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/

Thanks for clarifying. That's a relief. 🙂

"Can an abortion provider legally offer a private abortion to a woman up to birth in the uk?"

There are already existing, very limited, reasons for why an abortion can be carried out after 24 weeks, that hasn't changed. In that situation, everything is legal.

What has changed is that if a mother obtains an abortion for any other reason after 24 weeks (eg she just wants to do it, or maybe she doesn't want a daughter etc) then that is no longer a criminal act for her, but it is still illegal for anyone else to assist the mother in an abortion in that situation.
.

"But if it's now legal to abort up to birth isn't that going to be offered to women?"

That is why there is concern about the "pills by post" scheme, women lying or being coerced to lie about their pregnancies.

There is also a concern, since it would still be illegal for anyone to assist, that it may give rise to 'backstreet abortions' as used to happen in this country until the Abortion Act 1967.
.

Just as an aside, when I was born, it was illegal for my mum to have an abortion (it was also lawful to pay her less than a man). This country has changed so much for the better during my lifetime.

However, as a pp mentioned above this is not a move in the right direction and will open the right to abortions up to further debate and scrutiny.

So the flu virus is alive, but a baby 10 minutes before being born (and after having kicked its mum for months, having sleep cycles, being able to hear, yawn etc), isn't alive.

Don't be so daft 😂

A question to those people arguing that a fetus is alive, at what stage does it become alive and what is different between that day and the day before.

It's alive at conception.
That doesn't necessarily mean it should have person good or human rights, but it is a biologically alive organism.

Plenty of things are alive and their lives are not protected. Viruses, bacteria, head lice, bed bugs. Being alive isn't the issue here - it's not even a question. It's basically biological reality.

Unless you think the should be a completely different definition of life which only applies to human embryos/fetuses? If so, why are you so uncomfortable with the reality of it being alive that you want to redefine what alive means?

So what doctor will do that? Knowing it’s them not the person requesting the abortion who will face prosecution?

I actually think that allowing very late term abortions outside of medical reasons will be the reason for later massive roll back on abortion rights...
It will only take few cases for uproar

Well that doesn’t happen. Even if it was decriminalised, the medical regulations would remain.
The number of post 24 week terminations is really tiny, and the vast vast majority of them happen close to 24 weeks. Decriminalising abortion would not mean a 35 week pregnant woman could walk in and demand an abortion of her healthy baby. In the same way that I cannot demand any other medical procedure - it might be a legal procedure that I want, that doesn’t mean the guidance allows it to anyone who wants it, that a dr will agree to it, or that the NHS would even cover it.

In agreement. It’s really hard but I just can’t agree with the “any stage for any reason” stance.
and for all the “oh it never happens..” why do we need it then?

I’m not uncomfortable with that idea. Because I know categorically that it isn’t.

Falkner thinks that returning to a requirement for face-to-face medical assessment will both obviate the need for decriminalisation altogether, and mitigate the risk of coercion of the pregnant woman by a third party. I agree in principle although in practice there is a resource issue, for which pills-by-post is a sticking plaster.

Prick News is misrepresenting her as a cultural conservative who is against abortion per se - for which there is no evidence either way.

To expand on a point I made earlier, the thing that's been worrying me about all this is that if you send out pills by post, taking a woman's word for it that she's less than 10 weeks pregnant, you will inevitably face a scenario of women taking pills past 10 weeks, sometimes well beyond 10 weeks. That means women will be delivering premature, live foetuses and and experiencing medical complications.

Look at this graph, which shows that since the introduction of pills by post, thousands more women are being admitted to hospital with abortion complications:

https://x.com/cricketwyvern/status/2034575615085433053

But a virus is?

I'm honest not sure either you're just not understanding or choosing not to?

They used to risk it with back street abortions. Doctors were punished as well.

I agree with this, I am pro choice, I believe in no questions asked abortion up to probably 16 weeks with abortions up to 24 weeks available after consultation.
I do also think so called late term abortion should be available in those tragic circumstances when the foetus has been diagnosed with a condition that means it will die at or shortly after birth. Having to continue a pregnancy to term knowing your baby would die would be torture.
However I don’t think women should be allowed to terminate healthy pregnancies after 24 weeks and women buying pills knowing they are further along in their pregnancy should face prosecution. I think those cases will be incredibly rare but removing the possibility of prosecution is a mistake in my opinion.

They often do to the woman who has suffered them.

Life obviously begins at conception, and a termination always puts an and end to the life, no matter at what stage of pregnancy it is carried out. The reason we have time/gestational limits is in recognition of the increasingly rapid development of the full range of human sensory organs and the emerging and discernible humanity of the foetus.

A woman can start to feel the baby kicking and moving about any time from about 16/17 weeks onwards.....and the awareness develops that you are carrying and nurturing a life with a large degree of its own separateness.

Definitely. This is the sort of medication that should be taken under the recommendation of a medical professional, who has confirmed how far along you are. Even genuine mistakes could happen.

Baffled that someone here is so thick that they believe a foetus isn't alive until they're born. I can tell you that the 26 week old foetus kicking me right now is definitely alive!

This is easily explained by the fact that since pills by post became available, the number of abortions has increased, and in particular, the number of abortions under ten weeks, by far more the increase in complications. Earlier abortions are safer abortions.

Reducing health care options because of outlying rare issues is just a wedge against women's reproductive rights.

Women have had long settled reproductive rights in most of Europe. By taking things to extreme ( no time limits etc), in the manner of the U.S, I think that settlement could well be threatened. Counter-productive.

To my mind this is all part of the 'omni-cause' in which dogmatic articles of faith are pushed to their limits.

Where did I say a virus is alive? It’s a strange comparison tbh and feels a little like an attempt at a gotcha.

I’m fully capable of understanding your point. I just completely disagree. Please don’t insult me by implying I lack understanding because we don’t agree on this issue.

Why did you feel the need to resort to an insult? As grown women we should be capable of discussing.

If you have to resort to calling posters ‘thick’ because they disagree with you, you don’t have a very strong argument.