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."

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

Any option that forces a woman to give birth to a child she does not want is never "better". Any person arguing for such a thing is below contempt.

"Doctor, it's still alive!"

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

Are you trying to say that abortionists have never gone on with abortions where the child has been born partially alive? Because they have.

What twisted sense of morality do you have that it's fine in your mind for a woman to kill exactly the same baby when it's inside her, yet you would probably call it murder and support a prison sentence if she did it the moment after delivery? What if the child was half-born? Would that be murder (morally wrong to you, I presume) or abortion (morally fine).

Why should that child not get a chance at life? She will gain nothing from having the child killed. She'll still have to give birth. I've seen research suggesting her long-term psychological health will be no better. What is your reason for wanting this child to die, rather than living at no cost to the mother?

Quite frankly penguin I think most of the nation would hold anyone aborting a 30 week old foetus/baby in contempt.

If you could consider it as two parts of the same whole then it would be not be necessary to show that the intent was to kill the child separately from harming the mother.

"You cannot have an unborn child without a pregnant woman."

So? That still does not mean that the unborn child is part of the mother.

Anyway, this is going around in circles and isn't furthering the discussion at all. Shall we just agree to differ and move on?

"Any option that forces a woman to give birth to a child she does not want is never "better". "

At 30+ weeks she has to give birth regardless of whether the baby is born alive or dead.

If she wants an abortion at 30 weeks there is no way of doing this other than by birth. It isnt forcing her to give birth.

"I think most of the nation would hold anyone aborting a 30 week old foetus/baby in contempt." Anyone? So in the case of a baby that was discovered to have a condition that was incompatible with life, and that would suffer terribly for any time that they were alive after birth? Or, where continuing the pregnancy would be lethal for the mother? They would be contemptible for having an abortion?

Penguin that's not really an argument is it? Just an insult.

I think forced pregnancy is wrong. However, in late term abortions the woman has to give birth anyway. As such I think that she could give birth to a live child rather than a dead one (as I say, after 30 weeks). This does not infringe her bodily autonomy. It may be more difficult for her emotionally, but that is a different consideration from bodily autonomy.

bumble there's no 'so?' about the fact that an unborn child must be inside a pregnant woman.

That's central to the debate. You can try to embue a foetus with a separate identity as much as you like, but this has no backing in UK law.

Any option that forces a woman to give birth to a child she does not want is never "better". Any person arguing for such a thing is below contempt

what rubbish, there are many people that are pro choice and agree that abortions must be legal. but to say we are contemptible because we object to a late abortion that would cause foetus, mother and medical staff extreme distress. fucks sake!

its like a strange parallel universe on this thread

Any discussion of no contact rights goes against current thinking and practice for children who are adopted or born as a result of sperm donation.

I disagreeminipie. If you are going to argue for fetal 'right to life' surely it must have the same 'right to' the best quality of life available. This informs medical decisions about all interventions in pregnancy and birth (although not abortion because a live birth isn't the intention).

christina, my 'so' is because the fact that it is inside the woman does not mean that it is part of it. You were making one statement as if it proved the other. Anyway, in the interest of not derailing the debate further - shall we just move on?

I disagreeminipie. If you are going to argue for fetal 'right to life' surely it must have the same 'right to' the best quality of life available.

Why? Some life is better than no lifeZ

Life. Sorry

"If you are going to argue for fetal 'right to life' surely it must have the same 'right to' the best quality of life available."

Why? The alternative is no life at all.

Sorry, x-post future.

There are other european examples currently of families able to give up babies anonymously via baby boxes
No baby in the uk (or anywhere else i can think of) has the right to the best quality of life avaiable. Theywould allbe fostered bythe queen if that were the case

This has turned into a really informative thread.

I personally feel that there is precedence for adopted children having no right of response to their parents. In the US there are safe spaces for dropping off babies anonymously and this could be looked at for late pregnancy terminations which pass viability. All of what is being discussed here is in the very murky grey shades so there are really only clunky answers nothing is going to be particularly palatable.

In the main I find abortion requires a level of cognitive dissonance that I feel I can reasonably make until a baby is medically viable, beyond that my cognitive dissonance fails me completely. I admire people who can reconcile the abortion debate so decisively one way or another, I really struggle.

Do we really not have other things to worry about than throwing women in jail because they did what they wanted with their own body.

Sorry I got interrupted by dinner before posting that and I can see my point has been made several times ah well great minds and all that.

Because aiming for the best quality of life possible for the foetus is one of the factors that informs decisions about when to intervene if eg the mother has pre-eclampsia and I fail to understand why the foetus of an abortion shouldn't have the same consideration given to it, if you're going to start from a stance of 'fetal right to life'.

Ditto, rights about contacting birth parents etc.

Christina, if the woman is insisting that she no longer wants to be pregnant and the alternative for the foetus is abortion then 'the best quality of life' is what it gets if it's induced. If it is aborted then it gets no life outside the woman.

This was the point I was making many pages back bumbley
Any life is better than nothing? I'm wondering if you have ever seen someone suffer, properly physically suffer from an illness or a severe disability?

I've had personal experience of knowing a baby growing inside me was suffering immense pain and it was only a matter of time before he would die.
I hoped each day that he would die, how awful for an expectant mother to wish such a thing.

I cried tears of relief when his heart stopped at 20 weeks. The thoughts that he may have had to endure that pain until birth was unimaginable.

Now before you twist things round, his life meant as much to me as my born children.
I didn't think because he had a FFD that he shouldn't live. I knew he wouldn't survive and I was glad when his pain was over. My son had a right to the best quality life.
If he hadn't have died at 20 weeks I was going to travel to the UK to have a termination.

Many women wouldn't choose to do that and that's their right.

You can't possibly say any life is better than nothing, you really can't

Any option that forces a woman to give birth to a child she does not want is never "better". Any person arguing for such a thing is below contempt

As already said, the woman has to give birth anyway at a very late stage - the difference is giving birth to a live baby or a dead baby.

I am pro choice, pro abortion on demand, pro abortion post 24 weeks for medical reasons (woman or foetus), pro decriminalisation, against forced pregnancies & forced birth.

However, like many on this thread & probably in rl I am not comfortable with the idea of very late term (over 32 weeks for example) terminations on healthy, viable foetuses.

To call those people (like me) 'beyond contempt' is fucking atrocious.

That sort of dismissive, aggressive, emotional bollocks is every bit as bad as pro-lifers spouting about murdering babies imvho.

Lucy, I'm very sorry for your loss.
I can understand why you are sensitive to this but what we're discussing here is allowing a healthy baby to be born alive post-24 weeks rather than being terminated. This is right up to term. I appreciate that life is hard for a very premature baby but I think most parents of premature babies and adults who were born prematurely themselves would argue that their lives are worthwhile. Please don't assume that I know nothing of pain or suffering.