UK woman convicted of abortion

[Veterinari]

Full story here www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/woman-given-suspended-sentence-for-having-abortion-in-the-uk-a6968676.html

Very sad. Is there a will in NI to update legislation on this issue? As it stands everyone loses

Women should 100% have the choice of whether to go through pregnancy or not, also to have access to safe non-judgmental and free/affordable place to have an abortion if they so choose.

I have had 2 abortions, both for social reasons, both late-ish abortions. I'm not proud of them,, I didn't plan to be a person who has had to make the difficult choice twice and I have had councelling after them, I didn't want to be in a situation where I felt it was the only/best choice for me. But I don't regret either. Not a day goes by that I don't think 'What if', or sometimes 'If only' but it is what it is. I could write the reasons for my abortions here but it really shouldn't matter. If you support a woman's right to choose, then it should be absolute. If you support a foetus's right to be brought in to this life regardless of everything else, then it should be absolute. There should be no 'Yes except...' or No, except...'. It should be absolute. If abortions are restricted or banned then there must be free access to counselling and support for the woman bringing up a child. And btw, why is it only a woman who must face these choices/shame/punishment alone. Why would a man not be shamed/punished for making a woman pregnant without any plan how to support her and the child? Why should he get away scot-free? he is just as culpable.

let's face it, this particular group will never stop until abortion is considered as nonchalantly as having a dental check-up

Once again it comes back to showing the 'correct emotion' doesn't it. And infantilising women into people who don't fully comprehend what an abortion is. They are incapable of making the appropriate decision for all concerned. The state and doctors are the only ones qualified to do that.

The funny thing is, that I've never met anyone who didn't consider an abortion without being very serious about the consequences for and against and agonised over the what ifs. Even the ones who are always confident in their decision. Even the women who didn't show the 'correct' emotion. Even when the evidence is there that doctors have concluded that there is no hope.

Thankfully I have never been in that situation but I think it incredibly disrespectful to suggest that women who have an abortion think about it like having a dental check up and to treat the decision lightly.

Women are more intelligent than that. The What if Pandora's box, hormones, natural instinct and simple human curiosity will also always mean that its not a decision that will be on the same parallel as a dental check up.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-uks-abortion-shame-northern-ireland-urged-to-stop-prosecuting-women-under-abortion-ban-a6975441.html

More upcoming abortion trials planned for April in NI that may be stopped

i doubt for those of us who had a termination for tfmr or for any other reason thought of it as going to a dental appointment.

No Rhonda
But perhaps you have. As Ex LtEveDallas explained she simply wants it "as early as possible as late as necessary." These forces are outside your control. We are all familiar with the term "Mission Creep". That does not mean that you personally wish for this, but it is outside your control. What becomes the norm and then what is further pushed cannot be controlled by you or anyone who is advocating legal abortions in limited circumstances. It doesn't mean that you personally want it but you are not the totality of the Pro-choice movement, either of now and certainly not of the future. It is absolutely undisputed that the male/ female ratios are seriously skewed in parts of India, where male offspring is preferred. This practice of sex selection has also been shown to be available in the U.K. if you know where to go.
It doesn't matter what YOU want, or what you think the present aims of the Pro-choice movement as you see it currently are - give it 50 years, give it more and Society as you know it now will be totally changed. It is my view, but not my wish, that there will be very few births with any genetic or testable condition - because these foetuses will very largely have been de-selected. I think there will be wide-spread use of the morning-after pill and pills such as are the topic of this discussion. Other forms of abortion will probably be used mainly by those who have discovered a pregnancy late or where later testing has discovered a medical issue. No-one will have the right to interfere in a parent's selection / de-selection of a foetus on any attribute discoverable by testing, and methods of early testing are getting ever more re-fined. This testing and de-selection will take place all very privately in nice consulting rooms. This is inevitable and I am pretty much resigned to it, although I will never vote to start it happening - but it will happen. No-one will know who is selecting their offspring and on what criteria.
Lots of people will think this is a good thing, and maybe it is.
I just happen to think that we don't always know best and that sometimes it's best to let Nature take its course.
Before everyone starts shouting that that is not what they are advocating, let me repeat, I didn't say it was - but it may be what you get ( genie/ bottle).

I watched a debate on BBC NI about this a couple of years ago and there was a very pro life doctor and Bernie Smyth taking part. And they kept on and on about how even in extreme circumstances (eg foetal abnormality not compatible with , rape etc) and they kept on and on about how the answer was good antenatal care. They completely refused to acknowledge that even with a much wanted, perfectly healthy child, pregnancy can be nine months of nausea, pain, depression etc, and that labour is frightening and painful. Just completely poo poohed the idea that being pregnant could be unpleasant in any way. And by default they were adamant that even for women in such difficult circumstances, there was no reason at all why they might find pregnancy and birth traumatic.

My post was in response to your assertion that the pro-choice movement's aim is for people to be as nonchalant about having an abortion as they are about going to the dentist.

Sorry if my quoting of just that sentence didn't make my point obvious enough.

Sorry, vintage but once again you are deliberately trying to paint a very difficult picture to the reality and are talking bollocks.

"as early as possible as late as necessary."

means the following:

Women DO NOT choose late abortions.

The stats back this up too where there are not restrictions on abortions. Care to point me to a country in Europe where there is a significant number of late term abortions?

Late abortions are the result of poor antenatal care early on - which is the failing of health services and lack of access to appropriate health services which is not acceptable OR
extreme health circumstances which can include mental health which mean it is necessary.

It does not mean in any way that women who are 30 weeks pregnant are going to be suddenly deciding that they have changed their minds.

Suggesting they do, is - once again - playing into this dreadful and inaccurate picture of women as monsters who can't be trusted, are immoral, unintelligent and incapable of grasping the difference - which physically they will be aware of more than any one else due to the mechanics of abortions - of abortions at different stages.

Where I live, there are no 12 weeks scans on the public system to detect abnormalities. Ireland.
Unless one pays privately,
The first many women learn of a serious diagnosis is at the "big scan" - 20 weeks. No time to do much then is there?
That's if it's diagnosed.
The delivery room shock is still happening in Ireland, where serious diagnosis are being made post delivery, mum still on delivery bed, because a midwife noticed something amiss.

Thank you Red. It was pretty sickening to see a Forced Birther try to use that very simple, safe and clear sentence to their own ends. Always the way though, resorting to that sort of tactic.

Rhonda and Very
Go back and re-read, the sentence began, " People who want to bring unfettered abortion to N. Ireland....." If you are in that group the sentence applies to you, if you are not then why apply it to yourself? Sometimes complex sentences need to be read taking note of the punctuation used.
The simile of going to the Dentist was, if you read the sentence as written, a vision of a future scenario where abortion in all its methods would be so accepted and commonplace that it would be as unremarkable as a dental check-up.
Like the poster who explained that her demand was for it to be freely available "as early as possible, as late as necessary" and others who have stated that it should be on a woman's demand, no questions asked, there are those who think unrestricted abortion should be available to all and they will continue until their demands are met. There is nothing either of you can do about this; there is no line in the sand; it is inevitable - especially as chemical abortions and morning and week after pills become so common.
As I said in my previous post, foetal selection and de-selection will inevitably become much more common, and those with more money will be able to select and de-select on many criteria as attribute testing becomes more sophisticated.
Societal norms will change over time as one generation deems it appropriate to select on certain criteria and the following generation will consider it appropriate to expand on that criteria.
That's just how things work.

The simile of going to the Dentist was, if you read the sentence as written, a vision of a future scenario where abortion in all its methods would be so accepted and commonplace that it would be as unremarkable as a dental check-up.
Like the poster who explained that her demand was for it to be freely available "as early as possible, as late as necessary" and others who have stated that it should be on a woman's demand, no questions asked, there are those who think unrestricted abortion should be available to all and they will continue until their demands are met. There is nothing either of you can do about this; there is no line in the sand; it is inevitable - especially as chemical abortions and morning and week after pills become so common.

You're talking about this like it's a bad thing. It isn't. It means we're trusting women to have autonomy over their own bodies.

Bold fail but you get the point.

As the mother of a child with SEN and a developmental delay, I find your repeated assertions of 'foetal selection' and the eugenics driven society you keep implying highly offensive.

I'm not bothered by the aspersions cast on my mental state or the fact that I was the one who had intercourse ergo I should suffer the consequences earlier in the thread. Those are laughable. But the selection of offspring you keep bringing up as a means of denying women access to a procedure that should be legal is disgusting.

The morning after pill isn't an abortion. And it's already easily available in N Ireland. I took it about 15 years ago when we had an issue with our contraception. It wasn't even vaguely controversial (and I grew up in a very evangelical Protestant church, so I'm well aware of people's views on these things) but now it seems to be viewed as an abortion where previously it wasn't. Why have we moved backwards in N Ireland?

Sorry, I know the majority of posters will already agree that the morning after pill isn't an abortion.

So Vintage,

because you are worried about a potential hypothetical situation that hasn't happened ever, in any country with liberal abortion laws, you want women and unborn babies to suffer indefinitely?

Can you even begin to understand how unhinged that thinking is? By the same logic, we shouldn't let the NHS offer any organ transplants, because in 50 years time, people might start creating chimeras?
I mean, yes, it has never ever happened, but once the genie is out of the bottle...

Your points are so insufferably stupid and illogical

Thank you spare very good point

I am resolute in my belief that ONLY the woman who is pregnant can make a choice about something that is going on in her own body.

Yes. I think abortion should be available on demand. The women who is being affected by the pregnancy knows the reasons why she wants an abortion. It could be social reasons, it could be mental health issues, illness, poverty - any number of reasons, all as viable as each other. It is no-one else's business WHY.

I believe that most women who want an abortion will want it and want to have it in the very early stages. No-one would choose to extend an unwanted pregnancy. Lack of funding, jumping through paperwork and 'counselling' hoops, lack of funds and understanding delay the inevitable. The sooner it is all over the better. I would bet the farm that the majority of later term abortions are due to the service providers and NOT the women concerned.

Yes I think that some women may gender select or abort disabled foetuses. But I do not think the issue is widespread and do not believe that it will become so. I have every sympathy for a prospective parent who does not believe they would be able to cope with a disabled child, and I would not vilify them if they decided not to continue with such a pregnancy. I have less sympathy for a woman that would gender select, but even then it would NOT be any of my business and I would trust that the woman involved knows her own mind better than I do.

So yes. As early as possible. As late as necessary. And for whatever reason.

Of course I am well aware that the morning/week after pill is available here.
Some people seem to have difficulty in understanding the concept of someone describing how they see the future unfolding. I don't believe I made any comment on it being necessarily good or bad, excepting to say I wouldn't be voting to get the ball rolling.
Jacob, I don't understand your post - but maybe that is because you are misunderstanding mine. I believe that most people in the future will choose not to continue with pregnancies where a medical or intellectual impairment has been detected as testing becomes earlier, less intrusive and abortions become more chemically based and less of a surgical procedure. I never said whether I considered this good or bad. As conditions become less commonly seen, people will, in turn, become less inclined to continue with such a pregnancy due to " what will other people think" and there being less services for those children because the conditions are less common. I, personally, think that all life is worthwhile, but that is my belief.
Spare, I think you will find that foetal selection already does take place - quite widely in India and China, for obvious reasons, but also in the U.K. where you just have to go to the right doctor. With the recent pace of scientific advancement it is inevitable that eugenics and feature selection will become more widespread, particularly among the better off - but of course it won't be discussed or reported on because it will not have to go outside the consulting room.
As I said before, I believe this is inevitable and a logical progression to the direction in which things are moving. It will happen whether I like it or not, but I will not be voting for it. That is my choice. Like the Luddites I see good and bad consequences to "progress" and sometimes much that is good is lost along the way. Every shift in Society has repercussions both good and bad.

Once again EVIDENCE please instead of this bollock pseudo psychology.

Can you explain why, as mentioned before, abortion rates in South America and Africa where abortion is illegal are far higher than West Europe?

Can you also explain that whilst England and Wales' abortion laws are more relaxed than NI, but generally more restrictive than most of Europe where abortion is available on demand, why the abortion rate is slightly higher than the European average in England and Wales? Surely by your reasoning, you would expect England and Wales's rate to be lower? Worst still the European average is inflated by differences in Eastern Europe. When compared to Western Europe alone, England and Wales come out far higher than average. Odd isn't it?

So what's going on? Are the laws the 'slippery slope'? Or is it that attitudes to sexual behaviour, family planning and other social behaviour - such as drinking - for both men and women have much more of an impact on abortion rates? Is it that healthier attitudes to women from men, have a positive effect on abortion rates? Noting here in particular differences in teenage pregnancy rates.

What evidence do you have that the slippery slope of abortion on request exists, because if it is the law that is the issue that data should exist.

It doesn't.

Why?

Its important if you are going to start drawing conclusions from thin air based on nothing more than your opinion.