New abortion laws

[Cheesetoastie537]

TW

I'm pro choice but the new potential abortion law changes feel a bit extreme to me. If I've understood right, if a woman was even in late stage of pregnancy (even say 35 weeks) could self abort the pregnancy and not face any charges for the death of a viable baby. I thought the 24 week mark was there for that reason. I know a woman still can't get a medically assisted abortion after 24 weeks (unless certain circumstances) but surely they'll just go home and do it now because theres nothing preventing them. No one should be in that situation surely. But if it was a case that a late pregnancy is now not wanted but a medically assisted abortion is not available and the woman knows they can do it themselves with no charges, wouldn't that just increase self done abortions?

If anything, shouldn't the law just change so that medical abortion at any stage is allowed then to at least make it safe for woman rather than them attempting a self abortion.

I'm not sure if the change in law opens up more issues than it fixes. And in part I feel that there's no protection for late pregnancies that the baby would have survived and now there's no legal charges for their life.

I've never really thought too much about abortion otherthan pro choice and felt the UK had a good middle ground.

@TheNightSurgeon although you seem to think these arguments are 'embarrassing' ti hold a position with any credibility you have to be about to qualify it and not just scorn at the question. If you can't justify your position then your position is invalidated

so when exactly is it no longer the woman's right? At 42 weeks gestation 10lb still inside her?

what about wgen its crowning? head out? its still her body after all. everything abovecrge knees out? if you can't answer then you havent really thought this through

at what point during delivery is the woman no longer the one to make the decision about her body and what it goes through? what if the head is out and she insists she is not willing to continue with the birthing?

Well. This and assisted suicide are going to cause Labour a problem they really don't want to have at the next election. Not very bright to let these two issues be the most memorable legislation from your time in office.

My position has always been the point at which life outside the womb is not viable. Your position doesn’t seem quite so thought out. Your position is that it is always the woman’s choice. So in that case you must be saying yes. Even at the point of crowning, head out it’s her choice to terminate. Which clearly is not in any capacity moral.

Well there was the woman in the ward next to my work colleague. I assume the decrim move means doctors won't give women like her the affirmative care of carrying one out, (unlike the other fault line where the patient has full autonomy and are given affirming care).

Pregnancy is traumatic full stop.

For those in favour of this amendment, I'd like your opinion on this - ethically, not legally.

A woman takes abortion pills at 26 weeks. The baby is born alive but dies after an hour (suffocates). In that instance:

1. is the being that was killed a fetus or a baby?

2. does the mother have a moral obligation to phone for an ambulance to try and save the suffocating newborn?

3. what moral difference is there between watching the baby suffocate and die, and putting a pillow over the baby's face? The latter is murder but would be less suffering.

My position is very credible. As early as possible,as late as necessary.

Absolutely nobody will have an abortion as a baby is crowning ffs. That is a ridiculous question, so I'm not sure what answer you want considering that there is a process to abortion that takes longer than the time between crowning and the body coming out.

You do understand that the woman will still have to give birth when the head is out right? Regardless if the baby is alive or not.

As for an imaginary woman who's 42 weeks pregnant with a 10lb baby, clearly she would have something pretty devastating going on in her life, and she should be able to make her own decisions. Again, nobody will be doing this though. It's been proven time and time again that women have terminations as soon as they can. This will not change.

Were you going to answer my question at all? Or aren't you so confident on your stance?

Which is what gestation?

My position is absolutely thought out. I don't have to clutch at straws and fake scenarios that simply won't happen to make my point though.

I'm quite comfortable with my morals being that the woman is more important than the pregnancy, every time.

If a woman gives birth to a live baby it is her legal obligation to get medical help.

This change in law doesn't change this.

You think a woman, 2 weeks past her delivery date, in the middle of labour can demand abortion medication and get it?🤯

You haven't looked at the legistlation proposed. Have you?

No. I don’t. You seem confused

Alright, let's break this down in a way that's maybe a bit easier to grasp. You think a woman should be able to have an abortion right up until the very last second before a baby is born, but then you shrug off the idea of someone actually doing that as "ridiculous" and say it "doesn't count."

That's not how a proper argument or debates work. When we talk about big, important stuff like rights and what's morally right or wrong, your ideas need to be strong all the way through. They can't just work when it's convenient or in situations you like.

See, those "silly" situations you want to ignore? We bring those up not because we think they'll happen every day. No, no. We bring them up to test if your idea holds water. If you truly believe a woman can choose to abort a baby a minute before it's born, then you have to be able to explain why that's still okay. You can't just wave your hand and say, "Oh, that's too silly to think about!"

Dismissing a scenario just because it's a bit extreme doesn't make the question go away. In fact, it actually makes it look like there's a hole in your argument, or that you haven't really thought your position all the way through to its logical (or illogical) conclusion.

So, if you want your argument to be taken seriously, you need to explain why that "right to choose" still exists even in that wild, last-minute scenario. If you can't, it just means your rule probably has a secret "unless it's really inconvenient or shocking" clause that you haven't quite admitted to yourself yet.

Yes, a woman should have a right to choose until the last second.

No, women will not be leaving it until the last second to have an abortion.

It just simply won't happen. There is still all the medical rigmarole to go through to get an abortion. Do you think a baby will start crowning, the mum will scream she wants an abortion, and the midwife will take out her handy full term abortion kit and do it there and then?

This is why your ridiculous scenario holds no water. It couldn't happen.

I mean if you have to start conversing in a condescending tone to make your point you've already lost your argument, because you know it doesn't stack up.

The extreme cases are why we need to relax abortion laws imo, I've seen too many women stuck in crap situations because of pregnancy and lack of choice through various factors.

Back to my question - up to what gestation is it OK to terminate a pregnancy in your eyes?

Maybe I am confused.

You wrote:
so when exactly is it no longer the woman's right? At 42 weeks gestation 10lb still inside her?
and
what about wgen its crowning? head out? its still her body after all. everything abovecrge knees out? if you can't answer then you havent really thought this through.

This change in law doesn't allow a woman to
be prescribed abortion medication at 42 weeks gestation. Or when she's in labour. Or if the baby is crowning.

What point are you making @yakkity?

I think this law protects a very small number of women that end up in unfortunate circumstances. I don’t think women should be criminalised even if they did decide to have a late abortion - yes it’s unfortunate but the woman needs help.

In my world, if we criminalise woman for this, men should be criminalised when they force a woman to abort against her will.

I think everyone adding the “self abortion” narrative is taking this out of proportion, as very little women would put themselves at risk unless they were in a very very desperate situation - and again, I would say they need help more than they do a jail cell.

I’ve already answered your question.

if you can’t put your case forward without trying to avoid the obvious lack of rigour in your argument by saying ‘that’s just silly’ then maybe you ought to quietly sit in a corner and think a bit harder and leave the big conversations to the grown ups.

An Ironic response from someone who uses baseless extreme hypotheticals to try and make a point and clearly can’t, or is deliberately choosing not to, properly comprehend the actual ruling.

No you didn't, you said up until viability, which is when exactly?

Maybe if my, very valid, point that women are important and should be trusted to make their own fertility choices is too much for you to comprehend then you should stay off the Internet and go do a crossword or something.

The baby was born alive so is a baby.

Yes, she has an obligation to call. Not calling is manslaughter.

Suffocating with a pillow is murder.

These changes are closing a loophole.

The old legislation was fine until people started using the loopholes to target women in dire circumstances.

How exactly would you "self abort" in the third trimester?

You can't.

It's hard enough for medical professionals to induce labour with IVs and medication.

Do you really think women are going to be stabbing themselves in the stomach? If they are unwell enough to do that, they need to be in a psych ward.

You’re not aware of the recent cases of women being charged (and in one case imprisoned) for doing exactly that? The most recent case was just last month- a woman caused herself to abort at 26 weeks by taking abortion pills. Found not guilty on the basis that she hadn’t known how far along she was.

Carla Foster- took abortion pills at around 34 weeks.

I’m not arguing that women should be imprisoned for this- in most cases support is more appropriate-but to claim it’s not possible to cause yourself to have an abortion in the third trimester is incorrect.

Women who are must at risk are those who are already vulnerable and maybe outside normal healthcare provision, or being encouraged to abort for illegal reasons such as sex selection.

The law wouldn't mean parents are treated any differently if they mistreat children.

Our system was not broken on this issue. The vanishingly small number of extreme cases should be investigated on a case by case basis and judged accordingly with regards to motive.

This is a wrong move. Bloody Stella trying desperately to make a name for herself.

Quite. And I don't agree with this either unless it's for some serious medical reasons/health of the mother threatened. These are babies and can survive outside the womb. I have only skimmed the new laws but tend to agree with OP. Not convinced the changes were necessary and there was definitely not enough discussion.

Before this ruling I was 100% woman’s body, woman’s choice but I can absolutely see why the line is very grey here and I don’t think this law was needed.

I know some extremists are absolutely no abortion under any circumstances which o find such a chilling attitude. These people are usually the religious extremists of course and thankfully common sense prevails as no one has the right, regardless of what THEIR religion dictates, to decide what another woman decides to do with her body. Whist this may be offensive to some, I don’t view a 6 week fetus as a viable. Of course it has the potential to become one, it needs the woman’s body for that so to me that’s the end of the argument.

For me, it’s when the baby is able to survive out of the womb, so I think the 24 week mark was a very reasonable time frame.

I wonder if it’s more for cases where the woman has serious mental health issues so they’re protecting them from
prosecution? Maybe putting the baby up for adoption would cause her condition to worsen? Who knows but no wonder it’s controversial.