleges, groups attempting to end violence against women and girls, trades unions, and human rights bodies, and the 379 MP’s who voted in favour of the amendment

Woman doesn’t agree 100% with you: OMG she must be a man.

Scheduling a surgical abortion itself takes a week or two, does it not? You cannot just get an abortion immediately after being seen unless you are given abortion pills. I’m not sure this could have gone much faster for her tbh