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."

So sorry you had to go through that, Lucy.

No, speak, I should have clarified that those circumstances would be different. However, you're being rather manipulative because the post I was addressing was clearly saying that all abortion at 30 weeks was acceptable, under any circumstances.

I'm very sorry LucyBabs for your loss. It sounds enormously traumatic.

Christina, I dont see any connection really to what you are saying. In all cases, the woman retains bodily integrity and the right to decide how and when to give birth. Pre eclampsia, low heart rate, whether to have a c section etc. All these require the womans permission (except if she is too ill to consent). Nothing would change. Noone is proposing women are forced to give birth at 30 weeks. But if, in incredibly rare circumstances, a woman wishes to terminate her pregnancy, she would have that right, but medics would not kill her baby before delivery.

I'm not being manipulative. I was asking for clarification of what was a very strong and plain statement that you made.

mango moon Surely you cannot have only just noticed that this kind of contemptuous, abusive and very personally vitriolic stance is the general attitude of many pro-choicers on this thread? The irony is that they think pro-lifers are judgemental and hold their choices against them personally - but I don't know any pro-lifers who would dream of speaking about people in the manner that pro-choicers here do as a matter of course.

Well, speak, refer to the earlier comment I was clearly responding to.

Could you explain why it is preferable for a woman to give birth to a baby that is dead rather than alive, and why she should have the right to have a doctor inject a probably very painful lethal injection into her baby's heart, even though the outcome for her, if she wishes, would be identical whether the baby lived or died?

Lucy I think we have talked on a similar thread before and I remember your hatred for pro-life views. While I have every sympathy for what happened to you (although I think you were vehemently against this being expressed), with respect, your situation is not at all comparable to the likelihood of even a 28+ weeks baby outside the womb with no other health conditions.

I should say no other pre-existing health conditions.

Could you explain why it is preferable for a woman to give birth to a baby that is dead rather than alive, and why she should have the right to have a doctor inject a probably very painful lethal injection into her baby's heart, even though the outcome for her, if she wishes, would be identical whether the baby lived or died?

I agree with this.

A woman who has a late abortion because she no longer wants to be pregnant had to give birth anyway so why kill a baby that can survive independent of her?

She may not want to be pregnant anymore and she may not want the baby but surely it shouldn't be as simple as just ending the babies life?

gone I completely and utterly agree.

I'm going to state these facts so you can get your arguments straight.
At 25 weeks they give you a pessary that slows and stops the heart like going to sleep. You do not give birth unless you go into spontaneous labour, in normal cases you are put under GA and wake after.

I don't know until what stage this can be done but I know at 25 weeks this is standard

I would personally have made a deal with the devil not to have gone through it but it was never an option. And no not mental health issue.

Could you explain why it is preferable for a woman to give birth to a baby that is dead rather than alive, and why she should have the right to have a doctor inject a probably very painful lethal injection into her baby's heart, even though the outcome for her, if she wishes, would be identical whether the baby lived or died?

It's not something that I would consider preferable. It is not something that I would want to happen, or that I would encourage to happen. It is not a circumstance I could imagine many women at all would ever find themselves in. However, if that was what the woman in question truly felt was the best outcome for her, and she was well aware of the procedure and the consequences, then I would respect that decision. Why would anyone else be in a position to override her?

Because speak I very much doubt a woman contemplating a late abortion of a healthy foetus has the capacity to do so, to be utterly frank.

People should be in a position to override that so the unwanted baby can be born alive and given a chance at life. It makes no difference whether that baby is killed in utero or not - it still has to be delivered.

And I say this as a pro-choice woman.

Genuine question: what would happen to the late term abortion babies?

I'm guessing the parents wouldn't be thinking of giving it a funeral.

The first few pages of this thread were bearable.

It will be a good day for Great Britain when our NI sisters aren't criminalised for exercising their reproductive autonomy.

We already tetminate pg up to term for abnormalities. The latest i was ever involved with was 34 weeks. This is already legal.

Cathy Warwick is absolutely right.

As I said, it is hard to imagine such circumstances where a woman would feel that this was the best course of action for her. In your opinion, no woman could make that decision without being mentally unwell and therefore lacking capacity to make that decision rationally and with full understanding.

I can imagine that there might be some extreme, distressing and unusual circumstances where a woman could make that decision as the best one for her, rationally and with full understanding.

As I've said before on the thread, I don't think there would be a huge rush of post-24 weeks pregnant woman requesting abortions if it was decriminalised. I think it would remain very rare indeed.

Cathy Warwick is absolutely right, Agatha. I totally agree with your post.

AgathaMystery,

Did you find the 34 week late termination distressing? I realise that as a health professional you are required to be non judgemental and look after your patient to the best of your ablity.

Would you personally be prepared to inject the poison into a healthy 34 week foetus. You have listened to the heart beat and seen the foetus/ baby move on the scan. On the scan you can see the baby wriggling. It's sucking it'd thumb. You can tell it's a girl and that is the reason for the late term abortion.

Should these baby's that are surplus to requirement be used for spare parts transplant?

Will the health professionals sleep at night?

I am pro choice, but I don't believe that a woman should terminate a pregnancy to term or at a later pregnancy.

I had an abortion at 6 weeks and till this day I mourn over it. Some people on here seem to underestimate how an abortion effects a woman's mental health and it's often not talked about.

Quite Lucy. Abstract ideas about 'any life is better than none' dissolve when they come into cntactcwith reality.

I would imagine that a HCP could refuse to participate if they morally disagrees with it? I don't know.

I just can't imagine someone being forced to do it...

hollow - I had a termination at 8 weeks which was over 16 years ago and like you, I still find it very hard to think about it.

What seems like the right decision at the time can often causing lasting emotional harm and regret.

So these extreme pro lifers want abortion on demand for any reason up to term.

They really have no issues with a late term abortion because the foetus is female.

I am glad that MPs and the courts decide our laws.

tired I will be very frank. It was utterly awful, beyond soul destroying. I think about it a few times a year. It was not a decision the family reached lightly and as a team we searched our souls before we agreed to participate. Of course we performed a feticide before induction. It was completely legal. It is extremely rare to TOP so late.

This law is unlikely to affect anyone On the mainland.

I had an unplanned pregnancy in my early twenties. It was totally the wrong time in my life. Women in that kind of position are really caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.

I love my son, but having him before I was ready wrecked a promising career and led to me being depressed.