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.

I have read the thread and still want to know why you say abortion isn't freely available when as harder explains the risk of continuing a pregnancy is sufficient to allow abortion in all cases.

antimatter agreed - well I say agreed, I couldn't have even begun to work out the figures - thanks for doing that! I mean agreed that the likely hood goes down the more methods you use, but most people aren't going to use 3 or more types of contraception are they?

Anyway, my point is that even when using contraception properly, accident pregnancies still happen.

That's good to know tho anyway antimatter - I hadn't realised it made that much of a difference - I do tend to only use one at a time myself...

TMI!

They don't. The grounds have been reclassified for record keeping and 96% are done under the physical and mental grounds.

www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/uk/ukabreasons1.html

But the point is that - even up to 24 weeks - she needs to get permission in the first place.

I think we should insist people get education in that matter - then is their choice what to do.

we are in 21 century, science progressed this far - no need for people to fee they have no choice :)

I have no objection to OP proposal, though I suspect it is tongue-in-cheek as I don't believe abortion is that hard to obtain at the moment. (Admit to less experience than her though.)

I don't agree with eating surplus babies, I think the oversupply is much smaller than in Swift's day, consequently there are likely to be higher-value uses for them. For example, given fertility treatment costs thousands each time, flogging them off to the fertility-challenged should raise at least a few hundred quid each, which would dwarf their value as meat.

Obviously we don't want people to intentionally produce babies for the purpose of flogging them, so it would have to remain illegal for the public to do, instead social workers would take them off the parents who can't afford to look after them, and sell them, with the state getting all the money. There would be an overall loss on each baby after taking into account costs to the state of the pregnancy, but with the incentive to produce eliminated and of course the savings in future benefits the state would come out ahead overall.

People will raise all sorts of objections, but really this doesn't have to be complicated. True story (no really) wife's uncle who was the favoured child in his family was bought in a street-market from parents who couldn't afford him. This was the standard process for private-sector adoption in a relatively poor Asian country 50-odd years ago. If they can solve the problem that cheaply and efficiently, we should be ashamed of the extent to which we are over-thinking this so-called "problem."

they do get education in the matter. Accidents happen.

Why can't we just have abortion on demand? Its either ok for women to decide whether to continue a pregnancy or not, or its not. Why make them go begging and claim mental stress?

Time limits obviously would need to be debated.

I doubt most people really understand the numbers behind those stats.
that's my opinion anyway

little, I am not wholly convinced by Harder's assertions, that is all.

The legislation is not fit for purpose anymore. It was created in a much more constrained time, which had to show a moral reason for an abortion.

while it exists in its present form, there is always the scary possibility , as I mentioned earlier, that access could be withdrawn. Societies can become retrograde. just look at the current demonisation of the poor.

Though it would be nice to increase the supply of babies for adoption, back to the pre abortion levels. So maybe Dave has an altruistic plan at the heart of this after all.

I like LM's plan, it's giving back to society instead of just take, take, take.

According to Harder, no one ever needs to cite any of the other categories other than A. So why do they?

Accuracy of record keeping. It's the doctor that assigns the grounds of course, so they will pick the grounds that most accurately reflect the situation. Won't always be a! (Or c, depending what set of definitions you're using).

With regard to abortions being available up to 24 weeks, I believe that up to 12 weeks they are relatively easy to obtain, but many doctors who will do them up to that point will not do them later.

On the other hand, the 24 week limit does not apply where the baby has a life-limiting condition. I'm aware of a case in which termination at 34 weeks was an option.

the point is harder, keeping accurate medical records is one thing, making the reasons the basis of allowing women to have an abortion is quite another.

I just think the reality of current abortion provision should be protected by legislation.

You asked why not all abortions are classified under the physical health grounds, I was answering. You seem to be confusing two points - the reality of obtaining a TOP, which is what I'm talking about, and whether thus reality is morally OK or needs changing.

no I am not confusing it. My point is women should not have to seek the permission of two doctors, citing a variety of reasons in order to access an abortion.

your claim that the A category is a kind of back door way of ensuring no one is refused might well be true. but it is dishonest if it is, and the legislation should be changed. because as it stands, it is open to interpretation.

And in theory, a doctor can refuse an abortion.

Some states in the USA have the same laws. Benefit families with one child get nothing if they have another child
on benefits. They are offered free contraception. There has been a reduction in benefit born babies in USA. Its about time the UK stopped
handing out my hard earned tax to the likes of a woman at ds2's school who has 4 kids to different kids, pregnant again and never worked a day in her life. Why should I support lazy dole scroungers like her?

And while this remains the case, I will continue to advocate for a change to legislation.

I hope that is clear enough for you.

is that some kind of mumsnet bingo, Oreo? hard earned tax payer. Tick. Feckless mother of four. Tick. By different fathers. Tick. (I think I need some sal volatile). "Benefit families" Tick. "Benefit Babies. that's a new one, but I reckon the DM will pick up on this a run with it.

and the phrase for housy housy is lazy dole scroungers! Yay!

Your prize is a year's subscription to the Daily Mail.