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

[catgirl1976]

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.

Catholic believe a baby is baby from conception and the child becomes before a baby even if she can die having the child. Just curious?

I would assume they are significantly less concerned about the child's wellbeing when there isn't an opportunity to oppress women.

Being against cremation is probably connected to the belief that Jesus will return to earth and raise the death from their graves, and obviously you have to have an intact corpse for that.

But seeing as children who died before they could be christened were, by official church dogma, believed to not be able to go to heaven for a very long time, (I think a recent pope changed this) I doubt it is a priority.

Well Jimmymum that's just a minefield. You are going to get bogged down in Catholic theology about limbo and so forth. Thankfully these views have been changed.

Oh vestalvirgin good point I forgot about baptism.

It is kinda weird, especially with regard to the ban on abortion when the fetus has a condition that is incompatible with life.
Like, the baby won't go to heaven anyway, but let's torment the pregnant woman some more.

(Although of course there are extremists who believe in baptising fetuses in the womb.)

Reminds me of that scene in Tess of the D'Urbervilles, where Tess wants to have her baby baptised and the local clergyman tells her the baby is born out of wedlock, so no baptism for him.

... bet nowadays that asshole would be the fiercest forced birther imagineable, pretending to defend the rights of the fetus and denying Tess an abortion.

my only niggle with women's rights is I often wonder if it has taken away men responsiblities. Men years ago did have more expectations to commit and marry, especially if the women was pregnant. Now I feel young women are pressurised by society to have sex before they may be ready, to be on the pill even if they don't like chemicals in their body, up live with a man without security and wait perhaps for years on a proposal but be as well as married, but if she gets pregnant and single it's silly woman have a new abortion, she is then seen often as bringing on her self having the child. I don't know of course I think women should have rights but I'm not convinced his society have moved has made either sex happier. Perhaps I'm wrong?

It's wrong on all levels to use religion and politics to force women to go through unwanted pregnancies. It's not a politician's job to use their political leverage and beliefs to force people to conform to their ideologies. This is why I would NEVER vote for the DUP, or any other homophobic/bigoted party who thinks that a woman should be forced to go through an unwanted pregnancy, the LGBTQ community shouldn't be able to marry etc.

I wonder if AF is using the old foot-in-the-door technique to get what her party wants, in order to shore up the tories. Nothing like starting off asking for a small thing (a debate about the abortion etc), then gradually going onto bigger things (outlawing marriage equality/abortion etc).

It wouldn't surprise me if she was doing just that. Some politicians are so desperate to cling onto power that they'd do almost anything to keep their jobs.

This is not new, TM has discussed the possibility of reducing the abortion limit before.

Personally l would like to see it reduced to 20 weeks except in exceptional circumstances. I find it abhorrent to think of viable foetuses being aborted.

Dragongirl, clearly you don't find it abhorrent that women and girls would then be forced to continue with a pregnancy, irrespective of any damage to their mental and physical health. To risk the same when giving birth, and then be forced to either give up the child for adoption or raise a child that they didn't want, regardless of the consequences to their mental/physical health. Also regardless of the impact on their existing children. And regardless of the situation that they found themselves in that resulted in a pregnancy and needing an abortion.

Nothing like starting off asking for a small thing (a debate about the abortion etc), then gradually going onto bigger things (outlawing marriage equality/abortion etc).

I am sure that's exactly what is happening.

@Dragongirl: You know what? If you find the thought abhorrent, then don't abort a viable fetus. Just don't do it. You are totally free to do with your body what you want.

And other women should be free to do with their bodies what they want.

I find the thought abhorrent to be forced to give birth, and possibly die in the process. Which you know can happen. Death in childbirth used to be the number 1 cause of death for women, and it is still fucking dangerous!

But no, just because you find it abhorrent to think of it, you want to reduce women's rights.

You know it is a foot in the door technique, you know women's rights will be further reduced once it has been established that fetuses matter more than women, but all you think of is your pretty little thought-world that you don't want tainted in anyway.

Meanwhile women die because they are denied abortions, but no, your little cutesy thought world is more important.

I have nothing but contempt for such attitudes.

The Supreme Court has just narrowly rejected allowing women from NI to receive free abortions on the NHS in England.

Apparently this was done out of respect for the NI Assembly and for "political" reasons. Were we not needing the DUP perhaps this would have gone the other way. A small step but at least it would have been a small step forward for women in NI.

But of course, I'm just being hysterical again, wanting women to have rights and other such craziness.

I'll get back to my kittens and embroidery and let Theresa May crack on getting into bed with these people and eroding our rights with out getting my knickers in a twist about things.

The Supreme Court has just narrowly rejected allowing women from NI to receive free abortions on the NHS in England.

Has anyone calculated yet how many poor women this will kill, permanently injure or condemn to lifelong poverty?

... perhaps you could neatly embroider the numbers on a tablecloth?

There was a really interesting thread a while back asking who would have died if it wasn't for modern medicine. It was very noticeable that a large number of posters saying well I would have died in childbirth because this or that happened. I include myself in that number. It actually made me stop short, and I immediately thought of the abortion debate. We are expected to be so obedient that we should risk death because other people say so.

It beggars belief that women in the UK are being denied what other women in the UK have automatic access to.

"I would assume they are significantly less concerned about the child's wellbeing when there isn't an opportunity to oppress women."

I've been involved in a few debates about this over the years, and I have never seen any evidence of the theological/ethical arguments on this masking a desire to force births "to oppress women". I've seen it leveled as an accusation in recent years, and I've certainly seen religious nutters who use it as an excuse so it probably does happen, but as far as sensible people are concerned it seems to hinge on when you believe life to begin, and in that instance whether taking that life on purpose constitutes murder or not, how heavily you weigh the concept of one party being "defenseless" versus the human cost to women and wider society of abortion being unavailable. As such merely by shifting which premise you accept a good, ethical person can be for or against abortion, even for the same reasons (eg religion, individual welfare/rights)

You can believe people are wrong, even so wrong the outcome of their stance can be atrocious, and you can believe there is a correct and incorrect view on it, but most human beings really won't tend to take an ethical position because they want to do the wrong thing.The idea that only evil people are pro life, for reasons of hating women, seems overly simplistic and not grounded in a reality where people are complex and ethical arguments rely on value judgments.

AssassinatedBeauty, to be honest, I can't believe that Ireland is so uncivilised as this.

I went there for a holiday years ago, and the people seemed so normal and civilised, you'd never think they'd approve of murdering women.

Only really realized the horrible misogyny there when the media covered the case of a woman who had died because she had been denied the abortion of a fetus that they knew wouldn't survive.

No idea how many other women were murdered by denial of abortion.

"You can travel to the UK to exercise your human rights" isn't really of that much use to underage girls, women who can't afford the travel, women with abusive husbands, et cetera.

"You can travel to the UK to exercise your human rights" isn't really of that much use to underage girls, women who can't afford the travel, women with abusive husbands, et cetera

Exactly this. Effectively no human rights at all for the women of NI who need an abortion.

Now premature babies as young as 22 weeks can make it, which changes the way we have to look at it.

Stop this. Just stop it. The survival rates for 22 weekers are close to zero in Britain. Even at 23 weeks, you are looking at an extremely high risk of severe disability if the baby survives and survival rates are only about 19 percent. In Britain, viability is classed at 24 weeks, so they do not intervene before this date anyway (or if they believe they can get you to this date from 23 weeks with intervention), and even then survival rates are only 40 percent and the risk of severe disability is high.

Again, 45 percent of children born before 26 weeks were discovered to have serious cognitive impairment at age 11.

These are Tommys statistics. Considering they are THE premature birth research charity, I would regard them as solid.

I am sick to death of this notion that babies under 24 weeks are regularly surviving their extremely preterm births unscathed. They don't and can't. You might get one or two extreme cases, but the instances of severe disability are heart-breaking.

There are approximately 2000 terminations over 20 weeks in Britain every year (out of approximately 190,000 terminations). Practically all of these terminations over 20 weeks are for significant medical reasons. A termination at this gestation requires induction, labour and delivery, and is extremely traumatic.

It just seems odd that in one hospital a child can be clinging to life that is born at the same number of weeks as one being aborted.

Give me one example where this happens, considering Britain classes viability at 24 weeks and all terminations after 24 weeks will be because of severe foetal abnormality or grave risk to the mother and practically all after 20 weeks will be because of significant medical issues.

There seems to be a misunderstanding on the part of some posters about termination limits. In this country, you can terminate up to term if there is grave risk to the life of the mother or severe foetal abnormality. The 24 week limit is where there is a risk to the physical or mental health of the women or her existing children.

There is no "cut off" rush in legal terms for a severe foetal abnormality found at a 20 week scan. The only concern about going over 24 weeks is that a termination for severe foetal abnormality after 24 weeks requires an injection to stop the baby's heart before induction and delivery.

I get the need for late abortions when child is not going to survive, but they are also offered for disability or clef palate or other minor abnormality which can be easily operated on.

This is a misleading representation of "cleft palate" terminations. Usually, the cleft palate in these cases relates to a severe chromosomal issue that means the baby has, for example, no brain tissue.

I have a very vested interest in this area as I have a condition where I go into pre-term labour between 20 and 24 weeks, and miscarry perfectly healthy babies. I have lost two babies at 22 and 23 weeks, and know a lot of women in my situation.

So, naturally, I've done a hellova lot of research into micro-premmie survivability and disability statistics in Britain and the US (because they publish more research). What I realised very quickly is that there is a lot of propaganda bullshit about "micro-premmie miracle babies". People lie about gestation dates on the internet (it is a typical internet troll tactic), gestations are incorrectly-dated, people have misheard dates, people tell others the wrong due dates because, for example, to do otherwise would expose premarital sex in a religious family ... and so on.

There are only a handful of cases of 21/22 weekers surviving in the US, and almost all of them occur in one particular very high-tech NICU unit in a religious, anti-abortion state. Almost all those babies are severely disabled to the point of needing permanent 24/7 care where they cannot communicate at all, feed themselves, move, sit up or stand, and there are significant ethical concerns within the US about this unit's religiously-fueled obsession with trying to keep these extremely premature babies alive, particularly when so many of their cases die during early intervention.

Abortion votes are always free votes in the Commons. Which means it won't be a vote that's whipped/on party lines.
There are plenty of Tories, Labour etc who would defeat it. Surely.

QuietCorday
Seems a pretty sensible and measured and thought out post.
THANK YOU

Quiet thank you for a really informative post that explains the facts clearly. I'm sorry to hear about your condition. That must be extremely hard for you.

It's about choice not being pro-life and , in effect, anti-life.
I'm RC - the choice I might make in given circumstances might be different to the choice another woman might make in the same circumstances. But I defend her right and my right to make that choice.
It is disgraceful women on both sides of the border on the island of Ireland can't make that choice. And we don't want to strip away that right for us here in mainland UK.

I have a very vested interest in this area as I have a condition where I go into pre-term labour between 20 and 24 weeks, and miscarry perfectly healthy babies. I have lost two babies at 22 and 23 weeks, and know a lot of women in my situation.

In some South American countries, you'd be imprisoned, (and possibly have died because the prisons there aren't exactly nice) for having recurring miscarriage that you can't 100% prove you didn't induce, all thanks to abortion being illegal.

Oh joy, how pro-life and wonderful THAT is to think about. Oh what a wonderful world it would be if abortions after 22 weeks were illegal.

It is disgusting that there are people who are misogynist enough to want such laws that take away women's rights, and ultimately, kill women, just so they can feel happy about being righteous, or somesuch nonsense.

I've posted this on another thread bec there are various DUP inspired threads on abortion rights on MN .. so apologies, but:

I want to see something that pro choice MPs can sign up to so we know who they are and what their position is on defending current access and extending to NI. Has anyone seen anything like that around?

Now premature babies as young as 22 weeks can make it, which changes the way we have to look at it
Why?

Genuine question.

Why does an arbitrary threshold at which we in a rich country with excellent healthcare and medical knowledge can save a premature baby feed into the debate on when it is acceptable to terminate?

It's always struck me as a cop out and a wholly unsatisfying reason for determining thresholds (should we want to do so). It pays no attention to the intrinsic capacity of the fetus, such as can they feel pain? are they aware? etc etc.

Premature babies in the UK 20 years ago wouldn't have survived at 22 weeks. Premature babies in other countries today don't survive at 22 weeks. Is there something special about British babies that means they acquire a right to life earlier than other babies?

If the debate is focussed on the right to bodily autonomy v the right to life, the right to life should be considered in a way that focuses on the entity being granted right to life, not about whether we can force life into that entity.

(The above is presented for debate only. I am rabidly pro-choice and not trying to debate that the right to life should ever supercede right to bodily autonomy).

Vestal

I support the abortion limits staying exactly where they are and what they are. In fact, my experiences mean that I am rather ferocious about defending the limits we currently have because I understand all too well that pregnancies aren't all fluffy bunny rabbits and unicorn rainbow farts, and having to make a tough decision about a pregnancy after 20 weeks is not the rare phenomenon that a lot of people seem to suppose. There can be a number of damn good reasons why people choose to make the decision to terminate at this gestation.

So I'm a little bit confused as to why you've picked my condition and losses to make a point about South American laws in the way you have. Your post seemed a bit mean, to be honest.