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.

But threatening to kill yourself often works if your happy to go along with all the cp referrals that go along with that if you have other children.

Sockreturningpixie sorry, didn't see your clarification about the pregnancy related condition; that's what I thought at first.

I think one-stop free-access abortion clinics in every town, where a woman can actually be credited with knowing her own mind and what she does or does not want to happen wrt being a parent or having a baby growing in her body would be a good move.

Irrespective of what does or does not happen within the benefits system.

agree blu defiantly.

Glad to see there's already a ref to Jonathan Swift on here . I was goung to suggest insteac of abortion clinics benefit claimants could simply eat the additional children; that would reduce the need for food banks too.

(and clearly some people on this thread don't understand satire)

Roxy RTFT.

Pirate, indeed! Satire and irony seem to be lost on some, as is logic.

Blu, I agree entirely. Just thought there was an interesting contradiction of cause and effect potential.

Blu, I'm totally with you on that one.

And me, Blu.

pregnancy per se is not considered a health risk that would come under the current legislation.

no human activity is risk free. eating, drinking, sex, having babies. The legislation clearly refers to extraordinary risk to mother, child or other children. Either for mental or physical health reasons - not an activity which is perfectly normal, albeit with inherent risk.

TOP can always be justified on the grounds of health as its more risky to continue with pregnancy than have a TOP, that's a fact. So that is how they sign them off routinely. It's got nothing to do with extraordinary risk.

well, welcome to legislation of the late sixties that had to pander to an existing moral majority which viewed abortion as a sin.

I suggest you do some research into the drafting of the bill at that time, it might answer your questions. There was plenty of coverage and subsequent debate about it.

I'm sure as a solicitor you are familiar with laws that does not deal in absolutes.

harder, that is utter rubbish.

In terms of the legislation the simple fact of being pregnant did not, and does not constitute a reason for an abortion to be agreed by two doctors.

It really isn't. I'm not going to go in to all my credentials here (and of course it wouldn't mean anything anyway as could be troll etc) but that is how they sign off the routine TOPs. The justification, not written down anywhere of course but if called to account, is that TOP is less risky than pregnancy. Therefore continuing poses risk to maternal health that TOP can mitigate, fulfilling requirements of section a. It's right there in he wording of it!

Madame what are the statistics for women being refused abortions in the UK seeing as you think it's so difficult to access one?

Or to put more succinctly, ALL pregnancies satisfy the conditions for TOP under section a. Therefore every woman can have a TOP using this section of the Act as their legal basis. It opens up TOP to every woman. That was why it was put in.

Little, RTFT. ta. I was pretty clear that is not hard to get an abortion in the UK, but that it is, in law, not an automatic right.

Interesting Harder, that that aspect of the legislation has never got much publicity, has it?

One wonders why you need two doctors to attest to this basic fact.

however OnIlkelyMoorBahtat if you are using 2 methods for instance -
Male condoms: 98%
AND
Progestogen-only pill: 99%

syatistical likelyhood of someone using both to become pregnant drops to 0.01x0.02=0.0002
which is 2 pregnancies per 10000 couples

if in doubt - use both methods, add third and it will drop further etc

Or indeed a doctor to be involved at all in signing off on an abortion at all, past the confirmation of pregnancy. Surely if this were the case a GP could simply just book an appointment for a woman to terminate? no doctors needed other than the surgeon or prescriber of the abortion pill. Lots of faff which seems to be completely unnecessary, if the bill allows the fact of pregnancy to count as a valid reason for termination, as it is a risk, rather than just allowing women to choose with no permission needed to be granted by two doctors.

Harder,

So why do more get done using the mental health reason then?