Bid in Lords to overturn move to decriminalise abortion for women

[IwantToRetire]

A landmark move to decriminalise women terminating their own pregnancies could be overturned as legislation is considered in the House of Lords.

In June, MPs in the Commons voted in favour of decriminalisation, with one saying it would remove the threat of “investigation, arrest, prosecution or imprisonment” of any woman who acts in relation to her own pregnancy. ...

But, with the Bill making its way through the Lords, an amendment has been tabled to remove the relevant clause. ...

https://nation.cymru/news/bid-in-lords-to-overturn-move-to-decriminalise-abortion-for-women/

IMO, it is immoral that women can choose to terminate a healthy, viable baby at 34 weeks plus. If the baby were born at that stage, it would have full human rights - so why does it have no rights, because it’s unborn?

Where is this happening? This law change certainly doesn't allow that . Less than 1% of abortions are performed under 24 weeks and on those cases it'll be because of a risk to life of the mother or a medical issue, the idea that health viable babies are being terminated left right and centre is a bogeyman to paint the vast majority of abortions as immoral but that's not as easy to argue so an extreme example has to be given.

So you would want access to TMFR if you needed it but you cant relate to any women's experience that they don't want the law involved in their decision to do that relevant?

You can advocate for a procedure but also think there needs to be guidelines to prevent abuses. Because there has been and certainly will be abuses.

You couldn't necessarily without suspicion which PP already linked you examples of. For example of you had been informed of a issue that for you would be a reason to terminate and then went on to naturally miscarry, you could face suspicion you procured a termination outside the proper methods. The only thing that would require a HCP to raise suspicion of that is them being anti abortion and a belief you may have done so

Again, most of the cases written up in those articles had very complicated situations, which is why they were reported.

Like, most people take their kids to the ER without a thought, even though there’s always a chance that a doctor will report you for suspected child abuse (and indeed we want that, because too many children fall under the radar).

I'm sure you're aware that those ales also affected Northern Ireland which is part of the UK which had massive burdens to northern Irish women accessing abortion compared to women from England

Women’s rights were held hostage to a political situation, you can blame your government for that one, totally

All just common women's experiences though so irrelevant to you

Again, misread me, never said their experience was irrelevant, only that those cases do not apply to the UK. Because they don’t.

Because I know my friend and I know the discussions she had with the HCPs who were very apologetic that the reason they couldn't proceed with her wishes and the care she needed was because they needed to sort the necessary paperwork to comply with abortion legislation. You still haven't answered to whose benefit?**

Its just hard to believe a surgeon prepared for a hysterectomy is going to be prepared for the extra complication of a fetus on that very appointment with no further examination, paperwork or procedural guidelines, if not the government then the hospital itself.

You kind of lost the standing of holding a reasonable position in your first post where you said decriminalisation was the same as infanticide, no?

In Carla Foster’s case, what is the difference? Just a few weeks?

Malicious intent could literally be the attitudes expressed by some that every pregnancy (that they know nothing about) is precious to them as an outsider and they're morally opposed to it

Yeah that could be a concern. I tend to trust medical professionals in their decisions tho YMMV

@Mmmchocolatebuttons As I explained at the time, you inability to discuss this without calling posters ‘thick’ amongst other insults means that I will not justify or explain my views to you, because I don’t believe you are capable of engaging in respectful discussion. Starting a thread specifically about me is outrageous and further demonstrates your inability to engage maturely without feeling the need to run off to a different section of MN to tell me what a terrible person I am.

I have been genuinely gutted to read those comments today. I suspect that is what you wanted though.

No, the law would allow that. Whilst she wouldn't be able to obtain abortion on demand 35 weeks, if she does something to ensure at that gestation the baby dies inside her, then that would be perfectly legal.

If you have a ridiculous viewpoint, people are going to think it's ridiculous. You can't blame people for that.

Have a baby die in utero and see how you feel after that

All just common women's experiences though so irrelevant to you

Again, misread me, never said their experience was irrelevant, only that those cases do not apply to the UK. Because they don’t.

Except as already explained to you it did apply to a part of the UK, which you're just ignoring.

Its just hard to believe a surgeon prepared for a hysterectomy is going to be prepared for the extra complication of a fetus on that very appointment with no further examination, paperwork or procedural guidelines, if not the government then the hospital itself.

Again you seem wildly ignorant, this was not a foetus she was so early pregnant it was literally some cells in her uterus, it didn't complicate her surgeon. But here you are again when you finally choose to engage in a woman's experience doubting it while still refusing to answer in who's benefit was a risk of prosecution?

In Carla Foster’s case, what is the difference? Just a few weeks?
Back to rinsing your one extreme example so you can scaremonger because you can't engage on the majority of abortions being early term and justify a correlation between those and infanticide. It's actually extremely insulting given many women who are mothers have abortions that you actually believe it's likely that these women would all descend into commuting infanticide? Again say what you want about being a woman, you clearly think every little of our sex class.

Yeah that could be a concern. I tend to trust medical professionals in their decisions tho YMMV

Just not between them and a woman to decide on their healthcare eh? Then their medical decision isn't enough, it'll need a legal sign off. Make it make sense.

Nope, not what I intended at all. I've already apologised twice for some posters being offensive 🤷‍♀️

I didn't "run off to a different section of MN to tell you what a terrible person you are". I just wanted to see the poll results for something you said wasn't an unusual viewpoint. I think it's at about 87% YANBU so many more people agree with you, than I expected 🤷‍♀️

Again where is this happening though? A few rare cases is not the rule, whereas the previous law was investigating women ending early pregnancy where the majority had no case to answer. Aand again only 1% of abortions occur after 24 weeks and these are for medical reasons. Do you actually think this always change is going to cause a wave of women to abort their health viable late term pregnancies and that the law was the only thing holding them back? Don't be silly. People use the same argument to justify banning a portion full stop, because it's harder to paint the majority of abortions as immoral so you can to leap to an extreme example that doesn't represent thr majority.

If it's not a problem, which is what you claim, then why do we need to change the law? Many things are there doesn't mean they should be legal.

I genuinely hope nobody else ever has multiple pregnancy losses and then, simply for having a different point of view from another poster, has to read “Has this person ever seen a 20 week scan? Or felt a baby kicking in the womb?”

Huh? What am I saying isn't a problem? Cos I'm absolutely saying that the law dictating when a woman can have am abortion is a problem, I'm just saying that swathes of abortion aborting their late term viable babies is a real world problem.

I'm so sorry 💐

@Batties On the second page of this thread you agree with a poster who said that miscarriages "don't count as deaths".

I'm sure that was quite upsetting for some posters, who have also suffered miscarriages, to read too.

I didn’t say that. Can you tell me the time of the post you are referring to because we all have different settings and I don’t have a second page of this thread.

However, talking about things in a general sense, which is what has happened on this thread, is entirely different to posts about one specific person.

She didn't say that, I think in your rush to defend yourself for being rude to @Batties because you disagree you're either confusing her with a other poster or misrepresenting her quote about her pregnancy losses and yet she didn't take issue with PPs comment (as it was implied no one who has experienced pregnancy or baby loss would). Given she made her experience of loss clear very early on to you it's not fair to misrepresent her on another thread as someone who doesn't know what being pregnant or experiencing loss is like.

Again you seem wildly ignorant, this was not a foetus she was so early pregnant it was literally some cells in her uterus, it didn't complicate her surgeon. But here you are again when you finally choose to engage in a woman's experience doubting it while still refusing to answer in who's benefit was a risk of prosecution?**

If she was so early that it was just a clump of cells, then there would have been zero risk of prosecution. Like, you can have an abortion performed for whatever reason at that gestation. So your question here makes no sense.

It's actually extremely insulting given many women who are mothers have abortions that you actually believe it's likely that these women would all descend into commuting infanticide

Where did I say this? (Nowhere). It just would have jailed people like her, which would be rare, but not zero.

Just not between them and a woman to decide on their healthcare eh? Then their medical decision isn't enough, it'll need a legal sign off. Make it make sense

Ummm … it still is a decision made by a doctor and a patient, along with another doctor. That’s not changed at all. What has changed is you can obtain abortion pills by lying and then induce a miscarriage/stillbirth and face no prosecution

Jeez! Some people really don't like others having a different opinion on abortion laws; or even suggesting that most people do believe that there do need to be laws. Then crying to the gallery when their contradictory positions and cognitive dissonance are questioned.

If she was so early that it was just a clump of cells, then there would have been zero risk of prosecution. Like, you can have an abortion performed for whatever reason at that gestation. So your question here makes no sense.

This is just blatantly untrue so you're arguing about something you know nothing about. It's legal when the necessary permissions and paperwork to comply with the law have been done. Not doing so would have made it an illegal abortion with the risk of prosecution which is why I'll ask you for probably the fifth or so time now who would benefit from that? if you genuinely think that abortions at a certain time are just "legal" with no reason required why are you arguing this when you know nothing? Yes you can seek an abortion for any reason at an early stage and two medical professionals will usually grant it but that doesn't mean that they're not having to get two doctors to sign off a reason why they're allowing it to make it legal and let me tell you there isn't a box that says "women's choice". If the pregnancy is unwanted the doctor would usually record it would be of permanent damage to the mothers mental health, because legally it's not actually enough that she just doesn't want to continue and they only have the options of:

the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated;

the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman;

the pregnancy has NOT exceeded its 24th week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman;

the pregnancy has NOT exceeded its 24th week and that the continuance of the pregnancy

would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of any existing child(ren) of the family of the pregnant woman;

there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

So please tell me which of the above caveat for them to perform an otherwise legal procedure in law is for any reason before 24 weeks.

Where did I say this? (Nowhere). It just would have jailed people like her, which would be rare, but not zero.
Here is where you said that:
This doesn’t seem quite right to me, as it would decriminalize infanticide, as there is essentially no difference between a newborn and a full-term infant, neither need their mother to survive.

We don’t currently allow mothers to kill their newborns, but it’s not impossible to think this could creep back in the West—exposing unwanted infants was common practice throughout history and people thought nothing of it.

Given your complete lack of knowledge of the actual law and your refusal to answer the simple question of who it serves in the majority of cases and in particular my friend, this is getting boring as you're not even defending your contradictory beliefs.

It is unrealistic to assume that no woman would ever choose to terminate a pregnancy at or near full term, just as it would be unrealistic to assume that infanticide never occurs. They will now be able to do so free from the risk of prosecution.

If relevance to this forum, there is also evidence of sex-selective abortion in certain demographics in the UK. Indeed in some areas the fetal sex may not be disclosed until after the legal abortion limit.

Given this, it is plausible that there could be more cases in which healthy babies, particularly girls who are at the stage to be viable outside the womb, are terminated.

Whilst it's illegal for a UK doctors to supply such a pill, it is easy to lie about dates. Also any drug there is demand for you can get on the black market, often shipped from abroad.

The contradiction and cognitive dissonance is heavy on one side for sure and it isn't those supporting decriminalisation.

Ok let's follow your logic through if sex were so particular to these parents logically why would they wait until 24 weeks to find out th sex only to abort a viable foetus and start again conceiving? If it's so unrealistic to assume women would do this in high numbers why aren't they already? Do you believe it's solely the risk of prosecution and once that's gone many women will start aborting late term? I never said not a single woman would as clearly we have already discussed the rare cases, but they're a tiny minority where many organisations and experts agree criminal prosecution isn't necessarily in the public interest as it's likely to be a vulnerable women where other involvement is needed.

In fact, @Mmmchocolatebuttons please point me to one post of mine where I have even insulted anyone, devalued their experience, or even told people that they have to agree with me?

On this thread I said that I welcome my ideas being robustly challenged and that I thought we should be able to discuss this without insulting one another. I think that I even said that to you when you called people who disagreed with you ‘thick’.

I understand that you think you are morally superior, but the way in which you have acted towards me shows that you are wrong. Your righteousness is blinding you to the fact that it is okay for people to have different opinions than you.

Even though you and I disagree, if you spoke about pregnancy loss I would treat you with the kindness and compassion that you would obviously deserve. In your desperation to scores points against me you have not afford me the same.

"Where is this happening?"

There have only been a couple of examples of this happening so late (I believe the latest was at about 34 weeks).

"This law change certainly doesn't allow that"

You are mistaken, it does. The proposed new law says:

[208] For the purposes of the law related to abortion, including sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy.

So, if a woman takes abortion pills after 24 weeks then she no longer commits an offence.

As you rightly point out, very few abortions indeed happen after 24 weeks (0.1% I think) and these are for specific reasons related to the health of the child or mother.

"...the idea that health viable babies are being terminated left right and centre is a bogeyman"

I don't believe that I've read that anywhere. Is that perhaps a bit of a straw man argument? I think I read somewhere that there had been around 70 cases over the last ten years where the police had investigated someone for procuring an illegal abortion. So, that's about 6 or 7 per year on average.