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/

I've always been pro abortion but I can't come to terms with women being allowed to 'abort' a child who would otherwise survive. Presumably to stop the child surviving it is actively killed before being aborted? It's obviously a deeply emotive issue but my daughter was born at 36 weeks and she was obviously a little human being at that point. Early abortion involves the removal of a clump of cells with only the potential to become a human being. I understand there is a massive range of opinions about abortion but I'm surprised there are so many who don't have a problem with abortion up to birth.

A still birth at term does not count towards mortality statistics because it has not been living, so it's not correct to say they were alive.

Babies born after 24 usually survive. I don't understand what you mean by this statement.

I can only imagine it is because they have never carried a pregnancy to term , or else for them it is entirely theoretical and predicated entirely on the concept of 'My Body, my Choice' with no room for the nuance of ethics.

An unborn child does not count in mortality statistics because those statistics are predicated on 'personhood' - which offically begins at birth......but to suggest that a baby is not alive until it is born is clearly a ludicrous proposition.

Someone can only be killed if they first have lived independently of their mother.

And 24w fetus' will only live with huge amounts of intensive medical intervention. A generation or so ago, such deliveries would have resulted in a late term miscarriage.

The UK had a workable solution, with a limit. For decades.

This brings the UK in line with the USA whose battle lines on the left or right fall within the 'abortion at term or none'.

The UK has thrown away the workable solution and when the backlash comes, it will come in its entirety.

I cannot believe people can't see this.

If something isn't recognised as having died, it is because it isn't recognised as having been alive. Being is (roughly) existing without the direct support of the mother's body, which is why a fetus cannot die.

Here is an example of what the new law allows (or, rather, decriminalises for the mother).

Your due date is tomorrow. You decide to terminate your pregnancy today (in other words, kill your baby today). That is perfectly fine under this new law.

I'm sorry, but I really do disagree with you that "the fetus isn't alive".

But you said up to birth. So at 32 weeks? Can you see why people wouldn't agree with actively killing what is basically a child who would otherwise survive?

I'm not saying the fetus could not be alive, I'm saying because it hasn't survived independently of the mother it isn't alive. Bluntly, if you can't count towards death statistics, you are not alive.

I agree. As I said upthread I am pro abortion but I can't stomach abortion up to term. So now I'll be forced to be anti abortion.

The question is not does an unborn child/fetus have a moral status. The question here is do you want women sent to prison for life for ending a pregnancy at any gestation. Because that was what the law that was overturned decreed.
Women are not routinely aborting 30 week fetuses. Those that do are often in the most challenging circumstances including potentially being pressured by partners - and do you want them to go to prison as a result? That’s the issue at stake.

I can see some may think that. It doesn't change that a fetus of that gestation has never taken even a single breath or existed without the direct support of its mothers body, both of which I think are essential features of living.

Saying that a fetus isn't alive is blatantly ignoring biology and common sense to a bafflingly bonkers level. Even a virus is alive for goodness sake! As to whether a fetus being alive means it has the right for that life to be protected, that's the real issue, not whether it's alive in the first place 😂.

A fetus is merely the gestational state of a human being. It's 100% alive, 100% a human.

We shouldn't pretend, speak in euphemisms to make abortion palatable enough to accept. If it's ok, then we should be able to acknowledge that it's the deliberate killing of a pre birth human because morally it's mother should decide whether to use herself as a host for its development.

Exactly.

But if it's now legal to abort up to birth isn't that going to be offered to women? Can an abortion provider legally offer a private abortion to a woman up to birth in the uk? I agree that sending women to prison for aborting a foetus is wrong but I also think if it is now legal to offer abortion up to birth that is wrong too.

I simply cannot take your posts seriously...if this is really the extent of your analysis. And also, you have clearly never been pregnant beyond a certain stage or given birth.

"I cannot believe people can't see this."

I must admit, when you made your first post I didn't quite get it. But now that you put it like this, I see what you mean.

If the next government is going to either be heavily influenced by the Greens or heavily influenced by Reform then abortion limits could well become a live issue once again after decades of it being settled.

You're argument that it's not alive makes zero sense. Out of curiosity, what do you think of the cases where a baby is removed from the uterus due to the mum having surgery, and then placed back in. Does it go from being not alive to alive back to not alive again?

Though why I'm having this discussion with you I don't know. You either lack a fundamental understanding of what 'alive' means, or are willfully closing your eyes to it here because you need that level of cognitive dissonance.

The (1861) law can be changed. It need not mean life in prison, and In reality nobody in Britain has been jailed for life. There do need to be some societally recognised boundaries...along with consequences for breaching them.

Spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) of any gestation don't count as deaths because the fetus has never existed independently of the mother. Medically induced abortions don't either for the same reasons.

Thing is, the pills don't kill the baby - they bring on labour. So if you take them at term, the baby is probably going to live, though of course if you give birth without medical care the risks are higher.

On the other hand, if you take the pills later than medically indicated - at, say 20 weeks or 24 weeks, rather than 10 weeks or less - there is a risk of giving birth to a very premature live baby, which will probably die shortly after birth or have severe brain damage. I think that is something that ought to concern us.

If you mean cases like this (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cglx5gr998zo), then to quote from the article

"The womb remained connected to the uterine artery to maintain a supply of blood and oxygen to the baby, during the five-hour operation.
It also stayed attached to the left fallopian tube and cervix."

The fetus was not surviving independently of its mother and didn't breathe, so it didn't start living at that (miraculous) point.

No, the legislation as passed will mean that women can't be prosecuted for aborting their fetus, but a doctor who carries out an abortion past the legal limit can be.