AIBU to be think that most women would be jailed for their abortions as so many of us embellish?

[Upsetaboutabortionbeingacrime]

1 in 3 women in this country obtain abortions at some point in their lives.

I sincerely believe that as abortion is a criminal act in the UK and to obtain one without being open to prosecution, a woman needs two doctors to permit it. because of this many many many women emphasise and maybe even embellish, or lie, to obtain that. Will it really mean you cannot afford your rent / mortgage and you'll be homeless? Probably not, but you just DO NOT want a(nother) baby. And actually a woman should be able to just NOT WANT a(nother) pregnancy or a(nother) child. Yet the woman is forced to say what needs to be said procure an abortion.

Therefore thousands of women every year would be jailed just like this woman has been.

The jailing was NOT because of the late term of the pregnancy, it was because she lied to obtain it and therefore she's in jail.

Lots and lots women have done that. Lots.

When the USA had abortions. How much did it cost there?

@LemonTT you're describing the New Zealand model, which I think is a good option.

It’s now the NI model brought in by the executive government. It’s ironic that the most regressive part of the nation moved to being the most progressive. The fact that our national government decided on a better model for one part of the nation suggests they know the current legislation should be revisited.

@LemonTT as a country we seriously under valued Theresa May.

I am pro-choice, and I actually believe a woman should have total control over her own body every single day of her life, and at any stage of pregnancy. In that sense I am probably more pro-choice than many people. But we are not discussing that right now. (I also think people should be able to take their own lives or choose when to die). But that is, again, another matter.

That sentence you quote sounds anti-choice if removed from my post entirely.

The law says a termination can be had if there is a grave risk to mental health. One poster said 'being made to do what you do not want to do poses a risk to your mental health' the suggestion is that therefore the law is sufficient.

Read my sentence again and you will see that it can be seen as pro-choice i.e. pregnancy should not have to pose a risk to me for me to be able to get one as some women will just not want one but think their mental health will not suffer if they do continue with the pregnancy.

I just thought, when listening to all of the debate that I have listened to on this, that many women would have acted criminally if indeed we were all kept to those four conditions. Most posters on here have said that I am being unreasonable to think that. I've taken that on board (it hasn't really changed my mind, but it has helped with more flexibility in thinking).

Thanks one and all.

To be honest, assuming the time limit is complied with, the first limb is actually a low bar to satisfy in terms of if the reason is just a woman doesn't want the pregnancy (which 100% agree with) - ie risk of harm to her mental health, greater than if the pregnancy is continued. If you don't want a baby to the extent you have an abortion, I suspect that de facto being otherwise forced to continue the pregnancy would harm your mental health more than having the abortion would if that makes sense. So I don't believe it theoretically is necessary to lie or embellish at all. I say theoretically though because I don't know whether in practice the doctors just sign that off therefore or whether they 'require' the woman to effectively embellish/elaborate the risk before they sign off. My reading of the legislation though I think it's actually an easy test to satisfy if that's your situation.

Actually scrap my earlier comment, I thought the risk to mental health was easy to satisfy but this is even more valid in terms satisfying that limb of the test.

I just thought, when listening to all of the debate that I have listened to on this, that many women would have acted criminally

I don't know what point you're trying to make OP. You are however missing the point that if you think women have been illegally "talking up" why they want an abortion it would be the doctors who signed it off and/or the doctor or nurse who facilitated the abortion who have acted illegally.

Are you looking to provide ammunition to opponents of abortion in the UK? I'm sure you won't be the first (anti- abortion campaigner) to have hit on the argument that the 1967 Act is being unlawfully applied.

Personally I think the wording in the 1967 Act is quite clever. I don't know if that was by design or a happy accident. Several posters have explained why it's a low bar to get over. I think the fact that the requirement to have that bar allows UK law to keep the procedure as a medically justified procedure thus extending the right to have an abortion for far longer than jurisdictions which have "on demand" for no reason.

Ireland's 12 week "on demand" limit means women in Ireland are still traveling to the UK after 12 weeks

^^
^^

I am very much pro choice and disagree with all these ultra strict places that don’t allow abortion after 6 weeks etc.

UK has a limit of 24 weeks (very generous imho) and abortions for medical reasons are allowed after that limit too. (surgical, not via a pill) Noone ever goes to prison in these cases.

However to abort a full term baby is cruel and quite frankly murder. Pretty much the same as if she gave birth and killed the baby right after (which people absolutely go to jail for).

your still missing the point OP - it’s got nothing to do with mental health at all.

ALL women who are pregnant under 24 weeks are physically more at risk by continuing to be pregnant than if they had a medically supervised termination and this is especially true before 12 weeks

simply by being pregnant a women meets criteria A - wanted or unwanted pregnancy , good mental health or poor mental health, healthy baby or unhealthy baby it is medically safer to have an early termination than continue to be pregnant and deliver over 24 weeks. Medically and technically speaking if you got pregnant and went to see a doctor before 12 weeks and said “physically what is the best thing I can do to safeguard my physical health regardless of the pregnancy ?” The answer would be to have a termination for your physical health. A women (or doctors) could never break the law before 24 weeks it’s always physically/medically safer to have an early termination than continue to be pregnant. The way it’s written also makes it pretty hard to overturn legally - how do you write a law that says women have to make a medically less safe decision that Dosent come afoul
of lots of other equality and human rights legislation and all of the assembled case law on medical best practices. To me it makes it a more secure bit of legistlation than one based simply on a rights justification.

the Uk abortion act is therefore imo pretty clever as it couches in medical terms alone the justification for abortion - it removes all moral judgements from the law. It lets the pro lifers feel that abortion is still illegal but If you want an abortion you get one up to 24 weeks. After 24 weeks that’s when you get into the “grave injury” stuff

the Uk abortion act is therefore imo pretty clever as it couches in medical terms alone the justification for abortion - it removes all moral judgements from the law. It lets the pro lifers feel that abortion is still illegal but If you want an abortion you get one up to 24 weeks. After 24 weeks that’s when you get into the “grave injury” stuff
^^
I agree - whether it was deliberately written like that or a happy accident it works much better than say the Irish or other models where no medical justification is needed but the cut off is much shorter.