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."

Oh dear it appears that standing up for unborn babies right to life gets ridiculed as "cheap, untrue and dickish". How very sad.

@TytoAlba. ..A lot of people on this thread who are in support of this morally objectionable nonsense from The RCOM have been.... aggressive, rude, foul mouthed, and arrogant. Says a lot really!

And lots of people who are opposed to this campaign keep trying to avoid actually discussing the issues at hand.

Just like you are now.

@christianarossetti....... There is nothing for me to discuss as I am vehemently pro-life. I accept that there are others who are vehemently pro-choice, and all the discussion in the world will not change their mind about the fact that they think killing an unborn child is acceptable, and I do not!

However, there have been people on this thread who are far more moderate than I. People who are pro-life, and people that are pro-choice, but object to abortions after the 24 week period. People that did want to discuss this matter! As I said, these members have been meet with aggessive, rude, foul-mouthed, sarcastic, and arrogant responses from certain members. Those are not the sort of people you should ever have a discussion with, and you do not need to, because once they start to behave in such a fashion, you know you have won the argument.

reallytired you are technically incorrect. A conviction on the grounds of diminished responsibility is still a conviction and there is still a criminal act. The diminished responsibility is an acknowledgement of the fact and taken into account in sentencing.

you could equally argue that a woman in late pregnancy with mental health problems does not have the legal capacity to decide whether a near term baby survives, or not.

I don't know the underlying facts and figures but of later abortions, where there is no material disability of the child, how many are for reasons like this? Or where there are underlying reasons due to, say, gender.

Because if a baby was born at 28 weeks and was smothered in its cot, it's murder. If it's aborted, well then - that's absolutely fine.

That's bonkers. I'm extremely uncomfortable about the state of the law in this country.

If you have nothing to discuss bridge, why bother posting?

You've just illustrated exactly what I was talking about. Rather than engage with the majority who have expressed their support for this campaign in a moderate manner, you're focusing on the posting manner of a few posters to avoid actually engaging with the debate.

sooner why not equip yourself with the fact and figures about late abortion before you form an opinion?

There's s document '32 reasons not to lower the abortion time limit" which is linked to in the first page.

How can you abort a baby at any stage?

If you mean how as in 'how is it done?' then Google will have links to explain.

If you mean how as in 'how could a person do that?' then there are many reasons, which have been discussed at length on this thread.
The most common reason is simply 'I don't want to continue this pregnancy, because I don't want to be pregnant or have a baby'.

Mango I'm not quite sure what I mean! I just don't understand how it would be an abortion if the baby came out of you alive... Say for example at 38 weeks. How is that an abortion? Surely it would just be birth and then someone would kill it?

I just read a website and I am shocked... Feel a bit sick tbh.

major

The baby is killed while in the womb

Majorly I think they'd kill the baby before you gave birth to it, an injection to stop the heart. It's not much better than them killing it after though IMO.

So this would mean you could abort a baby at 40 weeks if you haven't gone into labour? WTF.

Do you think there would be a huge rush of women who are in their third trimester, who will want to have an abortion if the law was changed? How likely would it be that after the relevant discussions with health care professionals (where exactly what would be done would be explained), women in that position would continue with an abortion? That a woman would get to 38/39/40 weeks pregnant and just not fancy having the baby anymore?

The huge majority of women wouldn't consider an abortion in those circumstances. I wouldn't, but there might be someone whose circumstances make it the only choice for them. Why should we have any right to tell them that they cannot take the action that is best for them? And what is more, to prosecute them if they decide to take action themselves?

major

In theory

In practice i very much doubt it, for all the reasons mentioned further upthread

Woah woah woah speak... It was just shocking for me that's all. I'm not judging... And I don't think it should be a criminal act either. I do just find it shocking as I know people who have had premature babies and it's just a strange thought that they lived but babies the same age could be aborted. Calm your shit.

No need to swear at me....

No need to accuse me of things that I didn't even say.

Speak

Yes, I do think we can tell a woman in those circumstances that abortion is not an option. I realise it's not an easy option (neither is late term abortion) but she is free not to keep the baby if she wishes. There are many carefully screened adoptive parents waiting. Why should that 38 week old baby be killed and lose the whole life it has ahead of it? How could it possibly be beneficial to a woman for the baby to die at that stage, rather than simply walk away from the situation after birth? Quite frankly, it's not just about the woman and I say that knowing it is primarily about the woman. But there are two lives here, they both matter, and we have laws to protect children. They are not owned by their parents.

Also, any responsible doctor would be aware of the incredibly negative impact that a late term abortion would be likely to have upon mental health, both for the woman and the nursing staff who would be forced to assist. I don't think there's a fixture in Britain who would actually do it and I'm very glad of that.

Blimey. Just responding to your comments that's all, sorry for having an opinion. Clearly you're not interested in what response your strong comments might generate.

Anyway... my point was to agree with you that such late term abortions would always be shocking and difficult to understand. The strength of your reaction lead me to believe that you would be against such late term abortions. Apologies if that's not the case.

Doctor not fixture :)

Should women who aren't mentally ill be allowed to kill their newborn because having a baby is a nuisance?
Mango I'm not quite sure what I mean! I just don't understand how it would be an abortion if the baby came out of you alive... Say for example at 38 weeks. How is that an abortion? Surely it would just be birth and then someone would kill it?
So this would mean you could abort a baby at 40 weeks if you haven't gone into labour? WTF.

So much hyperbole and ignorance on this thread. It seems only a few have actually bothered to read - or have the capacity to understand - the RCM statement. It is really disappointing that any discussion on this subject inevitably focuses on late term abortions, rather than the bigger picture, and that the people who raise the issue of late abortions seem to have given so little (if any) consideration to the circumstances in which these might be happening.

Quite.

Goneto I agree... Even if you had a heart of stone surely you would feel SOMETHING if you had s baby terminated that wasn't just a small thing but actually baby human shaped. Personally to me it would feel like I was murdering a person because they are able to breathe on their own they wouldn't technically need me anymore. Again, decisions decisions, I'm not judging.