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."

Every woman should have the right to autonomy over her own body and there should be no criminalisation linked to exercising that right. The only people who should have any input on that decision are the woman making the choice and the medical team supporting her in making her choice.

It boggles my mind that a full term baby in utero doesn't have the same legal status as the rest of us. I am horrified that a body like the RCM would argue for these acts to be decriminalised.

Nope dont support this at all. And for late term abortions the baby is partially born (alive) all but the head, where they then insert something into the babys head (still in the birth canal) and suck the brains out so the woman doesnt have to push out the head. I was blissfully unaware of this until i read about it on mn. Its barbaric anyway you cut it. (Cant remember the name for this procedure but it was being bandied about on another pro abortion thread on mn as a 'minor' op).

the foetal heart is stopped prior to the termination

In other words it is killed. If we are going to discuss this at least lets be honest about it.

There isn't going to be a sudden influx of late-term abortions. Most women will make their minds up about abortion pretty quickly and want it done asap. We all know that the longer a pg continues, the harder an abortion will be. The majority of us will want an abortion as soon as we decide that a pg is not the right thing.

While a woman is pg, her needs and wishes trump those of the foetus/baby.

If a woman is living under a restrictive regime, be it her country's or her partner's, she is not in a position to make a choice. As soon as she is in a position to make a choice she should be allowed to make that choice and to exercise it, without let or hindrance. To make her a criminal because of it makes the law an ass.

It is outrageous that in the UK, in the 21st century, any woman should be penalised for ending an unwanted pg at any stage.

No woman is going to undergo a late term abortion without knowing what the process is, how the fetus' heart will be stopped, how it will be removed. That's what fully informed consent to the procedure means. No woman is going to be going into that thinking "yippee I've been waiting for this my whole life". Finding it too horrific to contemplate for yourself does not mean it should not be an option for other women.

The next step if really late abortions are permitted will be to kill an unwanted baby after delivery. Is there any moral difference between that and very late abortion, that is to say abortion of a viable baby?

The RCM should do a poll of their members before making a statement on their position on abortion. There are midwives who consider that abortion is murder. The RCM should represent all its members.

I feel that there should be easy access to abortion during the first trimester. The current rules about governing abortion in the second trimester are right.
I feel that the deliberate injecting of a poison into a foetus after 24 weeks should be illegal unless the baby has a terminal condition. Disabled babies should enjoy the same protections as able bodied babies.

OK I'm just thinking here, mainly because I'm totally on the fence and I don't have enough understanding. I'm open to all points of view.

At what point could it be considered that a woman's choice to have an abortion is actually (if at all) her deciding what to do with someone else's life? Would an abortion at 36 weeks, where a baby born naturally could survive without much medical intervention (ie independent of the mother) really be acceptable? If a late abortion means that she has to give birth anyway why is it so important that she has the right to give birth to a dead foetus/baby as opposed to alive and adopted?

"Every woman should have the right to autonomy over her own body"

At this stage of pregnancy, a woman can exercise her right to bodily autonomy (in this case, the right to choose to no longer be pregnant) without having to terminate. She could be induced. Why is it necessary to terminate for her to have bodily autonomy?

Doctors will NOT be aborting healthy babies as late as say 36 weeks. Simply because ethically that still will be unjustifiable regardless of the circumstances. Because to put it bluntly there is no way an abortion at 36 weeks would be in the best, long term, interests of the woman concerned over and above other options at that point in the pregnancy.

So can we get away from that nonsense that this is going to start happening, and in large numbers, because it won't.

There still is a safeguard in place and that is the discretion of doctors who are bound to protect the wellbeing of their patient.

Or are people saying that doctors are unethical and like doing abortions as often as possible, without any question at all?

Or are we saying that the judgement of two doctors can't be trusted?

If that is the case, I think we better have a debate on that rather than a debate on abortion as its implications are far more troubling and wide ranging...

Thank you RedToothBrush - that makes sense.

If someone considers something is unethical (many people have very different views) but it is legal where would or should a final decision lie? If there is a problem with women being desperate enough to seek such a late abortion (few and far between) how would the law protect them and doctors? If a woman is desperate but all the doctors she approaches refuse on ethical grounds is she not back to square one of being desperate enough to self harm?

"Doctors will NOT be aborting healthy babies as late as say 36 weeks."

Well then why change the law at all?

That's a bit obvious isn't it? Even Donald Trump has recently had to admit that he is capable of understanding the point of it.

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/30/donald-trump-women-abortions-punishment

Does nobody want to help me on the moral difference between aborting a viable baby and killing a newly born? Does the "autonomy over my body" argument really make one moral and the other not?

The doctor will be making a judgment on the well being of the woman.

If at that late point, an abortion is refused, the doctor will also need to make an assessment of her mental health and act according. If he thinks she is at serious risk of self harm, then the doctor will have few options left but to deem her a danger to her self and take the appropriate action.

If the woman doesn't seek medical help and self harms she will no longer be a criminal in addition to mentally unwell. Which is the entire point of the decriminalisation.

In theory though, there should be a paper trail that emerges here which is how things will be accountable, rather than the law making a blunt tool which may do more even more harm.

If a woman is refused an abortion and self harms that should be clear. If a doctor is getting a lot of these, and appropriate action isn't being done, then its going to raise a red flag and questions asked.

Equally a doctor who is regularly doing a lot of late term abortions will be obvious, and unless each case has reasonable justification, that doctor is going to have their medical registration looked at.

Doctors have to make these type of serious decisions daily and are accountable for them.

Why do people thing that there will suddenly be no accountability for this particular issue, when there is for everything else?

Does nobody want to help me on the moral difference between aborting a viable baby and killing a newly born?

Not me. Manly because it is just another of those 'extreme cases to prove a point' that derail many otherwise reasonable discussions.

Decriminalising women who want abortions will not mean an increase in late abortions... medical professionals will still be held accountable. There are enough other countries who have already taken this step, should you wish to see the proof of this.

The difference that this will make will be that women who for whatever reason we're not able to access abortion services before 24 weeks will be able to be helped. Women whose circumstances tragically change after 24 weeks will be able to be helped. Women who decide at 36 weeks that they'd rather go on holiday to Ibiza than have a baby won't be affected, mostly because those women don't exist outside the imagination of pro-forced-birth nutjobs.

As early as possible, as late as necessary.

OurBlanche - that's abortion in general. This is changing legislation to allow abortion after 24 weeks for any reason. It already allows for abortion up to term for foetal abnormalities/maternal life/health risks. RedToothbrush says doctors will not be aborting healthy foetuses even if the legislation is changed which is why I'm asking why change it at all?

Cat, I'm interested to know that too. It's come up previously on threads and no one has ever really been able to answer. Particularly when the autonomy argument doesn't stand up if the foetus could survive without the woman. There was an interesting paper written about it. I'll see if I can find it...

I think there needs to be a massive improvement in MH services for it to work.

A refusal to perform an abortion on ethical grounds when the woman has a legal right to insist sounds to me like it could get messy.

Would making performing an abortion illegal, but seeking one not illegal work? I guess that doesn't help a woman who tries to do it herself though.

Still on the fence!

Jilly - a woman who has a late abortion has to give birth anyway. Why is it better that the foetus/baby is born dead rather than alive and adopted? This is what I don't understand about pro-choice referring to pro-lifers as pro-forced-birthers.

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

Profits will be up no doubt"

What a scandalous lie.

Very few abortions currently happen post 22 weeks anyway; there won't suddenly be hundreds more at 24 weeks plus.

And medical professionals are still bound by medical ethics, not profits.

Once Bumbley, who is anti abortion (and pro forced birth) in all circumstances has joined the discussion, there's very little point in continuing. So I will hide this now.

This is changing legislation to allow abortion after 24 weeks for any reason. What is? Not the RCM statement!

As I said much earlier upthread, that is a conflation of 2 quite separate ideas.

AHellofABird thanks for that reminder. I shall cease and desist!

Here you go CatWithKittens link