Reform and abortion

[Craftymam]

Just a public service announcement as I missed this last week and find it quite shocking that coverage was so low.

Nigel Farage has said he wants to ‘open a new discussion’ on abortion rights.

Considering everything that’s gone on in America, the rise in popularity of reform and this alleged 100 Million donation from Elon musk; I felt I had to bring this to everyone’s attention.

There is a reason to put legal restrictions in place of course. In America a doctor named Kermit Gosnell had very dodgy practices, had actually cut the spinal cord of a fetus still living that he had aborted among other horrors. He was only stopped because a woman ended up dead in his clinic.

This happened in Philadelphia, where abortion has always been readily available up to 24 weeks. But authorities turned a blind eye to his clinic because off abortion ideologues who reject any restriction on principle.

It’s because of people like this that you can’t actually leave it unrestricted and ‘trust doctors’

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell

I don’t believe the right to a legal abortion should be up for debate and any changes to the time limit or guidance around medical exemptions should be discussed by doctors rather than politicians.

Using women’s reproductive rights to make political capital is pretty low in my book. Reform are taking a leaf out of Trump’s playbook - appeal to the lowest common denominator and whip them into a frenzy of moral outrage and misinformation.

You only have to walk into a town centre to spot many young children/babies and their mothers living in poverty. Crazy to have a discussion about abortion at a time we’re also discussing getting more people off welfare state - when we know there isn’t adequate childcare provision for women to get back to work!

A better statistician might come along and correct me, but my understanding is that the figures given for contraceptive failure rates are per year, and based on prefect usage.

So even for a copper coil that doesn't really have many user error issues failure rates are 0.8% in first year, 1.3% years 1-4. So call that 1% that is still 1 in 100 women taking robust responsibility for their contraception getting pregnant every year, multiply that up to a population level and it's huge. Then multiply that for the long duration that women are sexually active but with no intention of getting pregnant (my IUD has been in for over 6 years) then the numbers become even more significant.

Has he ever even spoke about abortion restrictions? He is a pronatalist that doesn’t make you anti choice

Double posted

No because the majority of people are against imposing such restrictions on women’s rights.
Why would people who vote Reform want such restrictions? They wouldn’t.

Thing is, organisations like CBR UK only "permit" abstinence, "natural" and barrier methods with regard to contraception because their standard is that life begins when sperm meets egg. So theoretically, while they're not entirely opposed to contraception, if they achieve their aim to get the 1967 Abortion Act overturned, and gain political traction, they could go after hormonal methods if birth control too.

Of course the interests of big pharmacy makes that vanishingly unlikely, but the ideology is there. "By hook or by crook women will have babies dammit" is a strong undertone to this argument, and it plays into other issues where you might think it doesn't. It's a big picture situation and is all engineered to curtail women's legal rights.

Cynical me suspects that is the objective of the post.

Find a way to make people who are pro choice agree with the pro-life doctrine.

Posts like this distract from the actual issue which is that men want to erode our current abortion rights.

Many women was dying after abortion. This is risk and the more pregnancy is advanced the risk is more high

So you wouldn’t want to see the reduction of normal abortion lowered to say 18 because babies are now being born viable at 24?

No, absolutely not. I don't think the limit needs to move. So few women are having abortions at that stage, there is no need to make things even harder for a fraction of women and babies in already difficult circumstances.

Pronatalist is very close to eugenecist.

This recent article from the guardian shows how scarily easy it is for women to loose access to abortion services even in seemingly civilised nations...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/05/abortion-access-study-rural-new-south-wales-women

I'd like to keep it that way. The fewer "discussions" on limiting women's rights the better.

Pronatalist is like, the opposite of eugenicist tbh. Abortion has a eugenic effect on society if we want to be totally honest. And since when is eugenic a bad word?

I think the argument about visibility is misleading. No 24 weeker is truly viable. They 'can' survive with a lot of very high tech medical care and varying risk of disability, and it is wonderful when they do survive and thrive.

The point at which more that 50% of babies would survive with just their mother, and maybe a whiff of O2 is much much later.

No it shouldn't be available up to birth and it should have a smaller window of access other than for risk to mother and ate discovered birth defects.

See - not everyone is pro abortion. It's never "good" however it is often the least bad thing.

the majority of people are against imposing such restrictions on women’s rights.

Is there any empirical proof for this ? Because reality suggests different.

Can you show me your reality? I genuinely don’t see it

Have you ever read a history book or a newspaper?

Any change in the law would have to go through Parliament and the last time I looked it comprised both male and female MPs.

I feel it is not a separate problem. Abortion rates have rocketed since two child cap. This is a big reason for the lower birth rates.

I don't think so there are so psychopatic women that want to abort baby just before the birth.

Then whats the problem having the law saying so?