MPs vote to decriminalise abortion

[AirborneElephant]

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

Ending a baby's life after giving birth is already illegal. Someone who does that isn't going to care very much about the law.

If the intent was there it would certainly be doable. Would it matter to you how it was done?

Personally I think abortions past the 24 week limit should still only be carried out for serious health risks for the mother or unborn child. If for example, you find out about a pregnancy at 37 weeks (healthy mother & child) then I don’t think it should be completely legal to abort the child even if the mother is able to do so. Whilst I would sympathise, by that stage the baby can be delivered and placed for adoption instead if that’s what the mother wishes.

But if this meant you could now legally end a baby’s life during childbirth solely to avoid prosecution, would that be ok?

A woman in this scenario wouldn’t be granted an abortion just coz. If she induced her own labour her baby would be born alive and then the crime would be murder. If a woman in that scenario doesn’t want her baby then she’d need to give birth regardless.

So if I’m understanding, if she was able to arrange an abortion at 40 weeks that would be legal. But if she attempted to carry out an abortion once childbirth had started, she could be prosecuted even if the baby wasn’t actually born? What if the mother said she didn’t realise she was in labour and was just carrying out her legal right to an abortion past 24 weeks without needing a reason?

My personal opinion is that abortion past 24 weeks should still only be due to health risks for the mother or child. Even if prosecutions aren’t sought in most cases, I think making it legal could set a confusing precedent and result in a backlash in the future where anti abortion groups try to stop all abortions past 24 weeks (including medical need) which would be wrong.

That could be prevented by making labour the limit.

It is unusual but not unknown for people to illegally induce late term abortions: eg
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/12/appeal-jail-term-woman-aborted-baby-40-weeks
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/12/woman-in-uk-jailed-for-28-months-over-taking-abortion-pills-after-legal-time-limit

Ultimately this amendment accepts that there will no longer be criminal liability in cases like this, not because we think this conduct is ok (it's not, it's still illegal) but essentially because innocent women may be pursued with criminal charges after miscarriages, and because women (whether or not after acting illegally) may be deterred by the threat of prosecution from seeking medical assistance.

I personally support decriminalisation, but I do think it's right to acknowledge there is a trade off.

As I said on another thread, I am concerned that there has been insufficient work on the impact of the pills by post scheme on illegal abortions. Personally I would end this scheme and require all women to have a medical examination prior to the abortion. This would surely dramatically cut the risk of late term abortions, and also be a good thing for women.

I can see a strong possibility of some women aborting healthy late-term fetuses because something’s changed in their relationship with the father. They’re 31 weeks and they’ve just discovered he’s having an affair, or has got some other woman pregnant, or he’s been arrested or done something heinous. They want to be able to cut all ties and make a clean break and so they abort a child who can feel pain and could live outside the womb.

I can also see the potential for vulnerable girls and women, who want to give birth, enduring weeks upon weeks of parents and/or partners bullying them and trying to coerce them into having abortions - then finally getting to the point, after 28 or 31 or 33 weeks, where they feel they can’t take it anymore and will do anything to make the bullying stop.

But is that really fair if a woman legally ends her pregnancy at 41 weeks, whereas another faces charges for ending hers at 37 weeks because she was in labour, when neither baby was physically born yet?

i think making abortion legal without reason past 24 weeks just makes matters more complex and in the long run will play into the hands of those wanting to make legislation stricter than it is currently.

i think making abortion legal without reason past 24 weeks just makes matters more complex and in the long run will play into the hands of those wanting to make legislation stricter than it is currently

that hasn’t happened though

The law hasn't changed

Well in scenario 1 that can happen anyway if the impact on her mental health is deemed a reason to terminate

in the second scenario what medical reasons would there be?

“Women who terminate their pregnancy outside the rules, for example after 24 weeks, will no longer be at risk of being investigated by police.” BBC

Not saying that in a lot of cases any prosecution should happen anyway, but completely removing the option to do so doesn’t quite sit right with me as there may be extenuating circumstances.

Yes it’s been decriminalised but the law on termination remains the same.

If you take a position, you have to be able to defend it in all its potential outcomes—even the uncomfortable or likely rare ones. Dismissing extreme cases as ‘ridiculous hypotheticals’ or ‘insane’ avoids grappling with the full implications of your stance. Laws must account for edge cases precisely because they test the boundaries of our principles.

If your belief only works when the situation is easy, then maybe you haven’t thought it through properly. Saying ‘that’s an ‘insane’ hypothetical just sounds like a way to avoid admitting your stance falls apart when things get complicated.

That’s what happens when laws are made. They can’t leave gaping big loopholes because someone thought it was an unlikely scenario.

what you say isn’t what is looked at when laws are made is exactly what is looked at when laws are made

If the law is made clear that trying to end a pregnancy during labour isn't legal then the one ending the pregnancy during labour would know that charges would be possible.

This is all incredibly hypothetical anyway as the law regarding abortion hasn't changed.

So it would be completely legal for a woman to arrange an abortion at 41 weeks, if she is able to do so. I’m certainly pro choice but honestly by this point if there aren’t any serious health concerns, I think abortion is too late and this could send out a conflicting message.

I would completely decriminalise abortion with no legal limit and have it simply be a medical discussion between a woman and medical professionals.

Again to me it’s more confusing, as imagine some people will feel that ending the child’s life once labour had begun is no different to a woman managing to facilitate her own abortion at full term.

I think charges should only be taken in the most extreme circumstances anyway, but I don’t feel complete decriminalisation is necessary the right option either.

Yup!👍🏻

Great.

Slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy. Legislation doesn't need to account for fringe hypotheticals invented by people acting in bad faith to undermine the entire premise of the law.

Saying that we shouldn't decriminalise abortion because it might lead to women terminating their pregnancies while in labour when 1) there has been no explanation of how that would occur and 2) there is not the smallest indication that this is something women would seek to do, is like saying we shouldn't we shouldn't allow gay marriage because it will lead to polyamorous marriages, or people marrying their dogs. These are moral panic arguments, introduced as a form of fear-mongering to suppress development of the law by pretending the law has no capacity to make meaningful distinctions between different types of consequences.

If you can provide a coherent and plausible explanation as to how a woman would procure an abortion while in active labour (I believe in the hypothetical posed the baby is in fact crowning), and evidence that this is something likely to occur, I'll concede that there might be a basis for considering whether the proposed legislation is adequate. Until then, I won't be persuaded that a lunatic assertion is a sound basis for avoiding a long-overdue development in women's rights.

Legal in the eyes of the law, however it wouldn’t be facilitated by the 2 doctors needed for it to be done in a hospital/clinic. You couldn’t before and can’t now just waltz into BPAS and abort a 40w baby just because. If a woman expressed at that late stage of pregnancy she didn’t want to raise her baby and had had you’ve thoughts of harming herself to end her pregnancy steps would be taken to keep her safe and probably immediately bring birth forward in whatever manner is safest.

Sadly there have been cases of women killing their babies after giving birth, so if they could do this during labour legally and to avoid risk of prosecution, who’s to say they wouldn’t do this?

Just because I’m not comfortable listing the exact ways a mother could end the baby’s life during labour as I don’t feel it’s necessary (as it only takes brief imagination to think how) as I wouldn’t want to list how you could end a newborn’s life either for someone who claimed they didn’t know either, does not mean it’s not however possible.

Such remote cases though. Women only tend to do that when they’re struggling with severe mental health issues.