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 understand that Buffy but where do you draw the line? How many weeks?

Buffy, a 24 week old's heart would also need to be stopped as well. That's how abortions at that stage are carried out. It's not rhetoric.

Buffy - isn't stopping the heart what they do then? That's a statement of fact isn't it?

The rhetoric that Buffy is referring to is the 'what if a woman is gives birth to one twin then decides that she doesn't want the other one, should she be allowed to have an abortion'.

Or 'what if a woman changes her mind after delivery but before the cord is cut' as we had on a similar thread recently.

This gets in the way of considering the reality of the reasons that women need late abortions eg have only just managed to escape a violent partner as Elsa explains,

Milk it doesn't work like that, doctors have no real way of knowing which very pre term babies will do ok and which won't.

bumbley I don't necessarily think it would be huge numbers. I think even a small number of unwanted, deliberately induced micro preemies - who may suffer quite a bit during birth and their time in NICU, and who may be very hard to find adoptive homes for if they have severe health issues - is a bad idea. Way worse (IMO) than a small number of late term abortions.

I don't know anyone that is "suffering|" because of the current law
Then perhaps you should visit a the refuge where Elsa was staying, or any refuge. Because the women living there didn't have access to contraception and are 'suffering' because of the current law.

I support BPAS and the RCM.

I terminated at 12 weeks for mental health reasons and whilst it was the right decision for me, it was far more emotionally traumatic than I could have believed it ever could be.

I totally agree with minipie -'As regards punishment, a late abortion must be a truly horrible experience in itself so I can't see that there is any need for additional punishment by criminalising.'

Why does the baby have to get the rough deal here anyway, choosing between early birth with attendant problems, or death? Why can't the woman put up with a few more weeks of being pregnant in order to save what could be a life time of poor health for the baby in this scenario who is induced early? Presumably the fact that it's a late term abortion that's on the cards highlights the fact that this woman has survived many months of pregnancy up to this point? What could happen to this woman that is so stressful it justifies killing a child??

minipie - I suppose I was thinking in terms of statistics and cold hard clinical facts.

I'm getting bogged down with "late abortions" in that I forget that the cut off is 24 weeks. I keep thinking post 32 weeks. Dunno why.

The truth is this......... Most abortions do not take place because the woman is suffering, and must end their childs life because of it. Most don't take place because the womans health is at stake. Most don't take place because of rape or incest, or because the child will be disabled.

Lets be honest here...... They take place in most cases because the woman does not want the inconvienience of having to carry a baby for nine months, and give birth to said baby. A baby they could easily adopt.They use it as a late form of contraception......

To suggest that a woman should be able to kill her unborn child at any time..... Lets say a month before it is due, is both scary and morally wrong!

Also, please spare me any comments about me not loving my fellow woman. It is utter nonsense, and just doesn't wash!

Milk it wouldn't cut all ties at all.

He could get custody of that child.

I don't know exact statistics but I do know a high percentage of domestic violence starts during pregnancy.

I would much rather allow a woman to walk away from that with no ties at all than be stuck for over a decade in a shitty situation like I was.

Fluffy I agree with you but don't you see that this paving the way for women under pressure to make a decision that could annihilate their mental health in the years to come? I'm all for penalising the service provider, not the women, but are women going to understand what a late term abortion could do to them before it's too late to undo? The people who would be in control of this are not people who have a great interest in the potentially harmful effects; they are abortion providers who have a definite pro abortion agenda.

I think Milk's idea - Where the woman can basically legally sever all ties with the child - is a good one.

I suppose there would need to be some checks that the father did not want the child though. Wasn't there a recent case in the U.S. where the woman put the child up for adoption and the father fought to get custody back?

What could happen to this woman that is so stressful it justifies killing a child??
Well, there are the women in the refuge for a start.
There are women who deny that they are pregnant, despite contrary evidence, because they are ill.
There are women who have been so severely abused that they are terrified of giving birth and may take their own life if they are forced to give birth.
Who are you to question the rights of bodily autonomy?

gonetosee, you haven't actually read the '32 reasons not to lower the abortion time limit' document have you?

If you had, you'd have more insight into the reasons that women aproach the BPAS post 20 weeks. These include women who have been raped and in denial, women who didn't realise they were pregnant because of chaotic life situations eg homelessness, women in domestic abuse situations who haven't been able to get away from their abuser to seek help, underage girls who are terrified and don't know who to ask for help, women whose contraception has failed and they've assumed they were perimenopausal or stressed, women who took a pregnancy test which showed negative and continued to have periods etc etc etc/

Once a girl or woman has faced up to the fact that she is pregnant, she then starts making decisions what to do. For most people, that happens early on in a pregnancy. There are very good reasons why it happens later for some women and they should not be criminalised for being raped, abused, under age, terrified, ignorant, homeless, living in poverty, drug dependent or any other such thing.

They take place in most cases because the woman does not want the inconvienience of having to carry a baby for nine months, and give birth to said baby.
It takes a lot to disgust me, but well done, you've managed it.
May I suggest however, that you bring some evidence to the discussion.

Why can't the woman put up with a few more weeks of being pregnant in order to save what could be a life time of poor health for the baby in this scenario who is induced early?

If only it was as simple as 'being able to put up'. That's minimising the trauma and distress of women suffering from mental health problems as if its something that they can control.

Your attitude stinks and really shows up the shocking lack of acceptance and understanding of mental health.

The reality is that one of the biggest causes of maternal mortality is suicide.

Elsa - it might not at the moment, but I was kind of trying to look at a bigger picture where it would be possible. So "termination of pregnancy" would be the same end result for both bio parents as abortion currently is. A man can't stop an abortion so should not be able to stop "termination of pregnancy". In my ideal little world.

Buffy, I know what rhetoric is. You said "with associated rhetoric of stopping hearts and so on." People were talking about stopping hearts irt how abortions at this stage are carried out, not in an attempt to 'tie the discussion up in knots' etc.

Do we have hordes of women suffering in the UK right now?

Why should we have any? Forcing a woman to give birth against her will is cruel and denies the essential humanity of women. Men can make decisions about their own health and futures without needing two doctors to confirm it's OK first.

gonetoseeamanaboutadog I can only form my opinion on my own circumstances.

My pregnancy was planned, I really wanted a child with my partner. Unfortunately I suffered such bad antenatal depression, I would have killed myself AND the child had the pregnancy continued.

I can't explain it, I've been very lucky and never suffered from any mental health issues before - However pregnancy was horrific, worse than horrific - it was an utter living nightmare, every day I became lower and lower and just wanted to end it as I couldn't cope with how bad pregnancy made me feel and the thoughts that were present in my head.

Therefore when you ask 'Why can't the woman put up with a few more weeks of being pregnant in order to save what could be a life time of poor health for the baby in this scenario who is induced early? '

If I was applying that to me - It's because 'putting up with being pregnant' was too much to bear, even with anti depressants and support from my amazing partner, friends, family and GP

So I guess I take a very pragmatic view on this - Especially as I'd like to try again at some point - However I don't know how I'll feel or if I'll be able to cope if my mood starts to spiral downwards. I do believe that some women may experience mental health issues by having a late termination - However I also believe that some women may experience mental health issues being forced to carry to term. Which is worse? Maybe that's something noone will ever know.

I do know that I will always be so very grateful to BPAS and the absolutely amazing, non-judgemental and kind people I met last year when I terminated.

They take place in most cases because the woman does not want the inconvienience of having to carry a baby for nine months, and give birth to said baby. A baby they could easily adopt.

Easy to adopt??? Do please tell that to the 5000 odd children who spend an average of 533 days in care waiting for that easy adoption to happen

I also support the RCM and BPAS on this.
Personally, I don't think that the viability discussion is really relevant - my thinking on this is more along the same lines as Buffy. However, I wanted to address the 'induce birth and put the baby in NICU for adoption' idea. I'd probably support this from about 32 weeks, but do people actually understand what this means?
DD was born at 25 weeks and we spent 4 months in NICU/SCBU, so I observed the process and outcomes for quite a few 24-28 weekers. The procedures and pain that DD went through were horrendous. Both DH and I had times where we wondered (independently) if it was fair to keep making DD go through it all, or if we were being incredibly selfish.
And we had the easiest ride of anyone I know.
I think the idea of inducing pre-28 weeks and placing the baby in a NICU with no parent to watch, interact with or advocate for them is both ignorant of the realities of premature birth and actually cruel. Would advocates of this also mandate that the birth mother express milk for the 3-6 months for which hospital care would be required, given the enormous difference this makes to survival rates?
24 weeks is the viability limit because approx 50% survive, with survival rates increasing by roughly 1% per day after that - lots of (otherwise healthy) babies die at this gestation. Disability rates are very high as well, which complicates the adoption process.
Lastly, c-sections at this gestation are often 'cross-cut' as the uterus isn't sufficiently stretched, meaning that the mother is unlikely to be able to have a vbac in later pregnancies and may have other complications - it's not a neutral choice, but one that has serious, long-term consequences for the mother.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, it's just not that simple, as with everything is this issue. Given that, doesn't it make sense to place the decision in the hands of people who know the exact individual circumstances (i.e. the woman and her doctor), rather than in the hands of the law?

Forcing a woman to give birth against her will is cruel and denies the essential humanity of women

Yes. agreed. and late abortions are pretty cruel too- which is why in the main they are outlawed

there is no easy answer here