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."

Christina how is it? The woman has bodily autonomy over herself. Therefore she can choose when the fetus leaves her body.

However the fetus has its own rights, but they don't trump those of the mother.

I don't understand why that is difficult.

I'm sorry but it comes down to this:

DO YOU BELIEVE MENTALLY ILL WOMEN SHOULD BE LOCKED UP IN JAIL?

or

DO YOU BELIEVE MENTALLY ILL WOMEN SHOULD GET MEDICAL HELP AND ASSISTANCE (ALONG WITH THE APPROPRIATE SOCIAL SERVICE SUPPORT THAT COMES WITH THAT)?

There is NO middle ground here if women can be prosecuted for having an abortion.

This does NOT mean that medical staff can not be prosecuted, for carrying out an abortion. They are still subject to other laws.

It is not expanding the scope of abortion. Nor is it making it more morally acceptable. Nor is it making it easier to access late abortion.

Its just saying that ill women should be treated as ill women, not criminals.

I don't get why that's so hard to understand or why its so controversial actually. There seems to be rather a lot of people who think its acceptable to drag, ill and vulnerable women through the legal process which is of no benefit to the public interest. All it does is make women second class and to dehumanise them.

Its just recognising that women in this situation NEED HELP not a JAIL TERM.

I don't disagree with the idea of early induction. I'm guessing with the idea of the baby then going to neonatal care and being adopted if it survives.

This, I could see as an option, later in pregnancy. However, I think it is the 24-28ish weeks that are a problem. When we opted for a termination I baulked slightly when I realised I would actually have to kill my baby rather than let her die. It was explained to me by medical professionals as it stopping the distress and possible pain of my daughter dying in labour. That is where the problem will lie, with the death during labour of babies of a younger gestation.

RedToothBrush Hear, Hear!

As early as possible, as late as necessary....

Any woman needing a late abortion is someone who needs help, big time.

There were 184,571 abortions in England and Wales in 2014.

Only 211 of them were post 24 weeks. 202 of those were for congenital malformations.

46 of them were over 32 weeks. All 46 were for congenital malformations.

So what makes people believe that women would be rushing to abort foetuses that could survive?

christina Your counter-argument makes no sense at all. Surely you can appreciate that a baby at 26+ weeks has a better chance of life in a hospital than having a lethal injection?

don't disagree with the idea of early induction. I'm guessing with the idea of the baby then going to neonatal care and being adopted

I had an early CS on mental health grounds. The pregnancy was causing me so much pain, I couldn't breathe and was getting hysterical. But I absolutely wanted my baby. I don't necessarily think everyone who would go for the option would want to give the baby up!

RedToothBrush -

Surely all mentally ill people should get the help and support they need? I dread to think how many people are in prison because they've committed crimes where their mental health is a factor.

A woman needing to terminate her pregnancy late on needs help whether the foetus/baby is born dead or alive. Or is providing an abortion going to be a magic wand to solve her problems?

As late as necessary

That phrase pisses me off. Unless medically necessary it's not 'necessary' to abort an unborn baby because you don't want it. Let's not medicalise this choice by pretending it's a necessity. It's a way for women to get rid of children they have belated decided they don't want. Children who have rights of their own and could have been loved and cared for if their mother was prepared to go through a few more weeks of pregnancy, but who now will be dying a potentially agonising death before being crushed to a pulp.

Necessary is the very last word for it.

If this is about jail terms, I'm all for a compromise.

Only the provider of the service is culpable.

How's that? All women are now protected.

exLt, abortion is currently only legal after 24 weeks in cases of congenital abnormalities (or to preserve life/health of the mother). You don't know from those figures how many women wanted to abort healthy foetuses for non-medical reasons.

Only the provider of the service is culpable.

Seems fair!

Let's not forget the objective fact, proved by study after study all over the world, that criminalising abortion makes no difference whatsoever to the number of abortions that take place. In fact, in countries where abortion is legal, fewer take place. So those of you who want to save babies' lives would actually be better off supporting the RCM's position.

It's the 'or' argument I was pointing out. ALL the 'viable' pregnancies without medical intervention (ie after 32 weeks) were aborted because the foetus wouldn't survive in any case. NONE of them came under 'life/health of mother.

Only the provider of the service is culpable

Doesn't help women who resort to self harm to end the pregnancy.

At the end of the day, the idea of an early induction isn't popular for several reasons.

1. Some women have no problem with killing a child provided they can medicalise it as an abortion. Although a baby enduring a lethal injection is a pretty horrific idea, with an early induction there could well be a child struggling for life and we would have to see it. That would be unpleasant.

1. Abortion isn't really about bodily autonomy. It's about getting rid of a child. An induction would be more public and there would still be a child at the end of it.

1. It would be more expensive, which is what most things are about in the end.

1. We live in a culture in which we've become so numbed to convenience killing that women find it easier to think they've killed their child than entrusted it to someone who would love and care for it. Giving a baby up for adoption carries a stigma and they'd rather their child died than be the person who did that.

1. A late-term abortion puts a nice neat full stop at the end of a child's life. Very convenient for the woman who wants to pretend this never happened. Having the child, even if you never hold it, would make it much harder to erase that event from memory...although arguably it would be more beneficial to the woman's long-term health if she were to acknowledge that it has happened, and to act in a way that is consistent with how she would like her children to be treated. Killing babies is never the solution and it probably only seems that way to a woman who is panicking. Who knows how she will feel about that decision in two years, or five.

Ok. But you still can't see from the figures how many women wanted abortions for non-medical reasons so you can't extrapolate from them that no women would be seeking abortions after 24 weeks.

why? why are they doing this. we really don't have a major issue here- why change

the laws are OK as they are, they are appropriate and respect both the mother, and the unborn child

gonetosee - my argument is coherent in contrast to yours.

A baby at 26 weeks has a certain chance of life but not as good a chance as it would have at 30, 36 or 40 weeks for example.

If you're going to argue from any stance of fetal 'right to life' then surely it's consistent to argue for as good a quality of life as possible?

It's illogical to argue for both a woman's right to end her pregnancy and the foetus right to the best life available for it as though they're two separate things.

In regard to the doctor who carries out the procedure, this was the argument that Joanne Jepson won the legal right to take the doctor who performed an abortion on a woman post 24 weeks to court for. Fortunately, she didn't win her case.

"We live in a culture in which we've become so numbed to convenience killing"

Do we? Really? Where on earth do you live gonetoseeaman?

So let a woman choose to terminate her pregnancy and a doctor choose whether that should be an abortion or induction, acting in the best interests of the baby.

Would that work?

Christina it's not absolute.

A woman has a right to bodily autonomy.
A viable foetus has a right to a chance at life.

In this situation you can't have absolute rights of autonomy and absolute right to life for the foetus. So a compromise is achieved.

I think abortion should be legal all over the world and readily available. But I think the time limit needs to be cut way down. I think anything after 16 weeks (unless the child is severely disabled or disfigured) is wrong. Or unless the mothers health was at risk.

There seems to be rather a lot of people who think its acceptable to drag, ill and vulnerable women through the legal process which is of no benefit to the public interest.

Considering how much a prison cell costs, complete with guarding, food, etc, putting ill and vulnerable women in jail is against public interest, in fact.