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."

"Keeping a premature baby alive costs the NHS a lot of money. Tax payers money. Thankfully we live in a society that supports this."

Yes, we do. You seem to be suggesting that if the child isn't wanted by its mother then it isn't worth it though. I hope I'm wrong.

You obviously have an agenda. That's fine.

A child is different from a foetus. I suggest you google the difference.

Good luck.

Oh and can I ask if you think that those who can't afford a child shouldn't have them?

Are all children equal?

It's not having 'an agenda', it's called having a different opinion.

You were talking about the cost of fostering so unless you're talking about someone fostering a foetus then we were actually talking about a child.

Disgraceful argument. You are the one talking about a child. A child grows up and is an adult most of its life.

Disgraceful how? Because I pointed out that you were the one who brought up the cost of foster care for a child?

And the cost of keeping a premature baby alive. Neither are foetuses.

bumbleymummy Tue 17-May-16 19:38:15
"Anyways when I was walking I was thinking. Could a woman with mental health problems actually be mentally sound enough to be approved for a late term abortion?"

I've actually wondered this myself NeedA. It does make sense IMO and is definitely a question worth asking.

It was question that has already been answered by RapidlyOscillating at 16.44

Nice little link, which sums up things well and explains it pretty comprehensively.

If you would like me to summarise the answer is that mentally unwell, does not necessarily mean mentally incapable. In the eyes of the law.

Elendon I am not going to try and engage with your points. You may have a valid point in there somewhere but it is surrounded by such disgusting ideas that I'd like to think even pro-choicers would prefer to hide you behind a placard.

Elendon, that sounds very much like you're putting a price on a child's life. Surely not?

Well the life of a woman has been repeatedly pointed out as worthless if she's carrying a child, so why shouldn't we told about finances?

FWIW NICE do put prices on the cost of a life, and make judgments about how much is too much to keep someone alive (whether they be an adult or a child). Distasteful as it is, and as uncomfortable that might make us feel to talk about it, there is medical precedence for it and it is a consideration of the NHS. There has to be a cut off point on that too.

the life of a woman has been repeatedly pointed out as worthless

Paranoia and melodrama. Who has said it's worthless? Or do you think that a woman's life is being undervalued if anything else is also considered of value?

As anyone who has looked through the windows of NICU would know, all life is the very opposite of worthless.

I can honestly see both sides to this, but I think that better mental health provision, access to contraception and allowing women to induce early would be much better.

"Well the life of a woman has been repeatedly pointed out as worthless if she's carrying a child, "

Where? That sounds like more pro-choice rhetoric to me.

Where? That sounds like more pro-choice rhetoric to me

Try and make a point rather than just trying to make out that pro-choice is a bad thing.

Have you read the stuff about mental capacity yet by the way?

Try answering the question rather than dodging it. Where has the life of the woman been pointed out as useless?

I've just taken 5 minutes to follow some links and find out exactly what the RCM have given their backing to. Here is the campaign.

This is why:

"Every woman, being with child, who, with intent to procure her own miscarriage, shall unlawfully administer to herself any poison or unlawfully use any instrument shall be liable to be kept in penal servitude for life."
[Section 58, Offences Against the Person Act, 1861]

In every country in the UK today, a woman who ends her own pregnancy can be sent to prison for life under laws created before women could vote.

Here are 5 reasons to decriminalise abortion. They all seem like good reasons to me.

This is what they're calling for:

We believe that abortion should be taken out of the criminal law, through the removal of sections 58 and 59 of the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act and equivalent common law offences in Scotland. No woman should face prison for inducing a miscarriage, and no doctor should be prosecuted for providing safe abortion care to a woman who requests it. We believe abortion should be governed by the same robust regulatory and ethical frameworks which govern all other medical procedures in the UK. In the 21st century we should be trusting women to make their own decisions about their own pregnancies, and removing the threat of prosecution from those healthcare professionals providing women with the services and support they need.

The media reporting around the RCM's endorsement of this campaign has been outrageous. Why the total focus on late abortion?

Can I remind people that the issue for discussion is the decriminalisation of abortion not being 'pro late abortion'?

That is, taking the medical procedure that is a termination of pregnancy out of the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system.

Why the total focus on late abortion?

Because if you focus on the facts you have to admit that not backing this up means that you believe that women should be treated like small children or criminals when they wish to make decisions over their bodies and that doctors shouldn't be trusted to make clinical decisions based on something other than cries of "but it's a baaaaaaaaaaaaaabbbbbbbbbbbbbbeeeeeeeeeeeeee"?

In other words you'd have to suspend disbelief for long enough to understand that you might not know what's best for other women, and further, that it's none of your damned business what other women choose to do with the backing of their clinician.

Much more fun to bang the "all women are feckless bastards and all women would suddenly want to abort their 39 week foetus if they got an invitation to a decent party" drum.

Actually, if you prioritize women (rather than believing that they are fundamentally walking incubators and therefore have limited rights because foetuses are the priority) it becomes very, very easy to understand. Women get to choose what happens to their bodies. They do not need anyone else's permission, either to continue a pregnancy or to end it.
Therefore, as a legal and moral concept, life (in the sense of having rights) begins at birth. Up until the baby is born, it's up to the woman to decide whether or not it should be born alive (in terms of her intention: obviously things can go wrong and a much-wanted pregnancy NOT result in a live birth). Therefore, yes, there should still be a crime of 'child destruction' on the statute books, but this should refer to an attack on a pregnant woman who wants to continue her pregnancy. Because it's her choice that matters. Women should also be supported if they wish to continue a pregnancy which may endanger their own health or which is pretty much unviable (or entirely unviable ie the foetus will not survive outside the womb) if that is what the women choose to do.

Other things 'pro-life' fuckwits could do, if they care so much about 'life', is campaign for better access to maternity care and ore funding for it (foetuses and pregnant women often suffer and die because of a lack of access to good maternity care). Or campaign for a basic income and a reduction in poverty - no woman should feel she has to terminate a pregnancy for economic reasons. Easy access to reliable contraception, and sound, sensible sex education that emphasises consent and de-centres PIV sex, that would help, too. Oh, and more funding and support for refuges to help those women at the mercy of abusive men.

But pro-lifers are far, far more interested in putting reproduction (and women) under the control of men. Hence all the attempts to legislate against women drinking, or eating certain foods, or doing certain jobs in case they are pregnant. The hardcore pro-life position is all about designating women as breeding stock rather than human beings.

How revolting this thread has become.

If you do not support, in principle, the idea that any woman should be able to terminate her pregancy at any time, for any reason, then you are a misogynist. Because you are claiming that your (irrelevant, sentimental, irrational, superstitous) feelings are more important than the bodily autonomy of women you have never met and whose lives and choices are NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS EVER.

Can I remind people that the issue for discussion is the decriminalisation of abortion not being 'pro late abortion'?

No. No, you can't. If posts like the above can stand then you can't really complain if it's pointed out that there are quite a few pro-late term abortion posts on this thread.

"If you do not support, in principle, the idea that any woman should be able to terminate her pregancy at any time, for any reason, then you are a misogynist."

Whoa, ok then, I am a misogynist.