Bid in Lords to overturn move to decriminalise abortion for women

Ask the Northern Irish. It's been decriminalised there for over six years.

Ask the Northern Irish. It's been decriminalised there for over six years.

It's rare when it's criminalised, but do we have any evidence that it will remain so when it's perfectly legal?

I think it's right that society provides full healthcare for a pregnant woman, which includes the option of safe termination earlier on in the pregnancy. I don't believe telemedical abortion is safe, even in the first trimester.

I don't know what you mean by using the word "evicted". A woman isn't a lifeless baby-house. She is a living being. You're talking about inducing labour? As I said, I'm not sure. These interventions will always pose a risk to both mother and foetus / infant. Certainly if it's taking place away from a hospital with a mother self administering meds I think that's crazy risky for both her and child and I'm really surprised there was no effort to guard against that in the legislation. Within the hospital? I think the life and wellbeing of the foetus are best secured by pregnancy continuing to term so if the pregnant woman can do this healthfully she should.

The women who are most likely to enjoy the benefits of telemedical abortion with minimal risk are those with the most cultural capital: well educated, good understanding of their bodies and their cycles, awarenss of what symptoms mean they should seek face to face assessment, supportive family, secure housing. These are also the women who are most likely to be elected to parliament, obtain tenure at a university, hold positions of influence in professional colleges, unions, and UN bodies.
The women who are most at risk of suffering harms from telemedical abortion, whether they are deliberately misleading the healthcare provider as to how far along in their pregnancy they are or not, are women whose lives are chaotic due to mental illness, homelessness, familial abuse and violence, or women who aren't well educated about how their bodies work, can't remember when their last period was, or have no idea what symptoms of what severity indicate they should seek a face to face assessment. These are also the women who are least likely to be elected to parliament, obtain tenure at a university, hold positions of influence in professional colleges, unions, and UN bodies.
I struggle with feminist activism that prioritises ease of access to termination at any stage during pregnancy over all else. I believe that serves the interests of a narrow section of women, and they are not the most vulnerable.

It's rare when it's criminalised, but do we have any evidence that it will remain so when it's perfectly legal?

Having two physicians sign off on an abortion is not onerous and iirc it usually takes about a week to book. Which seems to have been what your friend had experienced.

But I’m talking to extremists who maintain with a straight face that a corpse has more rights than a pregnant woman.

They may well have... but they didnt.

I agree to some extent with the concern but I agree with RCOG and other organisations who state this is extraordinarily rare. Late term abortions are so rare anyway that a self induced self term abortion is even rarer, so rare that they and others supporter the change in the law because criminalising those rare cases didn't seem to deter them but it more likely deters women who have suffered a natural miscarriage from seeking medical care.

One consideration of abortion pills by post is that if a woman decides to carry out a late stage self-induced abortion ( though if it is decriminalised she shouldn’t need to), the baby will have missed out on the feticide which would otherwise have been carried out by a doctor prior to administering the abortion drugs.

This would mean more suffering for the baby who could die of suffocation, ischemia, sepsis and other harms through the ensuing process. Maybe the baby would feel pain too ( there seems not to be a consensus). There is even a small chance the baby would be born live then die. The mother could also be harmed.

So it is important for girls and women to be educated to seek medical help, and not try a late term abortion by themselves, even if it is easy to get the pills.

These changes should be sorted out with doctors too. Some may balk at assisting with late term abortions if the mother is not at risk.

I feel the combination of easy to get pills, which may help with early abortions, could lead to some harmful late-term self/induced ones.

They may well have... but they didnt.

I'd day that most often the women referred to may well have gone ahead with the pregnancy, if they'd had the support of the father/husband/partner.

What's happened here is that arguments about two legislative changes, happening in the same Bill, are (unintentionally, I suspect) being elided.

1. Retaining the abortion pills by post service instituted during Covid.
2. Decriminalising self-abortion at all stages.

The first arguably poses a risk of increased risk of coercion because a requirement for a present-in-person, on her own with the HCP, consultation creates an opportunity for an abuse victim to disclose, and her abuser can't deny her that opportunity if he wants her to abort. An unintended consequence of forcing that one-to-one meeting is that he may just instead force her to stay pregnant and be tied to him with a baby...

The second doesn't increase a risk of coercion to the woman.

Several politicians have promised this legislation passing means no future criminal investigations of miscarriages or stillbirths. Yes, that means no women will be suspects, but it also means no menfolk will be, either. In my opinion that puts vulnerable women in controlling relationships at further risk because the men know that noone will ask any questions.
Maybe those politicians were lying for political gain. I actually hope they were.

Having two physicians sign off on an abortion is not onerous and iirc it usually takes about a week to book. Which seems to have been what your friend had experienced.

But I’m talking to extremists who maintain with a straight face that a corpse has more rights than a pregnant woman.

I think it's right that society provides full healthcare for a pregnant woman, which includes the option of safe termination earlier on in the pregnancy. I don't believe telemedical abortion is safe, even in the first trimester.

I don't know what you mean by using the word "evicted". A woman isn't a lifeless baby-house. She is a living being. You're talking about inducing labour? As I said, I'm not sure. These interventions will always pose a risk to both mother and foetus / infant. Certainly if it's taking place away from a hospital with a mother self administering meds I think that's crazy risky for both her and child and I'm really surprised there was no effort to guard against that in the legislation. Within the hospital? I think the life and wellbeing of the foetus are best secured by pregnancy continuing to term so if the pregnant woman can do this healthfully she should.

The women who are most likely to enjoy the benefits of telemedical abortion with minimal risk are those with the most cultural capital: well educated, good understanding of their bodies and their cycles, awarenss of what symptoms mean they should seek face to face assessment, supportive family, secure housing. These are also the women who are most likely to be elected to parliament, obtain tenure at a university, hold positions of influence in professional colleges, unions, and UN bodies.
The women who are most at risk of suffering harms from telemedical abortion, whether they are deliberately misleading the healthcare provider as to how far along in their pregnancy they are or not, are women whose lives are chaotic due to mental illness, homelessness, familial abuse and violence, or women who aren't well educated about how their bodies work, can't remember when their last period was, or have no idea what symptoms of what severity indicate they should seek a face to face assessment. These are also the women who are least likely to be elected to parliament, obtain tenure at a university, hold positions of influence in professional colleges, unions, and UN bodies.
I struggle with feminist activism that prioritises ease of access to termination at any stage during pregnancy over all else. I believe that serves the interests of a narrow section of women, and they are not the most vulnerable.

Whilst family members are consulted, it's to try to find out what the dead person wanted. This is why the NHS has opt-in and opt-out forms to ensure clarity, as well as urging people to tell their families about their post-mortem wishes.

I wonder perhaps if you haven't fully read the law because nothing in this legislation makes it decriminalised for someone to force or coerce someone into a termination, that's hyperbolic nonsense to use your words, nothing else in abortion legislation is changing except for the risk of prosecution to the mother. Every other part of the criteria, permission, limits and rules are staying the same with doctors who perform illegal abortions still subject to prosecution as well as anyone who tries to force or coerce someone.

But you said:

"I would say because the separation between mother and child takes time. Early on in the pregnancy there is one being: a woman with potential-future-life inside her, and she is free to decide whether that potential develops to become a separate being. Once that separation is complete the life of the foetus has value in its own right and its mother should continue her pregnancy to term."

So before 'separation' is complete, the pregnant woman should be able to have an abortion, right? And then after, it's a separate person, and therefore should be able to be evicted.

So a woman should either be able to abort, or induce labour. There should be no point when she can do neither.

I'm not asking you if she should be charged! I've asked you very clearly where the benefit was for her abortion being criminal if the red tape wasn't performed given you're arguing incorrectly that there is no red tape and that we have abortion on demand or that we need to keep the red tape regardless of the distress it causes some women. Asking you to empathise with the real application of these laws on women isn't pointless, how insulting.

I wonder perhaps if you haven't fully read the law because nothing in this legislation makes it decriminalised for someone to force or coerce someone into a termination, that's hyperbolic nonsense to use your words, nothing else in abortion legislation is changing except for the risk of prosecution to the mother. Every other part of the criteria, permission, limits and rules are staying the same with doctors who perform illegal abortions still subject to prosecution as well as anyone who tries to force or coerce someone.

Plenty of women too if your friend group is anything to go by.

But we can and have made a law based on address of visibility and health of the mother. That's literally why they're are different time limits. That works perfectly fine. The cut off limit effectively 'on demand' is later than I'd like, but the twin track system is sound and has been for a long time.

It's interesting to read @selffellatingouroborosofhate 's post directly above @Imnobody4 's.
IMO it's hyperbolic nonsens to say a corpse has the right to refuse its organs being donated. It's family mebers who have the right to refuse the organ donation. And with this legislative change, and its complete lack of safeguards, it's my belief that there are many family members who will now have, if not the right, at least the means and opportunity to decide on behalf of a pregnant woman whether or not she gets to continue her pregnancy to term - with a neat guarantee it will never be investigated further.

It's interesting to read @selffellatingouroborosofhate 's post directly above @Imnobody4 's.
IMO it's hyperbolic nonsens to say a corpse has the right to refuse its organs being donated. It's family mebers who have the right to refuse the organ donation. And with this legislative change, and its complete lack of safeguards, it's my belief that there are many family members who will now have, if not the right, at least the means and opportunity to decide on behalf of a pregnant woman whether or not she gets to continue her pregnancy to term - with a neat guarantee it will never be investigated further.