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."

That is the point. If someone wants to end their pregnancy, ok!
But at such a late stage ending a pregnancy ie inducing labour or c-section doesn't mean that the baby has to be killed or will be 'terminated' in the process. Twins for examples are often delivered at 37 weeks by planned c-section.
So will the Drs have to go out of their way to ensure that the baby is killed beforehand and then end the pregnancy.
It is not abortion at that stage. It is death, then delivery.
Also what happens if despite the efforts to kill the baby the baby survives? I have read many stories from abortion survivors.
What happens then?
Will the 'mother' decide that they should finish the baby off and complete her choice to end her pregnancy.
Or will the baby be counted as a life simply because it survived the attempts to kill it.

It is a foetus when it is inside the mother. Like it or not, it is not a 'baby' inasmuch as it does not have the same legal rights as a live baby.

Regardless of its physical development, it's legal status is dependent on whether it is born or not. That is very, very clear in all laws and statues relating to this issue.

katemiddleton if you believe that a foetus is a person at any stage of gestation then fine. do not under any circumstances have an abortion. That's absolutely fine and dandy. No one is going to make you.

That's like saying "if you don't believe murder is wrong, don't kill anyone."

I don't believe abortion is murder by the way, however late term abortion is pretty damn close.

It is a foetus when it is inside the mother. Like it or not, it is not a 'baby' inasmuch as it does not have the same legal rights as a live baby.

We are debating the moral issues here which is completely different.

But I did NOT say christina that a disabled life isn't worth not defending, and to try to twist my words in this way is the thing that is 'repellant'.

I think in certain circumstances, compassion for the baby AND the mother means that a termination can be considered past a certain point.

You think that whatever the circumstances termination can be given.

You think I am 'repellant' because in your eyes I am not advocating for disabled babies.

Then what does that make you, because you don't advocate for ANY baby?

Maybe that's what should be changed then. The legal definition of when a foetus becomes a baby and the rights of both.

"It is a foetus when it is inside the mother. Like it or not, it is not a 'baby' inasmuch as it does not have the same legal rights as a live baby."

A live baby is 100% dependent on those around it to survive. A baby cannot feed itself and would quickly die if no one took care of it.

Jilly, I'm not being disingenuous at all. There are other pro-life people on this thread too. What is nice is that, on this particular issue of late term abortion, most of us are in agreement.

future then fine, don't ever have a late term abortion. I agree that it's absolutely your right to make your own decisions about your own pregnancy. Absolutely. 100%.

jilly thank you! I am going to sign off for the night now. I'm never sure whether people are posting genuine or deliberately inflammatory posts. Some were deleted earlier after being reported but, on the whole, I tend to take posters as I find them.

The anti-abortion brigade don't actually have a rational argument, as becomes evident when they start talking about Baby P, slavery and the like. Although this has always been the case and I did find the first few pages of this thread quite heartening as people clearly hadn't realised that all abortion without two doctor's say so is criminalised in the Uk.

I agree that the quality of debate has deteriorated since then, as posters have lost sight of reality and focused on some abstract moral code.

reallytired a 'baby' has legal rights that a foetus doesn't have. From the moment it's born.

I think we've mostly managed to avoid personal comments and attacks on this thread, heated though it has been in part.

It would be nice if this could continue.

I for one am happy for women to be in charge of their families and fertility, and support anybody who wishes to terminate a pregnancy in its earlier stages, but believe to take charge of this after a point in pregnancy that involves injecting a lethal substance into a baby and then delivering it, is a step too far.

I understand some of you disagree but don't try to paint my view above as some sort of shocking view held only by extreme pro lifers.

Christina I would agree with "each to their own" if no one else is being harmed, but late term abortion is harming foetuses. You argue foetuses have no legal rights, which is true, however that doesn't make something morally acceptable.

Many groups throughout history have had no legal rights yet it does not mean it is okay morally to harm them.

The rational argument is that the foetus does not depend on the mother to survive and she can end the pregnancy without inflicting harm on the foetus. Therefore it is unnecessary (barring medical issues).

Christina, it's a shame that you can't understand the reasons behind the analogies that were given. I'm not sure if that's deliberate or not. To be honest, I haven't found your arguments for why a woman should be allowed to kill a viable foetus that could survive without her particularly rational or convincing. 'Because it's inside her' just doesn't do it for me. Have a nice night.

I'm not twisting your words katemiddleton. You clearly said that you agree with late abortion 'in certain circumstances' ie if the foetus will be severely disabled.

But not if it won't be. You may not have intended to give more rights to a (presumably) non-disabled foetus than a disabled one, but that is what your argument does.

I am advocating for the rights of all pregnant women, and the rights of babies once they are born. Not for the rights of foetuses.

bumble no it's not a shame that 'I can't understand your analogies'. I understand what argument you are trying to make and I fundamentally disagree with it and these analogies as a premise for it.

It's not that I don't understand what you're trying to do. It's more that I do understand and don't agree with it.

I've explained that post christina and my meaning was pretty obvious from the offset.

To repeat - the law sometimes has to have flexibility to be humane, to be compassionate and to minimise suffering.

You are fixating on this point I have supposedly made (and as someone with a much-loved and very valued disabled sibling, quite upsetting to read - not that I expect you care as its the third time you've done it) and glossing over the fact that this then equates to you placing no rights or value on any foetus, disabled or otherwise.

You know as well as I do that a 34 week old baby could be born and perfectly healthy and happy. We wouldn't dream of infecting a lethal substance into him if his mother didn't want him.

A 34 week old baby who is still inside his mother has that same right, IMO.

If you don't agree, I don't mind that. I've simply stated my own stance. I understand the opposing arguments, just happen to disagree with them. This does not mean I hate disabled babies or any of the other weird arguments - I just don't agree!

As always selective reading as the personal attacks are I believe coming from the other side.

Christina, you disagree with the idea that something being legally permissible does not necessarily make it morally acceptable?

Christina, twisting what people say into 'you are advocating that a non-disabled foetus is worth more than a disabled one' is just as bad as the murdering babies analogies imo.

I was called ableist further up thread because I said I would have terminated had I found my pre term babies to have abnormalities or with Downs Syndrome.

You pull up other people for conflating two things, yet you do it yourself.

I am advocating for the rights of all pregnant women, and the rights of babies once they are born. Not for the rights of foetuses

I admit I've skipped a few pages but several posters , including Buffy, made the point the right to terminate the pregnancy does not have to mean the right to end the life of the foetus. I don't think you have explained why this should not be the case.

As for being disingenuous- you have said several times that the law says a foetus is not a baby until it's born. Yet what you are arguing for is a change in the law. Presumably the law therefore is only set in stone when you agree with it?

I, nor no other poster has said that you 'hate disabled babies' kate middleton. I don't know where you've got that from.

You did say that "Having an abortion is currently illegal past 24 weeks unless in clearly defined circumstances, and rightly so IMO" which I pointed out indicates a viewpoint that a disabled life is less worthy of defending than a (presumably) non disabled life.

I'm sorry if this has upset you, but this is what you said.

And yes, I don't uphold the 'rights' of any foetus, be they disabled or not.

But, of course, uphold your rights to make your own decisions about your own pregnancies (but not those of other women).

I think that the obvious difference between disability and able bodied is simply that disabilities can't be detected until a certain point of gestation.

If it was only possible to detect pregnancy after six months my answer might be different! But we don't have the gestation period of a cat. There's five and a half months before abortion is illegal, at present.

Yes, there are all sorts of desperate cases I know and I don't condemn, I feel nothing but compassion for these poor women, but extreme cases make bad laws.

Not at all christina

I believe any woman should make a decision about her pregnancy within the current timeframe of the law.

As I've said in my post above, disability is difficult and also different due to the fact it isn't possible to identify many disabilities at an earlier point of gestation, but of course you know this - you just want to twist round what I've said.

Disability isn't always detectable in pregnancy.

Absolutely it isn't but again I think it was fairly obvious I was talking about when it IS, since we were talking about terminating when disability is detected!