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."

Yes, I suppose.
I hadn't thought of that tbh.

There's no easy answer really.

bumbley because presumably someone in such a distressing and difficult situation would have good reason. I personally cannot imagine such a situation, and I think nearly all women would choose a different course of action. But that doesn't mean that in very rare and unusual situations it might be the right choice for that woman. To force her to continue the pregnancy against her will is to deny her human rights as a competent adult, in my opinion.

Christina, it was actually the chance that I would be contacted by potential children that stopped me from donating eggs.
If it had remained as anonymous donation I'd have done so.

So if a baby could be born alive but the mum doesn't want it do you think it could be made possible that the biological father had a claim over it? Say if he wanted it and the mum didn't. (Genuine question!)

Speak, we're not talking about forcing her to continue a pregnancy. We're talking about whether she should be able to decide if the baby is born dead or alive. Why should she be able to decide that?

I don't think this law would be good for women. If they are desperate enough they already have provision for abortion at any stage. However this would mean there is no legal deterrent to diy abortions which are very, very dangerous.

Am I the only one to find late term abortion rather dog in the mangerish? Tantamount to saying I don't want you/can't cope with you so you can't have a life at all/grow up with different loving parents.

And whilst we are at it, can we challenge the notion that a person who is in a secure mental unit is 'safe' and still not a danger to themselves.

If you are familiar with such units, the very sad reality is the lengths staff have to go to, to remove risk. Things that you wouldn't think a danger are. And even then, there are some risks that CAN NOT be eliminated.

Someone who has repeatedly tried to kill themselves can be incredibly determined and devious.

Can we face the reality that people can and do kill themselves whilst under the care of mental health services.

Sometimes there might be a real situation where we could never have saved the life of viable foetus, but we might just have a chance of saving the mother, if there is an abortion.

We need to acknowledge this and the limits of what we can do to 'save' anybody.

Because she is a competent adult who can decide what happens to her body. Including what happens to the unborn foetus/baby, who until born is not a separate entity.

It's worth repeating, I cannot imagine what scenario would lead a woman to want to terminate a pregnancy at this point, rather than deliver a live baby and hand it to Child Services at birth. But, just possibly, terminating might be the right choice for that woman. I really doubt that there would be anyone at all who would find themselves in those circumstances.

MangoMoon - the thought I had was that "termination of pregnancy" would become a new thing. Same end result for bio parents as abortion - so no contact, no names on birth certificate, no rights for the bio father.

I really should leave this thread alone - I come back to it randomly!

bumble why? Because the decisions that a woman makes about her pregnancy should be hers.

As discussed upthread, it's impossible to separate the act of ending a pregnancy from the consequences for the foetus.

Majorly - that would also be out of keeping with current thinking and practice around the rights of children to contact their biological parents.

It's not just 'if the mum doesn't want it'. The wishes of the child born once they reach 18 years have to be taken into account too.

I agree with you Milk, but as Christina pointed out the reason the ruling was changed on anonymous sperm/egg donations was because of the rights of the potential child to know their origins.

It's a tough one.

speaknowords by using the argument "I cannot imagine such scenario but there must be one" you are forgetting scenarios such as the father of the baby forcing the woman to had an abortion at X weeks. The woman is currently protected by the law and by the refusal of doctors in performing the procedure, but they will no longer be if the ban is lifted. So it goes both ways, doesn't it?

For all of you who think this is right, what is it then that makes these two scenarios so different:

• the woman decides at 37 weeks that she no longer wishes to be pregnant and has an abortion
• woman gives birth at 37 weeks, decides she doesn't want the baby and kills him in whatever way she chooses 5 minutes after the birth

How is that different??????

speak I agree. Women generally start making decisions about their pregnancy as soon as they realise/face up to being pregnant and can access support.

For all but a very, very small minority of women, this will be well before the second let alone the third trimester.

But that small minority of women do not deserve to be criminalised. No more than the men who were the other part of the pregnancy do.

Speak, the genetically unique human entity that is capable of living without her is not part of her body. By terminating it, she is not making a decision for her body. She's making a decision for its.

onemoremummy that has been addressed up thread.

I'd like to think there would be a way (given how few people this would be likely to affect) that the origins of a person could be recorded without naming the bio parents. I think it's the lesser of two evils.

I also think that a woman resorting to such a late term abortion for anything other than medical reasons is actually not necessarily thinking rationally and therefore possibly not fully competent to make that decision.

bumble in legal terms the foetus is part of the mother's body in asmuch that it does not have a separate legal status. The RCOB and Gynes are very clear on this point.

If a foetus is born alive, it immediately has the same rights as every other child in the UK. It does not have these rights until it is born.

Is there any evidence that women who have late term abortions for social reasons fare better with their mental than those who are forced to give birth to a live baby. Bare in mind that in the third trimester the body of the foetus has to be removed somehow.

I know someone who did have a late term induction (because of anencephaly - the baby had no brain) at 28 weeks. The experience has torn her mental health to pieces. She is convinced that she has committed murder, even though her baby was doomed to die.) Her baby lived for about ten minutes and i doubt the baby would have lived much longer if she had been born at term.

Many people experience terrible feelings of guilt over abortion. I imagine that for late term abortion the guilt feelings are difficult to live with. If you have taken pregnancy to the stage that you can feel movement of the baby I fail to see how you can think its not alive.

"it's impossible to separate the act of ending a pregnancy from the consequences for the foetus. "

We're talking about late term here. There's a very big difference in the consequences for a foetus in abortion vs induction!

It is part of her body. It is entirely contained within her body, dependant on it. It exists because her body has grown it. Whilst the unborn foetus/baby is still in utero, it is not an independent entity. All decisions about what happens in relation to it lie with the mother.

bumbleymummy Thu 19-May-16 09:35:05
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.

Then stop saying this is a decision where it is not an issue where we shouldn't make a decision on balance and it must always be on the terms of the second viable life. Its not. Its not that black and white, as much as YOU want it to me.

I'm sorry I do not think people are actually aware or want to be aware of the reality of the most extreme cases. We can not deny these exist.

And it is always the existence of the most extreme cases that are the problem and where the most vulnerable are.

That INCLUDES the second viable life. Which you might SAVE, by framing the law differently, if it makes women engage with health services.

Christina, child destruction law was discussed up thread. They are considered as separate victims of the crime. The foetus is not part of the woman's body.

Where in the law about child destruction does it specify that the unborn child is the victim? It is a separate crime against the mother, I thought.

Speak, ' contained within' does not mean 'a part of.' Biologically they are two separate entities. Why should the woman be as to decide what happens to another human body?