MPs vote to decriminalise abortion

[AirborneElephant]

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

Late term abortions will only be for good reason - and not "easy". It's changing it to decriminalising it when it is - for awful reasons - necessary.
There is an excellent post from Bearly Politics on it on Twitter and a FAQ (linked at bottom):
"Please note. Abortion has not been “legalised” up to birth in the UK - it’s been decriminalised. This is an important distinction, especially when so many are deliberately blurring the lines for outrage clicks. Here’s what actually happened: What MPs voted for today was to remove criminal penalties for women who end their own pregnancies outside of the existing legal framework - usually in crisis, often alone. This follows harrowing cases like Carla Foster and others who faced prosecution under a 160-year-old law. In some cases, women were criminalised after experiencing miscarriage or stillbirth. That’s what’s changed. It does not mean abortion is now available “up to birth” on demand. Medical professionals are still bound by the Abortion Act 1967, which sets the gestational limit at 24 weeks (with very limited exceptions beyond that, e.g. grave risk to life or severe fetal abnormality). Women cannot access late-stage abortion legally without meeting those exceptions. Doctors can still be prosecuted if they act outside those laws. In other words, abortion remains regulated – but women are no longer treated as criminals for making desperate decisions about their own bodies. This change was backed by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the BMA, BPAS, and nearly every major health body involved in reproductive care. It brings us closer in line with public health best practice and human rights. Decriminalisation means treating abortion as a healthcare matter, not a criminal one. That’s it. That’s the story. So if someone tells you that MPs just legalised abortion “up to birth,” they’re either misinformed or misleading you. Either way, it’s not true."

https://www.bearlypolitics.co.uk/p/faq-abortion-decriminalisation-and?r=2y2fft&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true

https://www.bearlypolitics.co.uk/p/faq-abortion-decriminalisation-and?r=2y2fft&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true

https://www.bearlypolitics.co.uk/p/faq-abortion-decriminalisation-and?r=2y2fft&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true

And an actual woman's life too... https://www.bearlypolitics.co.uk/p/faq-abortion-decriminalisation-and?r=2y2fft&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true

Surely an abortion is the ending of a life prior to birth. Not necessarily with the assistance of a doctor. As you ask fir a potential scenario, in the cases where sadly women have killed their new born babies right after giving birth to them, a woman could instead strangle their baby before it has left her body completely or puncture their skull
sorry for being graphic but this is a pretty gruesome topic and you asked for examples

Because killing a baby during labour isn’t abortion so not decriminalised and killing a baby post birth is illegal

do you not think these things are medically investigated?

Comprehension problems? As that is clearly not what the post to which you are responding says. Once a woman is 24 weeks pregnant, the baby is going to have to come out sooner or later - if anything has forced this situation on her, it is nature. So the poster concerned was essentially saying that at that point there are choices - to carry on with the pregnancy, have a caesarian or induce labour. The one option she suggests taking away is killing the foetus. Is that really so unconscionable?

If it's a choice between the life of the mother or the life of the 25 week old foetus, clearly the mother comes first.

If it's a choice between the life of a healthy 25 week foetus and the mother's wish not to spend another 15 weeks being pregnant, the answer is less clear-cut.

Gruesome indeed - and while you were ruminating on these grotesque ideas did it not occur to you that stabbing an infant through the skull or strangling it - something you clearly could not do to a baby which had not been born - would not in any way be considered an abortion?

We aren't talking about infanticide, which remains as illegal as ever. We're talking about abortion, the termination of a pregnancy. They are distinctly different.

Most men I know support the right to abortion because they want to avoid the expense of an unplanned baby. In my experience they are keener on abortion than women.

So who do you think will vote for a change to the law? Not the majority of men or the majority of women. If Reform are elected and try to pull that stunt, they'll be chucked back out again as soon as humanly possible.

Couldn’t it now be considered a late legal abortion as the baby is not actually born yet?

A legal abortion is one that happens under the existing abortion legislation so no

would the woman be investigated, arrested and charged also no

Couldn’t it now be considered a late legal abortion as the baby is not actually born yet?

I think you are tying yourself up in knots a little and confusing things

A legal abortion post 24 weeks is carried out by medical professionals under existing law

A woman (extremely hypothetically) ending a babies life during labour would therefore never be legal

the woman would no longer be criminalised though but treated medically

Personally I feel a woman who purposefully ends her full term baby’s life during childbirth would need investigating at the least.

I believe saying otherwise would only push abortion rights back the other way further down the line.

@Meadowfinch

The majority of the public support the current position. Only 8% wanted to see the legal limits on abortion reduced.

On your main point though, the majority of men under 25 do not support abortion.

Personally I feel that a woman who purposefully ends her full term baby’s life during actual childbirth at the exact point they are emerging from the birth canal almost certainly needs sectioning for serious mental health support rather than a police investigation. You’re really stretching for emotive examples here, and as others have said it would be very doubtful that such a situation would be considered an abortion in any case.

Out of all the things wrong with this country, late abortion is not one of them.

However, it would be great if Reform have it high on it's manifesto so we all get to make informed choices when we don't vote for them.

By the time of the next election, most people won't care. Just like most people don't care about gay marriage now, despite the consternation at the time.🤷‍♀️

It may well be that no legal action is taken, but completely removing the option to do so if deemed necessary could also be problematic and cause a backlash affecting abortion rights in the future.

Not for me.

The woman always comes first because it is her body and she should have bodily autonomy.

What future abortion rights?

Using potential high profile cases of women ending pregnancies at full term to say things have gone too far and make legislation even stricter (eg wanting no abortions after 24 weeks, whereas currently this is allowed for serious health reasons).

Not saying this is right, but I think it’s a real possibility.

But that’s NOT abortion so what does it have to do with abortion rights?

It could be classed as ending a pregnancy and therefore a late abortion (so decriminalised in all circumstances), as the baby isn’t physically born.

We don’t know yet but it just shows how all of this may not be clear cut.

Do you seriously think more women will end pregnancies full term?

All these what if scenarios are getting rather silly.

The law has not changed, women will now receive care and support instead of handcuffs.