MPs vote to decriminalise abortion

[AirborneElephant]

AIBU to be thrilled! Sorry if there’s already a thread, couldn’t see one.

I realise lots of people (most?) believe that a fetus is not a morally valuable being, I don’t agree, that’s all.

Your example flattens the debate to a point where there is no acknowledgment of the total bodily integration with another being, which is literally what being pregnant is. Donating organs is a totally unnatural medical procedure, being pregnant is not. Yes, they both involve others, but to say they have the same meaning, purpose….function….it’s just not true.

Women’s bodily autonomy is undoubtedly, obviously, integrated with another being. The only way you can be all good with abortion is to place no moral value on the fetus, as we see in this thread.

I’m all good with abortion thanks - I place actual value on a living breathing autonomous human

as early as possible- as late as needed

So why does God perform the majority of them?

But there are lots of very good reasons why a woman might want to end a pregnancy. Later abortions happen not because she doesn’t want a baby, they happen because of medical advice in the vast, vast majority of cases. Earlier abortions might happen for a huge variety of reasons including impacts on other people, such as siblings, or the mother’s own mental or physical health or financial status. She might be homeless, addicted, depressed, already have children, the list is endless. A healthy pregnancy creates a child, and if you can’t be a good parent to that child for whatever reason, shouldn’t you have the right to say so before it’s born?

It’s all very well to talk about right to life, but if the mother can’t parent then we know that most children will face enormous challenges and possibly be deprived of the chance to have a good life. Anti-abortion campaigners most often seem to be pro-birth campaigners, as they’ve nothing to say about those babies once they’re born.

This section of the Abortion Act 1967 sets out when an abortion is legally permissible: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/87/section/1

Women who undergo abortions outside that legal framework will not now face criminal prosecution. Those who perform or facilitate unlawful abortions may face prosecution. So in your 'coathanger' example (and let's keep in mind this is not the way in which late stage terminations are being carried out, even by women terminating outside the legal framework) the person performing the backstreet abortion could face criminal prosecution but the woman would not.

Stabbing / strangling / bludgeoning / whatever other insane crime you're envisaging a baby which is being born is 1) as good as logistically impossible and 2) not an abortion, since it would not be the termination of a pregnancy. Pregnancy is terminated by labour. Once labour has commenced, the question of whether a pregnancy is continued or not becomes moot.

It absolutely isn't.

Oh yeah.

The vast majority are pro-birth rather than pro-life. They don't give a fuck about the life of the woman who is actually here, she's nothing more than an incubator. They also care very little about a baby once it's actually here and are often against benefits or think they should be heavily reduced, are against free breakfasts/lunches at schools and shame women for having babies in less than ideal circumstances.

Not to mention some who value a foetus differently depending on how it is conceived and think a baby should be used as a punishment for having consensual sex. Naturally, the man gets to walk away consequence free.

You are assuming there that the pills that end an early pregnancy (by blocking progesterone and softening the cervix) will kill the foetus directly.

But they don't. It's the removal of the support from the woman's body that does.

As you say, women who have an abortion outside of the framework after 24 weeks without medical need will no longer risk facing prosecution. There is no mention yet that they must still use one of the approved medical methods from the Abortion Act to do so, even if operating outside of the framework.

We are going round and round in circles here. I have said that I am not anti abortion, when there’s a medical need after 24 weeks then absolutely. However the fact that someone could still have an abortion at say 40 weeks with a healthy baby (even outside the framework) does not sit right with me and I’m unlikely to change that opinion to be honest.

I don't understand what point you're making in your first paragraph. Women who undergo abortions outside the legal framework (i.e. not performed in a medical setting for one of the designated exceptions etc etc) will not face criminal prosecution. What's confusing about this?

As for the rest - fine, of course. You're entitled to your opinion and you don't have to change it for anyone. But the absolutely insane and nonsensical hypotheticals you were posing as though they legitimately undermine the purpose or validity of the this change in law deserved to be challenged.

You are entitled to your opinion that no woman would ever try and end their pregnancy at the stage they could be in labour. However that still doesn’t make it fact and the decriminalisation needs to cover all these possibilities, however uncomfortable they may seem.

From a woman’s point of view, she deserves to be clear on whether what she’s doing is a potential criminal act or not.

BUT THAT WOULDN'T BE AN ABORTION SO IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LEGISLATION, DOES IT????

Because the woman is in labour? So lethal injection without reason before contractions start at 40 weeks is fully decriminalised from the woman’s perspective, but lethal injection once contractions started at say 37 weeks isn’t? What’s the deciding factor here, how dilated she is at the time?

I honestly do hope there is never a case to test this but all I’m saying it’s not necessarily clear cut and any high profile cases have the potential to try and push back against women’s rights again. Perhaps more guidance will come out about what methods are decriminalised (eg pills only)

You seem obsessed by women using lethal injections to terminate a pregnancy, where do you get your information from @Lilac90 ?

I was the one who initially didn’t even want to mention methods until I was asked repeatedly!

Because the definition of abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, i.e. the abortion has to prevent the continuation of pregnancy. Once a woman is in labour her pregnancy is already terminated. She can't continue being pregnant. She can't take action to terminate the pregnancy itself.

And truly, TRULY, where do you think a labouring woman is going to get a lethal injection from? Do you think that kind of thing can be picked up in Boots??

You do keep bringing up abortion during labour, where is your evidence that this happens more once abortion is decriminalised?

Maybe just wait until you have seen the full details rather than getting into the far fetched what if scenarios

So would you measure whether it’s decriminalised or not by how dilated she was at the time? How would this be proved?

There could be a woman who does this not realising she’s actually in labour and thinking it’s decriminalised, only to be told it is in fact a criminal act as she was in labour at the time. Is that fair?

Obviously many carrying out an abortion after 24 weeks without medical need won’t be going down a legitimate route as it’s not legal for registered providers to do so.

None of us know how this will pan out in the UK long term.

I’ve said all along that we need clear details on what’s decriminalised and what isn’t, as the situation isn’t clear cut otherwise.

My, the straw-manning on this thread is unreal.

Making up hypothetical, highly unlikely and incredible scenarios to 'prove your point' does the exact opposite.

Even rare situations need to be clear when we’re talking about what’s decriminalised and what’s not.

I have said we’ll have to wait for the official guidelines for clarity.

This woman decided to terminate her pregnancy in the 39th week, using pills she bought online from India. She was having a long standing affair and had already had several previous unwanted pregnancies - one child was adopted, there was a previous termination.

She had kids too.

She was sent to prison for 8 years. Do you really think what she did is now fine?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-19621675.amp

@Arran2024 nobody is saying that that’s fine. But is the criminal justice system really the place for a woman whose life is apparently so chaotic- or coerced- that she can neither prevent pregnancy, nor care adequately for her children if she has them? The situation you describe here smacks of desperation rather than malice.

So will she now be acquitted and set free because what she did is no longer a crime

@Viviennemary Given she was sentenced in 2012 she's been out for 5 years even if she served the full eight years.