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 agree with termination of pregnancy, as and when it is necessary, but in spite of the many arguments put forward here and I have RTFT I think once the baby is viable, a medical decision not a date on a calendar, then induction/section rather than abortion should be the option for women who are in that position.

I support a woman's right to bodily autonomy, the right to not be pregnant when they no longer wish to be, always but personally I cannot get away from the fact that for me there is a baby not a foetus at later stages of pregnancy.

As many people have said the number of instances where this becomes an issue are minuscule as women simply do not abort a foetus for 'social' reasons having carried a pregnancy so far along so I don't believe the costs of infant care even feature. I am always surprised when this is included in the bodily autonomy argument being used in this way, to be honest, since surely that argument only extends to one person and not having rights over another viable person's body.

Buffy, your next of kin can choose to donate your organs so technically, you don't have full body autonomy after you die. Someone else can choose to use your organs to save another life.

Also, as I said last night, my issue with the analogy is that, in this case with a 24 week+ foetus, it doesn't need the 'organ donation' in the first place. It can survive without it. So you not 'donating an organ' to it will not result in its loss of life.

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

Perhaps there was a significant risk to the mother, even though there were no 'congenital malformations'. Is that not a good enough reason to terminate, roonerspism, or is it just the fetus we must consider?

The difference with transplants is, someone's decision not to donate is not usually a definitive death sentence. There are other donors. There are alternative medical treatments which keep those waiting for donation going in the meantime. And transplants aren't even guarantees of life, or a healthy long life. Survival rates for 5 years hover at about 60%.

Nor does the refusal of a donation involve anybody taking active steps to end the life of someone waiting for transplant if donation is refused.

In the case of late term abortions, the alternative medical care which might keep the a viable healthy fetus alive is not offered. There is no prospect of an alternative womb, and active steps are taken to facilitate destruction.

For it to be in any way comparable to transplants, you would be looking at a situation where there was only one suitable donor in the entire world, who refused to donate despite knowing this (and somehow, being close to death) and doctors were saying if the donation wasn't made they'd withdraw all care from the person needing transplant and euthanise them without their consent, but they were pretty much guaranteed a normal healthy life if they had the donation. And the donor still refused.

The situations aren't comparable at all IMO. And it takes all sorts of mental gymnastics and deliberately blinkered perception of the differences in the situations to pretend that they are.

I think that difference in emotional reaction is also an indication that this issue is far from simple, and there's more going on below the surface.

Sorry but for me the analogy with organ donation isn't so much comparing apples with oranges but apples and something that isn't a fruit at all. The issue is far from simple but adding an element which, to me anyway, seems at best a side issue or at worst irrelevant doesn't help. The cause of death of the person who needs the organ donor is whatever their illness is.

What I would like is-

A recognition that effectively 24 weeks in the UK is on demand ;

That access should be quick and easy and that all parts of the UK have the same rules;

That it is known amongst women and practitioners and recognised that 24 weeks is the "on demand " limit and that if circumstances justify it late abortion is still legal and available . I also consider that the situation which those who favour no time limit, young girl being raped and concealing it, falls well within "exceptional circumstances "

As I said , I fear opening this up to debate may be counterproductive. There are some fairly appalling posts on here from those who want no limits, in particular SGB's posts in bold capitals screaming that anyone who disagrees with her is a misogynist.

Anyone who thinks it's sentimental bs to care about the death of a healthy baby is not someone whose moral principles I could respect.

Women are not, and have never been, the only vulnerable group in society. Their needs have to be balanced against the needs of other, equally vulnerable groups. UK law is very accommodating about abortions but it does eventually start placing a value on the life of the unborn baby, not because the law is a sentimental bull-shitter but because women's rights are not the only moral issue in this picture. Women matter, of course they do, and babies matter too.

Abortions to term are never going to be legal. Look back at the thread for the woman who went to prison for inducing at 7 months... The outrage and disgust was palpable. (I didn't agree with it actually). But those arguing abortion should be available at any stage are very much in the minority. Most people think it's repugnant. Thank heavens we have a society who on the whole, does care about babies and is not willing to see them die needlessly.

buffy your emotions should come into play a bit more. Many horrific acts are carried out by people thinking they're just being rational. There is a place for emotion in evaluating right and wrong, otherwise you will find yourself indifferent to suffering.

A woman has a connection to her unborn child in a unique way that is not present between every corpse and a potential person needing a transplant. The law is not necessarily correct to only use organs with the 'corpses' permission. As an analogy, I don't think it proves anything. No corpse injects the person waiting for a transplant with a lethal injection instead of donating organs to them. If we carried your philosophy to an extreme, we could say that it isn't murder to shoot someone who is terminally ill, since the end product is the same.

Lass I agree with everything you've said in that post. applauds

Yes I think these threads are a black hole for time and energy...

Okay Buffy, good luck with the very important thing.

Bill and Lass - great posts.

I have got one of my agonising headaches so everything from me today is going to be short and sweet!

goneto, abortions to term are already legal in the UK if the child is disabled. I support that law.

Completely agree with Lass's post at 09:15 today.

What Lass posted:

^What I would like is-

A recognition that effectively 24 weeks in the UK is on demand ;

That access should be quick and easy and that all parts of the UK have the same rules;

That it is known amongst women and practitioners and recognised that 24 weeks is the "on demand " limit and that if circumstances justify it late abortion is still legal and available . I also consider that the situation which those who favour no time limit, young girl being raped and concealing it, falls well within "exceptional circumstances^"

I know that user

And I most certainly do not support it fit conditions such as downs syndrome. Our understanding of disability is heavily weighted in favour of our preference for humans being identical and 'perfect'.

I saw Cathy Warwick on the BBC news this morning. I thought she came across really badly. She seemed to be contradicting herself as she said women should have bodily autonomy and it is up to them if they want an abortion but then said if the baby was healthy no HCP would do the abortion anyway. I don't see what she is asking for as currently women can have very late abortions if medical reasons support that and she seems to be saying women should be able to have very late abortions if medically necessary so what is the difference?

I've read the whole thread and it's been difficult reading.

It will always be an emotive topic. I don't think posters need to resort to name calling or insults for anyone who views the situation from another perspective. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. It's called democracy.

There are no easy answers, no one size fits all.

Disappointing that people are so blind sided by their own opinions they cannot see this.

MOST women will abort early on if they don't want to continue the pregancny. MOST women would accept that near term, a baby is viable and that abortion for non medical reasons is not the right thing to do. However there may be the odd woman, who through mental health problems or whatever, decides to abort at, say 36 weeks because they can't face having a baby or whatever. I don't think it is right that they can have an abortion at that point, or induce an abortion themselves (which can and has happened, there was a case a few years ago).

Unless the baby has medical problems in which case you can abort after 24 w anyway, I don't think you should be able to abort late out of choice.

So I agree with the existing law on this issue