Royal College of Midwives backs abolition of abortion law that could see women terminate unborn child at any point

[ThatsMyStapler]

Surely the majority of people needing/wanting a medical abortion do so for very good reasons, and also as quickly as is possible.

Royal College of Midwives backs abolition of abortion law that could see women terminate unborn child at any point

Telegraph Link

he Royal College of Midwives (RCM) is facing criticism after calling for abortion to be decriminalised, without consulting its members on the issue.
The union, which represents almost 30,000 midwives and health workers, has said it gives its “full support” to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), the UK’s biggest abortion provider, in its campaign for abortion to be removed from criminal law.
Prof Cathy Warwick, chief executive of the RCM, is also chairman of the board of trustees of BPAS.
It is currently against the law for women to terminate a foetus after 24 weeks unless there is a medical reason to do so, while abortions earlier in a pregnancy are only legal if two doctors agree to it.
But the RCM is backing calls for the legal limits to be scrapped and abortion to instead be regulated in the same way as other medical procedures, at the discretion of doctors.

There is a petition to stop this, and they say;

"Your campaign is severely out of touch with what women actually think and want. A ComRes poll in March 2014 found that 88% of women favoured a total and explicit ban on sex-selective abortion, whilst another in October that year registered a similar figure of 85%. The March poll also found 92% of women agreeing that a woman requesting an abortion should always be seen in person by a qualified doctor. Whilst in 2006, a Guardian / MORI poll found that 47% of women wanted a reduction in the upper time limit, a 2012 Angus Reid poll found this number had increased to 59% of women."

I don't understand the autonomy argument. I'm all for allowing a woman to be induced/have a cesarean early if she needs to not be pregnant. I had an early CS on mental and physical health grounds and I had to argue the toss about autonomy.

But why does she need to terminate?

Do you think policeman, lawyers and judges are ensuring mental well being

In the current system mental well being is balanced against other concerns and isn't the only concern addressed. And yes, I do think that in most cases having a properly codified legal system which is subject to scrutiny and contains checks and balances is (as a last resort) a better way of protecting the interests of all concerned than assuming that a single fallible human being in the form of a doctor will always make the correct and ethical decision. Particularly if the disincentive that same legal system may deal with them if they don't is removed.

It wasn't an unwanted pregnancy by the way, my body stopped tolerating the pregnancy and I was in so much pain I was becoming hysterical. He was in distress. Once born and treated we were both fine.

Which is illegal if its based on gender alone and they, rather than the woman, are the ones responsible for doing that.

The difference is important.

Yes it is. And it touches on exactly the point I was making: that doctors cannot be trusted to make ethical decisions across the board, particularly when any potential penalty via the legal system is removed.

In the case of transplants your decision to not donate organs doesn't decide whether someone lives or dies though, it's that persons illness that decides that. Your decision to not donate is not the same as actively stopping their heart.

Is it really OK to terminate the life of a foetus that can survive outside the womb? Not one that can't, that's very different, but one that can.

But why does she need to terminate? Because that is her choice! Why do you see the need to override that?

And there you have the 2 sides of this. That is what it boils down to, really.

I believe in a woman's right to bodily autonomy. I believe in her right to abortion

Others do not believe that abortion is right, or want to place caveats on it that meet their personal approval. They cannot, therefore, believe in a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

All else, all the what ifs, all the heart rending possibilities, all the horrendous maybes are very much by the by.

That is why the RCM statement was so bland. They have simply stated that they believe it is wrong, under any circumstances, for a woman to be criminalised for abortion.

Blanche because her autonomy is over her own body. So she can choose to not be pregnant. Her autonomy does not extend to choosing the outcome for the foetus, which at that point is viable.

OurBlanche, why should it be her choice that the baby is born dead rather than alive if it would be capable of surviving without her? If she induced then she is exercising her right to bodily autonomy - the right to choose to no longer be pregnant - but the baby also has a chance to survive.

And to all those posters saying they support the royal college of midwives - a significant proportion of midwives don't support it on this issue.

In the case of late abortions I think a woman should have the right to terminate the pregnancy, but not the right to terminate the life.

X-post Future.

I'm in two minds here.

I agree that every woman should have a right to an abortion but I'm just not sure when it becomes a baby? I mean if you could theoretically abort at 36 weeks and ithe baby could've been born 5 minutes later one would be given medical intervention but not the other?

But in principle I support this - usually they have a very good reason.

Agree though it is disgusting if someone aborts due to gender.

If there is a viable baby in a woman's body then presumably it has bodily autonomy. But under the pro-choice thinking, that autonomy would be trumped by the mother's autonomy. Fair enough. She gets to choose an eviction date, under this thinking. But why does she also get to choose that the baby DIES?

It is completely unnecessary and there are many, many adoptive couples on waiting lists who would glad offer a newborn baby a loving home. I understand that there is research to suggest relinquishing babies for adoption is psychologically more damaging to women than having an abortion, although I suspect those statistics would change if we looked only a late-term abortion data.

However, at some point, the rights of the unborn child must kick in. They are not a kidney but a human being that could survive alone. Why should they not have that chance, simply because they have the misfortune of being inside a woman who would prefer to administer a lethal injection (with scant regard for the pain unborn babies are definitely capable of feeling post 26 weeks) before crushing its skull, pelvic and ribs? This is a baby who we would spend millions upon if it was born early and wanted. A human life does not rise or fall in value like that solely upon the whim of the woman carrying it. A human life has intrinsic value.

Women aren't the only ones with rights.

Her autonomy does not extend to choosing the outcome for the foetus, which at that point is viable. At what point? Again that is conflating 2 or more issues, using worst case scenarios to prove a point, etc.

And, bluntly, abortion is legal, it gives a woman exactly that choice - to choose to be not pregnant, thus ending the possibility of life for a foetus.

gonetosee that isn't really a surprise. Midwives, like may people, have a wide range of views on this. Some agree with abortion, some disagree... just like the wider population.

OurBlanche we are discussing late term abortions. Viable foetuses.

I can't get over how it can be legal to terminate a child's life because it's unwanted when it can sustain life outside the mothers body is ethical.

Regardless of how desperate you are surely that child deserves a life or a chance of one.

I'm not against terminating pregnancies that aren't going to result in a live baby, I've held a relatives hand whilst they received the injection to put an end to their child life because that child wouldn't have survived outside the womb but to do it to a child who would survive equates to murder in my eyes.

In the case of late abortions I think a woman should have the right to terminate the pregnancy, but not the right to terminate the life.

Yes.

Buffy, on countless other threads I've suggested induction as an alternative to abortion post 24 weeks to those who support the idea of abortion to term and it has been met with spiteful/derogatory comments. It does not seem to be an idea that all pro-choicers will support. Some people still think that the woman should be allowed to terminate the foetus because it is inside her.

Ignoring all the heart string plucking But under the pro-choice thinking, that autonomy would be trumped by the mother's autonomy.

No! Again that is conflating 2 or more discussions:

1. That is not what the RCM has said
2. That has nothing to do with the issue of criminalising women who seek abortion
3. I doubt I am 'Pro Choice'' as capitalised but no, I don't think that at all. Nor do I think that this move would make that true.

It really does come down to using some of the worst case possibilities as a blunt instrument to prevent a law that would simply decriminalise women for wanting an abortion. The reality of that law would still include medical professionals who could still face criminal proceedings for acting outside the law. That is not what this is about.

Again, there are plenty of other countries that have already done this, and others have also commented about the amazing lack of late abortions, the remarkable continuity in the stats.

OurBlanche we are discussing late term abortions. Viable foetuses. You might be... the RCM were not and, whilst I appreciate that threads move on, the point still stands. Conflating the 2 issues is muddying the water.

That makes no sense at all futuregadgets.

If you're going to argue from a stance of fetal 'right to life' surely it has the right to the best possible chances at lilfe ie not to be induced early.

The RC Obs and Gynes are very clear that 'a live birth isn't compatible with the intention of abortion'.

Saying that a woman can end a pregnancy when she wants in a way that doesn't influence the life chances of a foetus is completely untenable as an argument.