Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

TM will allow a debate on restricting abortion to cling on to power.

385 replies

catgirl1976 · 10/06/2017 09:29

AIBU to be disgusted? I'm reading that she will allow a UK debate on abortion limits to secure the DUP's support.

She's a disgrace. I don't care if you voted Tory or Labour or for Lord Buckethead, but surely any woman must feel appalled that their rights are up for sale to secure her (untenable anyway) position.

OP posts:
PigletWasPoohsFriend · 10/06/2017 19:46

There will be no debate.

It has beenabled confirmed that There is no coalition and there is no formal agreement.

It will be a 'supply and confidence' which is virtually as it is now as that is how they tend to vote.

PigletWasPoohsFriend · 10/06/2017 19:46
  • been
Lasagnabreath · 10/06/2017 19:46

If someone is in an abusive relationship and falls pregnant accidentally. Should she have to be connected to the father of the child for the rest of her life or risk not being able to escape or scared to cope on her own because of people like you?

Papafran · 10/06/2017 19:49

Happy to have that debate as dont believe for a second anyone would vote for it

You're right Jamie, they would not. And it would be a non-debate. But sadly women's bodily autonomy is not afforded the same right as that of a man. Even IN THIS COUNTRY (UK) we have a a section of it that does not permit abortion and would rather see a woman DIE than to terminate the pregnancy.

Across the world, women are subjected to horrific treatment but there is NO country that routinely restricts the bodily and reproductive rights of men.

A democracy needs to protect vulnerable groups who have historically been discriminated against by making their rights non-negotiable.

JamieXeed74 · 10/06/2017 19:53

Lasagnabreath
Not sure why your having a go at me, I am in favor (said so in previous post) of abortion being decriminalized in the UK. I do not think reducing women's rights in the UK is going to be debated. The point I was trying to make was that I am confident in British values that even if it was debated they would be affirmed.

Note3 · 10/06/2017 19:54

Speaking as someone who has had a termination myself, I still agree that the topic should be debatable. Whilst I strongly hope it remains as per the current guidelines and that timescales aren't reduced, I also recognise that other people do not share my opinions and I don't see why they should be prohibited from discussing their opinion so they feel heard.

RyanStartedTheFire · 10/06/2017 19:56

The point I was trying to make was that I am confident in British values that even if it was debated they would be affirmed.
I wouldn't be confident about it. Sad
I've had a TFMR and have had all of the abortion bingo insults thrown at me. I've had many acquaintances tell me that they think abortion should be illegal. I think more people are pro-life than are willing to admit to it.

Lasagnabreath · 10/06/2017 20:05

Have you been reading this thread?

Papafran · 10/06/2017 20:20

The point I was trying to make was that I am confident in British values that even if it was debated they would be affirmed

Really? Popular opinion polls suggest that many have very archaic views so I don't buy that old rubbish.

Also, why should men be invited to debate something that has nothing to do with them and that they will never experience?

SoftSheen · 10/06/2017 20:50

Speaking as someone who has had a termination myself, I still agree that the topic should be debatable. Whilst I strongly hope it remains as per the current guidelines and that timescales aren't reduced, I also recognise that other people do not share my opinions and I don't see why they should be prohibited from discussing their opinion so they feel heard

^^This. Surely we should be able to debate this topic calmly even if we have differing opinions.

SoftSheen · 10/06/2017 21:12

Also, why should men be invited to debate something that has nothing to do with them and that they will never experience?

Most of the people on this thread are (probably) women, many of whom will have had pregnancies, abortions and births. Yet apparently we aren't allowed to contribute to the debate either, unless we support abortion up to term, for any reason whatsoever.

Also, I think that the doctors who carry out abortions could also make a valuable contribution to the discussion, and some of these doctors will be male.

Headofthehive55 · 10/06/2017 21:14

Sometimes it's not possible to delay labour and you end up giving birth earlier than 23 weeks. If you are unfortunate and are at a trust that doesn't intervene pre 24 weeks then tough, your baby (it's born remember) has no rights as it doesn't acquire them until 24 weeks!

Revisiting this legislation could help alter this. Ending pregnancy should always be available up til birth for medical issues but I think a lot if people would object to a "termination" up until term as that involved actually removing a life if it would otherwise survive.
Ending a pregnancy is different to a termination.

Headofthehive55 · 10/06/2017 21:17

papa boys can be born early too! I think they might like to join a debate surrounding the time our society gave them no rights.

JCo24 · 10/06/2017 21:17

Abortions at the later weeks, think 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 generally are not performed unless the foetus has serious disabling and life-limiting complications.

SoftSheen · 10/06/2017 21:25

However, abortions can, and sometimes are, performed on perfectly healthy foetuses aged 20-24 weeks.

Papafran · 10/06/2017 21:28

papa boys can be born early too! I think they might like to join a debate surrounding the time our society gave them no rights

I don't really know what that means. Why do fetuses have a right after 24 weeks, but not at 19 weeks then? Surely if you are talking about a potential life, you have to subscribe to the life starts at conception theory. Also terminations ARE carried out up to term in most of the UK where the fetus has a condition that is incompatible with life. Why are you OK with that? Are you saying that particular life is not worth the same? Why are people OK with termination due to rape (but not other reasons)? Are you saying that particular life is not worth the same?

Basically, if you are using the right to life argument, you have to object to ALL abortion, regardless of the circumstances because you cannot pick one fetus over the other. Right to life is absolute. That would mean forcing a 12 year old victim of rape to go through birth and pregnancy. Cool with that?

Basically, abortion is not about the fetal right to life, it is about the woman's right to bodily autonomy. The stats from Canada which allows termination at ALL stages of pregnancy shows that fewer than 1% terminate after 20 weeks. So, guess what? It seems to work if you give women choice and autonomy.

SoftSheen · 10/06/2017 21:36

Why do fetuses have a right after 24 weeks, but not at 19 weeks then? Surely if you are talking about a potential life, you have to subscribe to the life starts at conception theory.

24 week old foetuses can survive outside the womb, but 19 week old foetuses can't.

Life does indeed start at conception, but a 2 week old cluster of undifferentiated cells very, very different to a 24 week old baby with a beating heart, eyes, ears and a brain and the ability to move and feel pain.

Papafran · 10/06/2017 21:42

24 week old foetuses can survive outside the womb, but 19 week old foetuses can't

Actually, most 24 week fetuses can't and those that can are likely to suffer lifelong problems. So, what about when medical advances mean that a 19 week old fetus can survive? Does that mean you say that life begins earlier?

If it's a moving being that feels pain, why would you agree to terminate it post-24 weeks if it is likely to suffer disabilities (as the law currently allows). Why would you allow it to be terminated post-24 weeks if the mother would die if she carried it to term? It doesn't make sense if you say someone has a right to life but then go on to qualify the right.

Lasagnabreath · 10/06/2017 21:47

I thought a fetus cannot feel pain until 24 weeks?

Papafran · 10/06/2017 21:55

I thought a fetus cannot feel pain until 24 weeks?

Did you just make that up? Because the research suggests that response to stimuli starts earlier than that. But that isn't the point in the abortion debate because we allow late term abortions for fetal abnormality.

SoftSheen · 10/06/2017 21:57

If it's a moving being that feels pain, why would you agree to terminate it post-24 weeks if it is likely to suffer disabilities (as the law currently allows). Why would you allow it to be terminated post-24 weeks if the mother would die if she carried it to term? It doesn't make sense if you say someone has a right to life but then go on to qualify the right.

My personal view is that the woman's health should always be safeguarded first, and therefore that the situation you describe would be good grounds for a late abortion. Similarly if a woman needed e.g. chemotherapy to treat cancer and this couldn't be carried out whilst she was pregnant. However even in these situations, I think it would be worth considering whether a post-24 week baby could simply be delivered early, live.

I don't consider an unborn baby's right to life to be equivalent to an adult woman's (or man's, or child's), but I reject the idea that it is simply a piece of tissue, whose value or otherwise is determined solely by the feelings or circumstances of the mother.

The issue of whether it is acceptable to abort a severely disabled baby is a very, very difficult one. However, if the baby has no prospect of living a fulfilling life, and perhaps is also likely to suffer a lot of pain, then I guess it may be the least-worst option.

youarenotkiddingme · 10/06/2017 21:57

Yet I know a 23 weeker who survived outside the womb with no long term complications.
You can't have rules based on percentages imo.

I am completely pro choice. I believe that woman do have autonomy over their body and should have the right to decide - I also believe it's right in a democratic county to have debates.

What I don't agree with is the simplistic view and postcode lottery about those born before the 24 weeks because the abortion policy states this is when a foetus becomes visible.

They are 2 separate entities imo.

I believe a woman has a right to chose to terminate but once born a baby has the right to life - or a chance of one.

I believe that by not treating a baby born before 24 weeks you are forcing termination on the woman - therefore removing the choice.

I also agree with whoever said above we should be able to debate this topic. It's very emotive but there are lots of sides and stories that need consideration to make sure we are doing what's right by the people who live in this so called democracy that is the UK.

DixieFlatline · 10/06/2017 21:58

Because the research suggests that response to stimuli starts earlier than that.

Nociception is not experience of pain.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/

Papafran · 10/06/2017 22:06

Nociception is not experience of pain

No, but we don't know for sure that a fetus pre-24 weeks does not feel pain and equally that a fetus post-24 weeks feels it. That is why we do not base the right to abortion on whether the fetus possibly feels pain.

SoftSheen · 10/06/2017 22:18

It's a fair point that we don't know for sure when foetuses are first capable of experiencing pain. However, since we do know that newborn babies experience pain in a similar way to adults, it seems reasonable to assume that they start develop this ability at some point before birth.