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/

Just because she can obtain them by deceiving a medical professional about her term doesn't equate to the law allowing elective termination of viable healthy pregnancies. They're not the same and using the latter wording is being disingenuous about the purpose of the law change.

I don't believe that I've read that anywhere. Is that perhaps a bit of a straw man argument
I haven't created that argument, this is the argument being repeated by any reports of this law change describing it as a sickening change that will allow woman to terminate health babies with the intention of scaremongering people that this will be common so they can exaggerate and misrepresent the purpose of this law change so they can attack it more easily. If someone's first argument against decriminalisation is that abortion is immoral and using the extreme rare example of late term illegal abortions, that's a straw man they're creating, and you've only quoted me responding to the idea they're presenting that this would be or is common place and called that a strawman which is...odd

To add to this and address your last point more clearly, the 70 cases investigated by police as an illegal abortion are still not all late term pregnancies being investigated so it's important to still not conflate all women who were subject to this treatment with those who tried to intentionally abort a healthy late term pregnancy.

The consultant said she would have performed an abortion Mon or Tues if she had seen the bloodwork from Sun. The spontaneous miscarriage didn’t happen until Weds. What you are saying doesn’t tally with the enquiry results.

I agree it shouldn't be decriminalised up until birth. I can see what you mean about women being tied to life but in a sense I'm not sure how key that is to whether this should be legal. The main reason imo it should not be is that a full term baby is VERY different from a foetus who can't live outside the mother's womb independently.

I never said, it was happening here, there and everywhere; but I do think I know more about what goes on in my family, than you do!

I think it should be lowered to 12, as it is in many European countries. But it MUST remain legal

I think you're getting confused between what was an inevitable miscarriage being diagnosed and the spontaneous miscarriage. From the moment her cervical is was noted to be dilated (Sunday) that is a miscarriage waiting to happen and it's known that RPOC means a patient is at risk of infection and death hence she was prescribed precautionary antibiotics. She asked for an abortion when the inevitable miscarriage was diagnosed because of the risk of infection and to not have her horrible experience of miscarriage drawn out. That her infection wasn't picked up sooner doesn't change the fact that if the doctors didn't have to wait for her life to be at risk she wouldn't have developed sepsis and died. I'll relay the findings of why her one inevitable miscarriage didn't have clear healthcare guidelines and it's because the best next step for her health wasn't legally allowed as. I'll past the relevant facts below because you're perhaps unintentionally misrepresenting the facts from the inquiry into her death:

The treating doctors and midwives suspected as early as within 6 hours of hospital admission that SH is likely to be experiencing pregnancy loss/miscarriage.

SH experienced spontaneous rupture of membranes (SROM) within 15 hours of admission and was informed 8 hours after SROM that it "was unlikely she would continue on to a time of fetal viability"

The attending Consultant 1 noted 56 hours after SROM "the patient and her husband were emotional and upset when told that a miscarriage was inevitable". The consultant stated that the patient and her husband enquired about the possibility of using medication to induce miscarriage as they indicated that they did not want a protracted waiting time when the outcome of miscarriage, was inevitable. This was their first (and last known documented) request for termination of pregnancy (TOP).

At this time Consultant 1 advised SH and her husband of Irish law in relation to this. At interview the consultant stated “Under Irish law, if there’s no evidence of risk to the life of the mother, our hands are tied so long as there’s a fetal heart”. The consultant stated that if risk to the mother was to increase a termination would have been possible, but that it would be based on actual risk and not a theoretical risk of infection “we can’t predict who is going to get an infection”.

There are no accepted clear local, national or international guidelines on the management of inevitable early second trimester miscarriage (i.e. less than 24 weeks) including the management of miscarriage where there is prolonged rupture of the membranes. The reason for the absence of such guidelines may be that clinical practice in other jurisdictions would have led to an early termination of pregnancy in equivalent clinical circumstances.

I think what I'm saying absolutely tallys, whereas what you keep stating that her access or not to a termination played no part is on a lot of Catholic sites spreading misinformation about the role of the catholic law that caused her death.

I agree with this.

I think Ireland's abortion ban was terrible but I'm uncomfortable with the death of Halpannavar being attributed to the ban when.

I agree......but my point about the position of women relates and responds more to the suggestions that women should be free to do whatever they like just because it involves their body. 'My body, My choice' sort of arguments which suggest everything must always be subject to what the woman wants or feels.

I think women have a very particular kind of moral responsibility, not no responsibility at all; though I do accept and support legal abortions (up to a limit).

To my mind 'no limits, no consequence' types of argument are displays of ideological extremism.

You are the one (perhaps unintentionally) misrepresenting things, but I’m going to give up now as you are on transmit and it’s not directly relevant to the thread anyway.

(I didn’t say that her lack of access to an abortion didn’t affect the outcome btw. I said it might have changed the outcome. You’re not listening.)

How would that word with fetal abnormalities though? We don't have screening for them until between 18-21 weeks

We now have an 'on demand' time limit (24w) and a 'abnormalities etc' limit (birth), so altering the former makes no difference to the latter.

I've pasted the facts of the enquiry so please feel free to clarify what I'm misrepresenting if you like. You said that abortion was legal in her case when it wasn't and that she didn't have the miscarriage that put her in danger until weds hence I was clarifying both of those are wrong whether intentionally or unintentionally.

You haven't read the law change properly. Just because women won't be prosecuted doesn't mean there has been any change to the limits or regulations. I already explained and put the wording for consent to an abortion upthread, and no where in that does it legally allow for "on demand" abortion. What you see as on demand abortion is doctors having to basically lie on documentation because they are happy to proceed with a women's choice, not because they genuinely believe every abortion would result in grave danger to her mental health. Please don't misrepresent a suggestion that would only add more abortions to the "the term" category by moving the limit forward.

I don't understand, I didn't mention your family. Unless you comment on morality as about a family member of yours aborting a late term healthy fetus (Illegally?)?

Just because she can obtain them by deceiving a medical professional about her term doesn't equate to the law allowing elective termination of viable healthy pregnancies. They're not the same and using the latter wording is being disingenuous about the purpose of the law change

But someone like Carla Foster would not be prosecuted under this change, which seems a horrific thing to advocate for.

Only if you insist on misrepresenting people advocating for the majority of women who aren't Carla Foster as advocating for her. Situations are complex and I don't have to think what she did was right to think that it's a good thing that women who have had investigations into this hanging over them and having to declare it being pardoned is a good thing, I also don't have to think what she did was okay to think the situation is complex enough to say it's unequivocally in the public interest for her to be imprisoned away from her children. I see though that instead of addressing the misinformation you posted up thread about the abortion law you're back to misinterpreting the support for this change that the RCOG and other organisations were simply advocating for Carla Foster because she's the worst example you have 🙄

Why do women have a particular kind of moral responsibility? And who gets to decide what is moral or immoral? You feel believe that morally it is not right to terminate a pregnancy beyond a certain point, I believe it is immoral to have any restrictions on terminations.

I didn’t find out I was pregnant with my last until I was almost 13 weeks pregnant? Does that mean I should have been forced to continue with the pregnancy had I wished to terminate?

I mean, it’s pretty bad though. The motive was simply that her daughter become inconvenient after she got back with her ex.

It is still illegal in most circumstances for a doctor to carry out a late abortion. It seems obvious to me that very few women will carry out a termination late in their pregnancy for the simple reason that doing so without medical help puts the woman’s own health at risk. Quite apart from the fact that if she really wanted to get rid of the baby she could have done so earlier in her pregnancy.

Ugh I'm not going to get into a debate with the facts of her case with someone who posts misinformation about abortion law on topics like those what I will say though is I don't think any case can be that simple and you're choosing to paint her as having a simple motive to simplify your argument and make it easier for you to smear and attack women's abortion rights. I'm sure you also thought abortion always was pretty simple because you knew nothing about it, I don't think any women's circumstances when she's pregnant are simple especially when they already have a child with special needs.

From a purely utilitarian/practical view, I dont understand how forcing a woman to have child she doesnt want, even if she initially wanted it/was unsure and later changed her mind, is in either the woman or the child's interest.

The child would surely have been put in care if she hadn't aborted and we know what a horrible situation that usually is. But that doesn't mean her having a hugely late abortion was right.

I don't think a 'particular kind of responsibility' for women is or should be a factor. But that doesn't make it alright to abort a hugely developed baby who could live outside the womb.