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."

Yes that is exactly what I am saying stopfucking.

If you have a woman who feels suicidal about continuing the pregnancy then I cannot see how it is a good idea to force her to continue the pregnancy. Even if she is at 36 weeks. If you force her to continue the likely result is suicide and death of both mother and foetus. Unless I suppose you sedate or imprison her and are you really suggesting that?

And all the people arguing that abortion is okay at any stage if the foetus has a disability. Are you intending to argue that a disabled life is somehow less valuable than a (at the time) non-disabled one?

People really have no idea what can fall under "disability" in this context. What about the foetus having no brain, for example? Or no eye sockets? Or no spine? What about disabilities that are incompatible with life?

Are pro-lifers really so cruel as to force a women to carry a child to term, knowing that her baby cannot and will not survive delivery?

I, unfortunately, am one of those women that has a condition that means my pregnancies have failed at 17 to 23 weeks. I have met women in the same boat who have been pregnant with much wanted babies and have tried to hang onto their pregnancies, only to see their baby's limbs crushed and, in one case, actually fractured in utero with the weight of a collapsed uterus.

Give me someone that believes a women in such a position should carry her baby to term, knowing that her own body is slowly crushing her baby and the child will not survive birth, and I tell you ... I am not a violent woman, but I would punch that person in the face and walk to the police station myself.

Quite happy for pregnancy to be ended at any point but totally opposed to killing a viable baby. So abortion up to 22/24 weeks or live birth after 24 weeks.

good lunch with finding a medical team that will perform the medical termination of a healthy foetus at 36 weeks

Its not going to happen , even if there is a law in place- as the medical profession (I suspect) would rightly baulk at it

this topic is upsetting

SGB I love it when you ramp up the righteous anger.

I agree with the RCM and BPAS, as others have said. SolidGoldBrass has articulated pretty much how I feel about it.

slug I too was mightily impressed with the measured rage in that post (or 2)

Are pro-lifers really so cruel as to force a women to carry a child to term, knowing that her baby cannot and will not survive delivery?
There are women on this thread who think exactly that.

As it happens stopfucking there are virtually no terminations at that late gestation save for severe medical abnormalities. So it's largely a theoretical situation. But at present it is legal to have a late term abortion to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the woman. So there are - I would hope - some doctors willing to do it if this is the situation, otherwise the law is pointless.

So they would need to be sectioned presumably, to be held there until they delivered the baby?

We

Yes indeed Buffy.

To the pro lifers: Do you support the idea of a person being forced to donate a kidney, or part of their liver, or bone marrow, or blood, to save the life of another person who would otherwise die? If not: what's the difference?

Pregnant women can be cared for in specialist perinatal mental health units.
They can. How many are there around the UK? Not many.
But that isn't really the point is it. That forces a woman to give birth, whether she wants to or not.

I am assuming here that people think that Cathy Warwick is unfamiliar with the issue of viability.

I think it should stay criminalised. Im sorry but just because we are women does not mean we will all make decisions for the best possible reasons and why shouldnt a 36 or 40 week baby have the same rights as the woman?
Abortion law is a balancing act already but decriminalising effectively making late abortions legal is not the way to go as human nature and human history has shown that women can make just as bad decisions as men. A womens right to her body should not mean late abortion for any reason, i cant support this.

"Women can make just as bad decisions as men". Yes. And yet men are free to make them, and women are not.

I can't understand how any of the pro-late abortionists on this thread think their abusive, hysterical, downright nasty ranting is going to convince anybody around to their viewpoint.

The baby doesnt magically disappear. Its got to be removed anyway so its hardly 'forcing a woman to give birth' any more than the current situation. Late term abortion or late term live delivery. Both involve a fully grown baby.

flirty So you think a dead body should have more rights than mine?

1)Reasons for abortions are not, under any circumstances, your business.
2)Post 24 week abortions are rare.
3) The countries that already have this law found no increase in terminations.
4) This is about treating women as adults and allowing them to make their own decisions regarding their own bodies, you know, in exactly the same way men are allowed to do.

I was discussing this with my DH and both of us agree that a woman should be right to make her own choice.

BUT where do you draw the line?

My ds was born at 37 weeks and needed no medical assistance. My dd was born at 38 weeks and needed no assistance. Should women be really able to abort a foetus this late in the pregnancy, simply because she's changed her mind? I don't think know.

There are so many corners to it. I get that a woman may have been held captive and had only just gotten away and doesn't want that child. Having that baby means the father has the rights to it if he wanted. Should an innocent child be raised in abusive circumstances? No way.

It's such a difficult thing to discuss because there is no right or wrong answer.

I think we rather feel the same way about the pro lifers on this thread Bill.

As it happens stopfucking there are virtually no terminations at that late gestation save for severe medical abnormalities. So it's largely a theoretical situation. But at present it is legal to have a late term abortion to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the woman. So there are - I would hope - some doctors willing to do it if this is the situation, otherwise the law is pointless.

The problem with the law as it stands is that the 24 week cut off means there are some women (and probably doctors) who are under the incorrect belief that after 24 weeks they can not be helped.

This means they are unlikely to seek medical help - which may mean an abortion, but equally it might not.

However the key bit is, they are unlikely to engage with services which might help them and may attempt to harm themselves and their baby away from medical support.

What you need to do is ensure that women feel they can engage AT ANY POINT IN THEIR PREGNANCY.

This is about getting them mental health support. NOT getting an abortion. They might have an abortion as part of that, but the key part is actually the mental health support.