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."

Given the amount of people commenting on the various social media rantings on this topic with things like "should have kept her legs shut" when talking about woman who want a TOP.

It's quite safe to say that a large amount of people have the view point that women who seek TOP's are sluts

What a pity that bumbley joins these threads. Yes you'll find a few "selfish women killing babies" types but bumbly talks about forced induction and what I found most abhorrent is (to paraphrase) "a baby should have a chance at life even if they are disabled, brain damaged and need 24/7 care"

How fucked up and sad

I've not read all the way through and these are random thoughts/comments.

They are supporting decriminalisation - as is the case in Canada. Canada has no legal limit to abortions, it is dealt with by medical professionals, not criminal law

The UK currently has one of latest possible cut off dates for routine abortion at 24 weeks. All the countries like Norway, Sweden , the Netherlands etc which one would expect to be more liberal have much lower cut off.

The last time I participated in one of these threads Canada was being put forward as an example of how to do things. Canada may well have no time limit except late abortions for any reason are very rare because Canadian doctors won't do them. They are so rare that women are sent across the border to the US. Proportional to population there are more late abortions done in the UK than Canada.

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

I think I would agree with that too. Does that make me , Buffy and Gadget "forced birthers"?.

It would require the law however to be clear what rights, if any, the father, including a husband, has in relation to the child's future. Unfortunately there will be situations where the parents will not be in agreement.

What bothers me about what RCM is proposing is that I am concerned opening up this debate will backfire horribly. I'm not sure I want abortion laws under the spotlight.

Mainland UK has one of the most liberal regimes. I would be concerned that in trying to achieve non - criminalisation, which effectively means no cut off, what will happen is a reduction in the present time limit. I can't imagine for one minute there is popular or parliamentary support for abortion to term.

The post below was made by a poster who supports the RCM position but it shows that in exceptional circumstances the 24 cut off is ignored.

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.

I did suggest earlier that maybe "termination of pregnancy" could have the same end result for both bio parents as abortion. Currently the father has no say in the choice to abort so the same principle could apply to termination of pregnancy. That will cut all ties

That would have to be the case.

That 9 abortions were carried out after 24 weeks, with no congenital malformations, is absolutely disgusting.

That SHOULD be criminal.

I shudder to think if any were carried out on the basis of gender.

It's time the law was changed and not in the way the RCM proposes

The decriminalisation argument is about all abortions, including late abortions.

At the moment, women can be prosecuted for terminating a pregnancy without the say so of two doctors at any point.

The RCM and BPAS argument is that abortion should be a medical procedure and not under the jurisdiction of the characters.

I support their stance. We should have a simpler abortion law in the Uk and we should not have the criminal law involved.
I respect but do not agree with the views of the pro life lobby however. If you think life begins at conception or indeed 24 weeks or whatever then abortion is murder. That is not my view but it is for many and it is a controversial subject. I suspect as Governments never like to get drawn into difficult subjects they will not change the law.

Also for those with children with disabilities I can understand their concerns that it is lawful to abort such a child at 39 weeks but not a child without disabilities which is another fascinating issue about our current abortion law.

Lucy, we weren't discussing 'forced induction'. We were suggesting early induction as an alternative to abortion for women post-24 weeks pregnant. You thanked it's 'fucked up' for a prematurely born baby to be given a chance at life because they might have a disability due to be bring born early? That's pretty tasteless on a thread where people have discussed their own children on being born prematurely or having disabilities. There are plenty of pro-choice people on this thread who think early induction is a better idea than full term abortion as well. I guess they're 'fucked up' too. Or maybe you should have thought your little jibe through a bit better?

Lass, the 24 week limit wasn't 'ignored' in exception circumstances. The law allows for abortions after 24 weeks in those circumstances.

I can't imagine that terminations carried out after 24 weeks are for anything other than massively compelling reasons. I don't think changing the law will change that. With some congenital malformations labour would kill both the mother and the foetus, there should be no upper limit to prevent that.

Still wish, there is no upper limit where the mother's life is at risk.

One possible issue I see with early induction, is that some girls and women who want an abortion could be encouraged or forced by others to continue with the pregnancy in order to be induced early to give the baby up for adoption. And when would early inductions be available from? 24+1? If not, then the logical step would be to increase the abortion limit in order to give the early inducted babies a better chance. So even then, there has to be a line.

I do feel uncomfortable with late abortions, but I also feel uncomfortable with forcing babies to be born very prematurely with all the risks associated with that.

I agree with what the RCM are saying. The law does need to change. It's a very interesting discussion though, thanks to all who have shared very personal stories

Oftentimes late terminations are a result of a concealed pregnancy, a woman's life can be in danger from more than birth complications.

I think the upper limit for abortions should be significantly lower than 24 weeks. I feel very uncomfortable with the thought of viable foetuses being deliberately aborted. The limit for those women wanting abortions purely for lifestyle reasons (i.e. just because they don't want to have a baby, not for any medical reasons) should be 16 weeks, imo.

I agree with 80smum.
It just feels so wrong that doctors can be fighting to save a 24 weeker at one end of the hospital and terminating one at the other.

I know what you mean about 24 weeks. My son was next to one in NICU. She was very definitely a baby.

Would it not be possible to leave the abortion limit where it is but allow inductions from 30 weeks?

The limit for those women wanting abortions purely for lifestyle reasons (i.e. just because they don't want to have a baby, not for any medical reasons) should be 16 weeks, imo.

That would only be viable if access to abortion was quicker & waiting times were significantly reduced.

As I stated earlier, I have had 2 abortions - both times I attended the GP within a week of missing my period, so essentially '5 weeks pregnant' (from first day of last period).
The first time my termination was at about 12 weeks, so a 7 week wait from confirmation of pregnancy & me immediately stating my intention to terminate.

"I think that difference in emotional reaction is also an indication that this issue is far from simple"

quite.

But I am arguing that the comparison, while flaws can be identified, is nonetheless useful because it also compares the effect of loss of life unless someone agrees or is forced to waive their right to bodily autonomy with loss of life unless someone agrees or is forced to waive their right to bodily autonomy.

I agree it's useful. Your post is interesting, I also try to look at things factually rather than emotionally. I'm sitting on the fence here, throwing out ideas, because I can see both sides of the argument.

I object to being called a misogynist by someone because I haven't immediately agreed with the proposal, that is just as much an emotional reaction as being hardcore pro life.

Changing tack slightly, having looked at the definition of the law on another site, it seems what the current law criminalises is 'back street' abortions (ie those not taking place in a hospital or clinic), surely that should remain illegal? If you completely decriminalise the whole issue it seems to open up a whole world of risk to vulnerable women? And I'm not talking about prosecuting those desperate enough to seek it, but those who take advantage of them by doing it.

Buffy that's an interesting point. For me, it's absolutely linked with viability. If the foetus isn't viable then I have no problem with it. But if it is, I think it's unethical to kill it when there is an option that results in the woman not being pregnant and the foetus having a chance to survive.

This reminds me of the trolley problem.

I think the strength of emotion is to do with the thought of killing a baby tbh and many people can't rationalise their way out of that. Including me.