In looking forward to free-access abortions clinics on the high street soon

[MadameDefarge]

in order to deal with all those pesky third child pregnancies conceived to extort more money from the tax payer by feckless benefit scroungers?

Come on Dave, have the courage of your convictions...accidents happen as we all know, so we need a change to abortion legislation to allow free access to abortions.

Of course another option is to perform sterilisation on benefit claimants. Or perhaps demand an abstinence pledge for claimants?

Hm. Lots of policy review needed to bring other services into line with this plan.

Are they going to add the words 'financial issues' to the acceptable criteria, I admit I haven't looked into it for a long time but is it still physical health of mother and baby and mental health of mother and baby and any existing children?

I'm sure a remember a huge Hoha in the media about a year ish ago something to do with the gov coming down like a ton of bricks on clinics who only pay lip service to the criteria required.

Either way it won't much matter people will always have children even if they are broke

dear me period, whether you "believe" in accidents or contraceptive failure or not, they do happen.

You can't just stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la you are all feckless wasters and liars" and more to the point, its not a practical solution.

Sorry, I didn't add much of intelligence to the debate. In my defense, I am off my tits on diazepam and codiene for a bad back. I will go and participate in a fluffier thread for now..

sorry parvati! stay!

I've never had an accidental pregnancy nor an abortion. However, now that I can no longer use any hormonal-based contraception, the risks of both are higher. Although I could of course just abstain to be on the safe side. Not sure what that would do for my relationship though. Actually, it would probably be ok because I'm not with an arse who seems to think PIV sex is a god-given right in a relationship and would more than happily concentrate on other forms of sex.

How often is that the case? That's one of the main problems with this proposal. It is inherently misogynistic. It may reduce so-called benefit families a little bit. It'll massively increase the number of women living in poverty trying to raise children because I see nothing to hold men accountable for the third or more children they create.

I think all the talk about not giving money to FEED children just because they are the 3rd in a rich country like the UK is bollocks. And I see more people are buying this shit. Most people claiming benefits are working FFS.

And there is no right to have an abortion 'at will'. I haven't had an abortion but have friends who had. And it wasn't easy for them to get the abortions (waiting list, etc.) and they were sure of their decision and do not regret their abortions. Doctors assumed because they were married, in their 30's and without any children, they might change their mind.

Irrespective of whether on not people are on benefits or not they should only have as many children as they can afford to look after. If the state help support this up to 2 then I think this is completely reasonable.

If this stops a very small percentage of people going on to have lots of children which parents cannot afford to support then that has to be a good thing.

The current legal grounds for abortion in the England, Wales and Scotland (but not in NI) are (s1 of the Arbortion Act 1967 (amended):

" if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith:
(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or
(b) that the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or
(c) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or
(d) that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped."

Nothing about finances there. Plus 2 doctors have to be convinced of the above: so referral is not automatic; in effect the "medical practitioners" have to give their consent to the procedure.

Arbortion

RVP - it won't though.

It will make responsible people who would probably cope quite well with a third child think harder. It will do nothing to prevent third children in the exact same families that the government are trying to target. Women who have pregnancies as the result of abuse, naivety or even sheer irresponsibility won't be impacted by this other than being left high and dry financially. Meanwhile, another generation of children will be raised in poverty with their life chances at breaking the cycle of deprivation annihilated.

Result!

v useful, despite typo!

I hope it will show people they do not have an automatic right to terminate a pregnancy in the UK (NI excluded)

And for those of you who don't "believe" in accidental pregnancy, here's the NHSs' statistics on contraceptive effectiveness rates and what they actually mean:

Male condoms: 98% effective if used correctly. This means that two women in 100 whose partners use a condom will get pregnant in a year.
Female condoms: 95% effective if used correctly. Five women in 100 who use a female condom will get pregnant in a year.
Diaphragms: latex diaphragms are 92-96% effective if used correctly. Between four and eight women in 100 who use latex diaphragms with spermicide will get pregnant in a year.
Caps: latex caps are 92-96% effective if used correctly. Between four and eight women in 100 who use latex caps with spermicide will get pregnant in a year. Silicone caps are less effective.
Combined contraceptive pill: over 99% effective if taken correctly. Less than one woman in 100 will get pregnant in a year while taking the combined pill.
Progestogen-only pill: 99% effective if taken correctly. One woman in 100 will get pregnant in a year while taking the progestogen-only pill.

That's a lot of accidental pregnancies over time and in a population from what I can see.

More here: www.nhs.uk/Conditions/contraception-guide/Pages/how-effective-contraception.aspx

hear, hear Dahlen!

whilst your point about the necessity to access abortion clinics easily is a valid one, you've spoilt it with your ridiculous (boring) sterotyping of those on benefits. Yawn yawn Yabu.

Chunderella, I think when it was drafted, it was meant as something in particular about that pregnancy which is life-threatening, over and above "being pregnant", IYSWIM.

The point is, it's that two medical practitioners need to be of the opinion that the woman is more likely to die if pregnant than if not (or to be of the opinion that a) b) or d) are satisfied) , rather than a woman being able to de facto exercise a right to an abortion under those provisions.

So it could be argued that the power to obtain an abortion doesn't lie with the woman, it lies elsewhere.

OP - nobody is saying you can't have more children and must have a termination. You can have as many as you like - just don't expect the over-burdened tax payer to pay for them.

In reality I imagine those hardest hit by this would be women in abusive relationships and their children.

It would be hugely to the advantage of the abuser to keep the victim pregnant, constantly having children and with less and less money per person to look after them. Each child would make it more difficult for the woman to leave permanently.

YANBU about abortion on demand having to be made legal if this went through - at minimum abortion for financial reasons would have to be added to the list.

I totally get your point Op. it is wrong to have one without the other.

Like the pro-life but no fucking benefits thing in the US. The foetus is a baby and has overwhelming rights - until it costs someone else some cash.

Chunderella, you are right about the legislation, that's why you can effectively go into the GP and say you don't want to go ahead with your PG - it is technically more dangerous to go ahead with a pregnancy... Not sure if that's what the initial legislators had in mind.

Chunderella,

No it does not cover all pregnant women only the ones who have a pregnancy related condition or one made worse by pregnancy very likely to kill them.

The possibility of risk is not usually considered the risk has to be real for that particular woman.

We're both right Chunderella The salient point is that it's not the woman who gets to decide, it's someone else. I can remember reading somewhere that is getting harder to get younger doctors to recognise the benefits of providing terminations because they don't know the dire situation faced by women before abortion was legalised - they are unlikely to have had to deal with the aftermath of a backstreet abortion or women old before their time after multiple births and multiple kids, unlike their older peers (and too be honest, I can't imagine there are that many doctors left who were practicing over 45 years ago?).