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."

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.

Why do you insist on implying that late term abortions are done on a whim and that women are opting (or would like to be able to) abort a healthy fetus at 38 weeks just because?

Two why the bitchy comment? I was genuinely interested in what the law changes would mean. I'm not here to make judgements. Or be IGNORANT! I just wanted an explanation. I don't know much about it. It's a frightening concept for me but it's good to be kept informed... So surely I'm the opposite of ignorant?

Two I actually agree with the last comment... I suppose it wouldn't be done on a whim it would be a massive decision.

There always seems to be an in rush or posters expressing very graphic anti-abortion views using lots of exclamation marks on these threads when they go quiet for a bit.

Just an observation.

The whole thread is an explanation....

Perhaps RTFT and all your questions will be answered already.

So if you have an abortion over 24 weeks you are breaking the law? Have people gone to prison for this?

Christina are you referring to me? Im not anti abortion. I saw the thread and was genuinely interested.

I insist on implying nothing! Who said anything about a whim. Circumstances may be very, very difficult and I respect that-i would not imply there was any 'whim' about it. But in every set of difficult circumstances some options are simply not on and this is one of them.

Why are you all so defensive? It's an interesting dialogue to have.

bridgetoc

I think enough reports were made that the worst behaviours have stopped. I was [shocked]

I also fall into the camp that prioritises a pre term baby over a mentally ill woman - its not that I value one more than the other - but I think a 35 week foetus deserves life/adoption and to have a law that protects them. Its not "woman hating" its a matter of justice

I don't like the idea of a woman committing suicide either.

to some extent its a fucking pointless discussion as the vast majority of the population find very late abortions morally repugnant, and it wont happen anyway

I agree bridge. The reality is that this would be likely to have a very detrimental impact on the women and nursing staff involved.

Majorly, the law at the moment could be used to prosecute any women who self-aborted at any point in her pregnancy, or who has an abortion without the consent of 2 doctors. An abortion, sanctioned by 2 doctors, is legal up to 24 weeks. After 24 weeks, abortion is still legal, but only if the foetus has a severe disability or there is a severe risk to the mothers health (physical or mental), and again sanctioned by 2 doctors. I think I've described that correctly.

I really didnt know that speak. I knew the cut off was 24 weeks but I didn't know about later abortions/two doctors needing to approve it. Thank you.

"I don't think there's a fixture in Britain who would actually do it and I'm very glad of that."

I worry that there is always someone ready to make money. It was/is happening in the U.S. I don't think it's a stretch to think it would happen here.

Lots of bluster from people thinking that talking about late term abortion is ignoring the issue of decriminalising abortion. It's not. It's a relevant part of that discussion.

I think anyone insisting that abortion needs to be available at later stages is on shaky ground when alternatives are available at that point. It's not 'necessary' by any stretch of the imagination.

You think there would be enough demand for a private practice to specialise in it and make lots of profit? I really don't think that would be the case at all. I think that the situation would be very rare indeed.

The "alternatives" are only alternatives if they are acceptable to the woman who is requesting a late term abortion. If she still wants an abortion, then those alternatives are really not alternatives.

The woman to me will always have rights over the unborn foetus/child, even in very unpalatable and difficult circumstances.

Majorly that's what's so frustrating on this thread. the fact that lost of people posting haven't read or understood the OP and aren't engaging with the current criminalisation of abortion in the UK.

The OP explains very clearly that any abortion without the say so of two doctors leaves that woman open to prosecution. It is arguing that abortion is a medical procedure and not if the woman involved consents to it, a matter for the criminal justice system.

The OP upholds the right for individual women to make choices about their own pregnancy. Of course this should involve counselling and support and all relevant information (including procedures for adoption etc). But it's simply advocating that all girls and women should have the same right to make a decision about their own pregnancy as those who say 'I could never have an abortion'.

Specialise in it? No. Offer it as part of their services (possibly at additional cost)? Yes.

"The "alternatives" are only alternatives if they are acceptable to the woman who is requesting a late term abortion."

Why? If the foetus is completely capable of surviving without her then why does she get to decide if it's born dead or alive?

Roonerspism Wed 18-May-16 21:49:17
red we do understand the issue. I acnowledge the mental health aspects.
I just happen to think mental illness is no excuse for killing a viable foetus

As I said before. A woman is worthless.
It does not matter if she kills herself, either as a result of being forced to give birth, because she can't face going through with the birth (killing the baby in the process), or as a result of killing her baby and going through the legal process even if the CPS decide not to prosecute or is found not guilty.

The fact that you can not comprehend this as a reality and can only think about the baby is narrowminded.

If you think that a doctor thinks that performing a late abortion is a trivial issue and they won't have considered the real implications and won't have done everything they can to try and stop that situation BEFORE coming to the conclusion that an abortion is the only option, then I think you need to reconsider how doctors as a rule are trained, regulated and how they are allowed to practice.

This black and white view that the baby can be saved and the woman will be juuuuusttttt fine once is sadly the realms of fantasy and the reality is lurking in the darkest corners of human pain.

There has to be a balance in morality between women and babies.

The automatic assumption is that changing the law tips the balance against babies is a categorical fallacy. It does change things, but it also allows women to get help rather than feel the need to self harm. It could SAVE the lives of babies. It sounds counter initiative, but the possibility of an abortion, means that a woman in that position might just trust a medic enough to talk it through and then realise that with support there is another way. Often fear and mistrust is the biggest barrier to getting the help someone needs and this could change that. That door being closed means that conversation never takes place.

Doctors are the best place people to make this judgement. They have to make decisions about when to intervene with pregnant women elsewhere. An early CS or induction, might save the life of a woman but put the life of a baby in real danger with only a small chance of survival. Its not hugely different from that decision and won't be taken any more lightly.

And for the 99th time we are not talking about abortions at 36 weeks. Because that would be beyond what a doctor could justify.

Ok, we'll forgive me, I'm trying to engage in this while doing other stuff. However i have found this thread very interesting. And I am glad I have learnt the actual laws because to be honest I didn't really know the ins and outs.

Christina but that's not the only effect the change would have and that's what's being discussed. Frustrating as it is to you - people want to look at all the possible ramifications of removing legal restrictions around abortion.

I do agree with de-criminalising it completely.
I do agree with abortion on demand.
I do agree with making the whole process simpler & quicker to access.
I do agree with the current 24 week limit for 'on demand, due to not wanting to be pregnant'.

The thing that makes me uncomfortable is the idea of a very late term termination of a healthy, viable foetus.

I think that what I (personally) would be comfortable with is that anything over 24 weeks is a 'termination of pregnancy' as discussed up thread, where the medical professionals decide whether a baby is born or a foetus terminated - as far as the mother is concerned she has terminated & that is the end of it for her.

bumble I agree that women should be informed about the alternatives that may be available in late pregnancy ie continuing with the pregnancy, adoption etc and given support to make their own decision.

But it must, for me, be that individual woman's decision as to what interventions - in any - happen in her pregnancy.

Jeez red. Stop with the hyperbole. No one thinks women are 'worthless'. They're just recognising that there is a second, viable life in the equation.

Mangomoon that would be completely out of keeping with current thinking and practice around the right of children who have been adopted or conceived by donated sperm to have access to information about their birth parent.

Christina, yes, I get from your posts that you think that. I'm just wondering why you think a woman should be able to have a say over whether the baby is born dead or alive at that point when she has to give birth anyway.