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."

Well she owns abortions clinics so no wonder she wants it right up to the wire

Profits will be up no doubt

"RCM members have views which span the whole spectrum of the debate, and the RCM has no right to claim to speak for them without consulting them. "

^^ This with feckin bells on!

I also think no one should be pressured in to terminating as strongly as I advocate terminations being available to those we make that decision.

A baby post 24 weeks can survive

Only with medical intervention which is something a lot of anti-choicers forget.

My own DD, who was born 32 weeks would not have survived without the fantastic medical team and she had nothing 'wrong' with her - she was simply too small and too weak to survive without help.

Women being forced into abortions is appalling and needs to be tackled, but it should not be used as a reason for not making abortions available "as early as possible, as late as necessary". It just further supports the emphasis on women being the decision-makers about what happens with their own body

exLt, some babies born at full term need medical intervention to survive as well. I'm not sure what your point is.

A higher proportion of preterm babies need intervention than babies born at term or post term. That's the point.

Better to have a chance at life than none at all IMO.

This. If a woman does not want to be pregnant at 34 weeks, induce. Don't automatically kill it.

My son was almost born at 34 weeks. He was very much alive at thT stage.

Decriminilising it isn't going to suddenly produce a queue of women lining up to have late term abortions.

A higher proportion of preterm babies need intervention than babies born at term or post term. That's the point.

But they live.

Not all of them. Survival rates for babies born at 24 weeks aren't great, and of the ones who do survive many have life altering effects of prematurity.

I'm uncomfortable with saying that because someone has lifelong disabilities their lives are less valuable.

My point (as you are well aware) is that the "But babies can survive at 24 weeks" cry of anti-choicers should be quantified. But it never is.

Same as the "but the baby could be adopted" argument, where it is never pointed out how hard it is to find adoptive parents for newborns, how there isn't the funds nor the foster families in place to look after these unwanted children (or how very quiet the anti-choicers go when asked if they would be willing to take on these children they want to force the host to have)

Me too Future.

WhoDrew, I don't think it was.

I'm not an anti choicer. I'm pro choice, I just don't think removing the criminalisation of late term abortions would be a good move.

Husky just to be clear it is not a midwife who does the 'lethal injection'. There are specialist consultants who do the procedure. It is, currently, not available at all hospitals but at fetal medicine units.

The injection I had was carried out by a consultant with another present to check my dd's position. It was painful (physically and emotionally) and still is the most harrowing, distressing and traumatic thing I have ever had to do by a long way.

However, please do not think that you turn up to labour ward, surrounded by happy women in labour, and a midwife simply kills off your baby. It is much longer and specialised than that with lots of professionals involved. The only involvement a midwife would have would be assisting the woman to give birth to a baby who was already dead. Heartbreaking but they do it very frequently as it is.

LtEve, no I wasn't aware that it was your point. I don't see why the need for medical intervention should influence the decision on whether or not to give the baby a chance to survive when it is born.

I cannot support this either.

Again just to clarify I have no problem with the current abortion laws.

It was the point Bumbley. It was pointed out to you that preterm babies need large amounts of medical intervention other survive, a baby born at 24 weeks cannot survive without it. You said that some full term babies need intervention too.

A full term baby is less likely to need intervention than a baby born at 24 weeks. All babies born at 24 weeks will need medical intervention whereas only some full term babies will need it.

Don't try and cloud the debate by being deliberately obtuse.

Not sure bar milk and a little suction what intervention a full term child would need

My child didn't need anything when she was born

So just to be clear people on here think if the women changes her mind say the day before labour she can have a termination what about 2 hours before

I fully support it. It's an issue for the mother and the medical professionals to decide based on the specifics of each individual case. Politicians, lawyers and A.N.Other on the internet cannot make sweeping judgements about such things.

WhoDrew, I've addressed her point above. You can stop with your 'deliberately obtuse/clouding the debate ' accusations. You don't have to agree with my POV but you should at least have the courtesy to assume that I'm being genuine.

I am pro-choice.
I think abortions should be as early as possible, as late as necessary.
Aborting because it's not the sex of baby you wanted leaves me cold.
But I don't think that it should be a crime, I don't think... But I'm uncomfortable with it.

I would say this is roughly my opinion as well. Personally I could not abort as it doesn't fit with my beliefs BUT I refuse to condemn those who do. Everyone has different circumstances and everyone has the right to choose.

The thought of late aborting makes my blood run cold BUT I think we need to focus less on the semantics of timing etc and more on making sure any woman facing this choice can do so with support and help to ensure she makes the CORRECT choice for her individual circumstances. It's never as straight forward as abort or don't there are pretty much always mixed feelings. Pregnant women who do not wish to be so are incredibly vulnerable. They need to be supported and helped, not vilified.