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."

Agree Gideon

I think I could cope with having had a 24 week termination (assuming the circumstances justified it). I could not cope with having given birth to a 24 week baby who was likely to be suffering various invasive procedures and long term health conditions, with no parent to care for it during its time in NICU (or possibly ever). I don't think that's a better outcome for the woman, or indeed for the foetus/baby.

Also all this talk about "the medical professionals decide". As I said upthread, the medical professionals do not know which very premature babies will do well and which will probably die or be very severely disabled. They might have a better idea a week or two after birth (not always) but the decision has been made by then to have a live birth.

I feel differently about 30+ week babies - they generally do pretty well, so in those cases, I'm coming round to the idea of induction rather than abortion.

minipie if you're arguing that a foetus has different 'right's at 30+ weeks because its quality of life can be predicted (but not guaranteed) to be better than a foetus delivered between 24-30 weeks, then surely that foetus has the 'right' to the best quality of life available to it, which means being born as close to term as possible.

So should a woman have the 'right' to terminate at 30 weeks or should she be forced to continue the pregnancy until the foetus has - statistically at least - an even better chance of survival/good health? At what point in a pregnancy do you think women should be required to relinquish their bodily autonomy - 29+6 is okay to terminate, but not 30 or 30 +1?

Then what sort of 'rights' will the then child have in regard to knowledge about their mother's medical history, or contacting her when they turn 18?

As you say that medical professionals simply do not know which foetuses will be healthy and which not. I don't understand why they should get to make decisions about a woman's pregnancy rather than the woman herself.

"The potential for huge pyschological damage to all parties is unthinkable and, in my view, making a woman go through this would be highly unethical."

The woman has to go through some kind of birthing process. Doctors are not harry potter.

more immortal than inject potassium into the heart of a baby. Do you not think that having a needle stuck into the heart of a baby might hurt. There is plenty of evidence that 24 weekers do suffer pain.

"I think I could cope with having had a 24 week termination (assuming the circumstances justified it). I could not cope with having given birth to a 24 week baby who was likely to be suffering various invasive procedures and long term health conditions, with no parent to care for it during its time in NICU (or possibly ever). I don't think that's a better outcome for the woman, or indeed for the foetus/baby. "

Why should it be up to the mother to decide who lives and who dies? I think that that the staff of a neo natal intensive care unit would do their best by such a baby and would care for it. Just like people try to look after babies put in a baby hatch. Terminating a pregnancy without killing a baby is no different to putting a baby in a baby hatch.

"Then what sort of 'rights' will the then child have in regard to knowledge about their mother's medical history, or contacting her when they turn 18?"

The child would be in precisely the same reason as a child who has been put up for a closed adoption. When they are 18 they can find out the name of their mother, but they cannot force their mother to agree to contact. Babies who are left in hatches sometimes never find out their parents, but I think they prefer to be alive.

The truth is that a mother is the person who brings you up and helps you grow. The bio mother is not a mother as such and her role is no different to a sperm donor. I suppose that the difference is that a sperm donor has done something special where as a mother who terminates the pregnancy of a health foetus may well feel ashamed of her actions in later years.

christina It's not just her pregnancy, though, is it. There's also another life form, inside her. As a society, we have rules about how we treat all life. We have charities protecting cruelty to all kinds of creatures, vegetation, people groups - I recently returned from a safari in which we'd spent much of the day driving in laborious loops around dung beetles. Yet you would like it to be legal for a baby - who is arguably the most precious, vulnerable and worthy of protection out of all of forms of life and who will be protected by a million laws and moral codes from the moment it is born - to have a probably agonising lethal injection, even though (a) it has to come out anyway so birth is unavoidable (b) there is no shortage of properly screened adoptive families for newborns and (c) the majority of babies born in the later stages of pregnancy now survive.

It's insane.

reallytired um, I think you'll find that being pregnant is actually fairly different to being a sperm donor. Completely and absolutely in fact.

goneto it is her pregnancy. There's no just about it. It is the woman's pregnancy to make her own choices about.

Yes, you're right that a foetus will automatically have lots of 'rights' when it's born alive. This is the reason that the RCOG require that foetuses aren't born alive if the intention is abortion.

Yes, it's a very difficult topic to think about, and don't you think that women who consider an abortion don't find it difficult too? That's the reason why support and counselling should be more freely available.

"You say that 'obviously the foetus is treated differently in law' then go on to make arguments that contradict this."

I haven't made any arguments to contradict that the foetus is treated different to a newborn. I've argued against your idea that the foetus is part of the mother.

Legally, the foetus is part of the mother inasmuch as it doesn't have a separate legal status is what I said very specifically and deliberately.

And your statement 'obviously the foetus is treated differently in law' seems to concur with this?

"Yes, you're right that a foetus will automatically have lots of 'rights'whenit'sbornalive. This is the reason that the RCOG require that foetuses aren't born alive if the intention is abortion."

You can imagine the conversation can't you....

"Doctor, it's still alive!"

"Quick, push it back in so we can kill that child legally!"

There was a case recently where an aborted baby was found by a cleaner still clinging to life, gasping for breath it was. She informed the Doctor, who refused to do anything but cover the baby up, while still alive. I guess the sight of it offended him. He thought it was fine to kill this baby while it was in it's Mothers womb, but not fine thirty minutes later when it wasn't. It's just monstrous!

Mother's right to choose. Mother's property.

Christina - no, it doesn't. Just because the foetus doesn't have legal status as a person does not mean that it is considered part of the mother. It is treated as a separate entity in the case of child destruction in that it must be proven that the attacker intended to kill the child separately not just as a consequence of injuring/killing the mother.

The woman has to go through some kind of birthing process. Doctors are not harry potter.

Are you being deliberately obtuse, reallytired? Who suggested doctors were Harry Potter, for goodness sake? I was responding to Mango Moon's suggestion that women should 'terminate' after 26 weeks by being made to give birth and then having medics decide what happens next. This is quite a different scenario from either (a) a straightforward termination or (b) the premature birth of a wanted baby. It would presumably mean the woman would be induced, give birth and then be sidelined. After all, in Mango's words: "as far as the mother is concerned she has terminated & that is the end of it for her." This is what I believe to be unethical and likely to lead to severe psychological problems for one or more of the parties involved.

Can we not forget, too, while indulging in all this 'what-iffery', that women are not queueing up for 'social' late-term abortions but have very genuine and often heart-breaking reasons for needing them? IMO there are far too many posters on this thread indulging in the usual anti-abortion rhetoric implying that women have terminations frivolously.

bridgetoc please can you provide a reference for your story about the cleaner, I can't find anything out about it.

bumbley you are attaching a lot of meaning to the child destruction law that just isn't there. Proving that the perpetrator intended to kill the unborn child doesn't confer onto the unborn child the status of independent entity. It is about the intent of the perpetrator, not the legal status or biological status of the unborn baby.

two fingers, we're discussing late term abortions in relation to decriminalising abortion which would remove the legal cut off and allow a woman to choose to terminate for any reason at any stage. Currently they are only legal post 24 weeks for medical reasons - foetal and maternal - not for social reasons.

Speak, I'm not using it in that context. I'm using it to show that the child is not considered part of the mother as Christina suggested. It is treated as a separate entity (I did not say independent ) in child destruction - the intent must have been to kill the child separate to the mother.

Currently they are only legal post 24 weeks for medical reasons - foetal and maternal - not for social reasons.
I am perfectly aware of that, Bumbley and I'm not sure why you felt the need to clarify that in response to my post. The hypothetical situations that OTHER people have been putting forward, eg. "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" are the ones I'm addressing.

I'm sure nobody - not even the most ardent forced-birthers - would be so crass as to suggest that removal of these limitations would result in women clamouring for late-term 'social' abortions. Or would they?

"Doctor, it's still alive!"

"Quick, push it back in so we can kill that child legally!"

Talk about scraping the barrel.

I don't agree that this is the implication/meaning of this particular piece of legislation. Particularly when in all other legal situations the foetus is regarded as not a separate entity to the mother. My reading of that law is simply that there must be additional intent to kill the unborn foetus, in its unborn state. Whether or not the unborn foetus/baby is an independent separate entity is not discussed or relevant to this law.

two fingers, I clarified it because you said there weren't women queuing up for late term 'social' abortions. Of course there aren't, they're illegal. We can't, however, say that no woman would ever decide to have a post-24 week abortion for a non-medical reason if that option were available.

Again Speak, I have not used the word independent. My point is that it is not considered part of the mother as Christina had suggested.

I was responding to Mango Moon's suggestion that women should 'terminate' after 26 weeks by being made to give birth and then having medics decide what happens next.

To clarify, I wasn't suggesting that the baby be born at 26 weeks and decisions made by medics afterwards - I was unclear, sorry.

I was musing on the suggestion further up thread about 'termination of pregnancy' being the term post the standard 24 week limit.
That is, after that time the HCP decides whether it will be an abortion or not.

For eg, if the time is 26 weeks it will most likely be aborted - if the time was 32 weeks and the foetus was thought to be healthy it may be viable to do a birth?
The HCP would make the call on the best outcome prior to the termination of pregnancy.

As far as the mother is concerned her pregnancy has been terminated.

(But then the ethics thing about the potential child's right to trace its mother made it unviable as a solution).

I am fully in agreement with abortion on demand btw, as I have repeatedly stated, including its decriminalisation.

How do you get to that conclusion from the wording of the child destruction law? Where does it state that the unborn foetus/baby is to be considered a separate legal entity to the mother? That is your interpretation, I think based on the need to show that the perpetrator specifically intended to kill the unborn baby as well as harm/kill the mother. The unborn foetus and the mother can be considered two parts of the same whole in that situation, it is not necessary to have to consider the unborn foetus/baby as a separate legal entity.

For the fourth time, a foetus is part of the mother inasmuch as it doesn't have a separate legal status is what I said.

You cannot have an unborn child without a pregnant woman.

ReallyTired

the staff of a neo natal intensive care unit would do their best by such a baby and would care for it.

The staff would care for the baby while it was in NICU. But (1) such babies often suffer quite a lot, both in NICU due to all the procedures and afterwards due to medical problems. (2) What happens after NICU? Very early prems are often severely, usually moderately disabled and it will be hard to find adoptive homes for them.

Terminating a pregnancy without killing a baby is no different to putting a baby in a baby hatch

Yes it is when the baby is very pre term. See my point above. A baby hatch baby is likely to be full term, broadly healthy and easy to adopt. A 24 or 25 weeker is not.

christinarossetti

if you're arguing that a foetus has different 'right's at 30+ weeks because its quality of life can be predicted (but not guaranteed) to be better than a foetus delivered between 24-30 weeks, then surely that foetus has the 'right' to the best quality of life available to it, which means being born as close to term as possible.

I don't think this follows. Right to life doesn't usually mean right to best quality of life possible - that's a much higher requirement.

At what point in a pregnancy do you think women should be required to relinquish their bodily autonomy - 29+6 is okay to terminate, but not 30 or 30 +1?

I don't. On my proposal, it's ok for a woman to decide not to be pregnant any more, at any gestation. The gestation affects whether termination is used or induction, not whether she has to stay pregnant or not.

A better question is why induce 30+ weekers but terminate 29+6 weekers. The answer is, we have to have a cut off somewhere. At present it's birth. I am - I think - persuaded in favour of moving that cut off to 30 weeks. (Still pondering this.)

Then what sort of 'rights' will the then child have in regard to knowledge about their mother's medical history, or contacting her when they turn 18?

None. If the alternative is to let 30+ week healthy foetuses be aborted then I think letting them live but without contact rights is the better option.

There are other European examples of people being ableto relinquish babies anonymously post birth via baby boxes or baby hatches. The termination of pregnancy model for post 24 weeks could follow this example. As we are talking about very very few cases anyway, those women who currently are not able to abort post 24 weeks, i dont see why it wouldnt work if we put a bit of thought into it.
Personally i am happy with the 24 week limit but if we were making changes, i'd lower it, not remove all limits. I suspect thats the directiin public pressure would be for.