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/

Are you saying that any woman who consents to sex is automatically consenting to pregnancy?

Save for cases of rape, it could be argued that because sex (even with contraception) entails a risk of pregnancy, in choosing to have sex the woman accepts that risk. If she's in a country without abortion, she's therefore accepting that risk knowing she'll have to proceed. In the UK, she's accepting that risk knowing that if she is pregnant she's got theoretically almost 6 months to stop it before it's too late. If she lived in most of Europe she'd have 3 months to stop it. If she would definitely not want to proceed, then the onus is on the woman to check she's not pregnant reasonably frequently. We could give out free pregnancy tests, though you can buy extremely cheap ones online.

I'm not some fun sucking puritan here but I feel that contraception (as amazing as it is) lulls us into separating sex and it's possible consequences, and therefore we feel we have the right to concequence free sex. But contraception isn't quite there yet and then we feel stung when nature does what is strives to do.

If you don't want to get pregnant, then double up contraception, triple contraception. If you would terminate, test monthly so it can be dealt with promptly. If you really don't want a baby but wouldn't want to terminate, then yes that might affect your sexual choices. But don't take those risks blindly.

No- that's why I said, 'unless there'd been a contraceptive failure or rape'. If someone's having consensual unprotected sex, it's surely reasonable to assume they're happy with the possibility of getting pregnant.

I suppose, but then they might also believe themselves at an infertile point of their cycle, believe their partner is sterilised, or be drunk or on drugs and thus not thinking about the consequences.

Regardless, even consent given can be retracted at any point.

I think that's too harsh. Yes, contraception can fail, but let's say you have an IUD, and he's using a condom etc etc. And maybe add cycle tracking to that (which can work pretty effectively but only if it's done without any mistakes) and/or withdrawal method. If you do that, the chances ARE much reduced.

And it is not extremely difficult to get a termination in England at the right time. There are tragic cases where someone doesn't know or the reason for the termination arises later but these are not the majority.

That's a good point : incidentally, I'm very suspicious of the US right wing push for women to only use cycle tracking. Busy people will easily slip up, I don't think it's reliable on its own.

I agree also re retracting consent. And true also that men could be lying about vasectomies. That's the issue with a male pill : it would be good for established couples with trustworthy men but in casual encounters a lot of women wouldn't (understandably) trust a man who claimed to be on it.

I'm sorry but I'm still confused about your point about the two ends meeting. Of course we all hope that doesn't happen mostly because it would most likely mean a very vulnerable woman goong through a very distressing time, but I'm not sure if you're point is that she should be criminalised or that you support decriminalising to reduce the chance of her self inducing? Again these we extremely rare cases that I don't think we should legislate with solely them in mind when they make up a miniscule amount of abortions.

Oh god, not this line of thought. Once again reducing women's experiences down to an oversimplified idea that women seeking abortion are irresponsible selfish women not using protection. Consenting to sex isn't consenting to pregnancy btw and at any point a woman can withdraw her consent which is the case for many many abortions where pregnancy may have been desired but circumstances change. This is a really old misogynistic idea that pregnancy is basically a women's punishment for sexual behaviour, as this idea of consenting to a pregnancy is never actually enforced on men is it? Whether you agree it should or not,.society just doesn't.

The regressive misogyny isn't even quiet anymore on this thread.

How on earth would or should any of us know that a woman is having consensual sex? It's interesting how the worries on this the and go from vulnerable abuse victims and the risks to them of telemedicine to this blind judgement that women consenting to unprotected sex must automatically be happy to be pregnant. Is it not obvious to you that consent and relationships can be really murky in abusive relationships (which are very common) and on top of the distress of needing an abortion a woman shouldn't have to justify the circumstances with which she confirmed? Christ, it doesn't suprise me that many of the anchoicers on this thread has no sympathy for Savita given you're repeating the same patriarchal misogyny that sent women to laundries. They consented to sex right and had to bear the punishment?

It's so disheartening to see these kinds of attitudes – which are the exact same ones anti-abortionists have.

You're misrepresenting my position hugely. I am pro choice. I do not support late term abortion, I'm not against ALL abortion.

This is not the US- thank goodness. We don't have whole states where abortion is banned even in cases of rape(this is the case in Alabama & several others). If a woman needs an abortion, there are 6 months to get it. There needs to be extra support so women who are at risk are supported to get access- women in abusive relationships would be top of this list

I agree with you re consen being murky in abusive relationships; I would include that under rape.

I certainly think men who choose to have unprotected sex are consenting to that possibility, especially if they know the woman isn't using any contraception herself. It should be enforced! The CMS is a disgrace - it's unbelievable how many women live in poverty because the government won't force fathers to pay up.

What was going on in Carla Foster's situation? A lot of posters have rightly mentioned DV as a reason late term abortion sometimes happen. Was this the case for Foster?
The accounts I read were quite vague about why she waited nearly until 9 months to terminate the pregnancy. I understand that the pregnancy was due to a relationship she had during a breakup, after which she reconciled with her husband? I can understand that the pregnancy must have had a devastating effect, esp as she already had 3 kids, one with SN. Then there was Covid. It seems she didn't want him to know about the pregnancy- again, understandable.

But why could she not have got an abortion during the first 6 months? There could surely have been ways to go to a clinic without her husband knowing, or she could have ordered pills online, as she ended up doing anyway.

It seems like she was in denial about the pregnancy. A lot of pps have mentioned DV, rape as reasons for late term abortions, but I think it's worth asking whether most non-medical late term abortions are for those reasons or due to denial like Foster's. There are ways to help women without saying it's OK to abort an 8 month old foetus. Pregnancy denial needs to be addressed so women in Foster's kind of situation can make choices earlier.

Parents aren't forced to donate life-saving tissue to their children. That's part of why forcing mothers to stay pregnant is so misogynist: it places a burden on mothers that isn't applied to fathers.

All this "language of colonisation" nonsense is just tone-policing.

If I invite you to my house, then it gets to my bedtime and I ask you to leave, you are no longer there with my consent.

Women are allowed to change their minds.

Decriminalisation of self-induced late-term abortion is a pragmatic step based on the cost:benefit ratio - there's been only a handful of cases, against a massive background signal of thousands of stillbirths and neonatal deaths that didn't involve abortifacients but do involve bereaved parents who will be distressed by an investigation.

Policing, recordal, and education around pills-by-post should be rigorous, and it should surely be possible to collect anonymised data on women experiencing late-term losses who've been issued with abortifacients - not to punish them, but to act as a rough proxy for rates of abuse of the system, in case they rise.

I don't know what was in Carla Foster's head either. But I do know that, had she been in Northern Ireland, she would not have been charged with a crime, tried, and sent to jail whilst someone else (husband? stranger?) cared for her SN child. Just as if she'd cut her wrists, tried to hang herself, drunk an entire bottle of vodka, shot up with heroin, or stabbed herself in the stomach in England where she lived she would not have been charged with a crime.

This decriminalisation is removing a legal anomaly where we don't criminalise pregnant women who endanger their foetuses except in one specific circumstance where we do.

There are ways to help women without saying it's OK to abort an 8 month old foetus.

PP arguing for legal late-term abortion on demand (and that its unavailability represents the start of a slippery slope towards a total abortion ban) don't take into account that the reasons to keep it illegal for HCPs are more medical than moral.

If a women is intensely distressed by being 36 weeks pregnant, clearly something should be done. But why does that thing have to be abortion?

In terms of the medical impact on the woman, there's very little difference between abortion (kill the baby, then remove surgically or by induced delivery) and live birth (surgically or by induced delivery) followed by relinquishment.

The laws of nature mean she must go through something, and no amount of mithering about her right to eject her unwanted tenant at a moment's notice is ever going to make that not be true

But in practice today and throughout history it isn't and hasn't been, which is why it's harmful to reiterate harmful narratives about women consenting to pregnancy and forced birth by consenting (or assuming they have consented) to sex. If you're genuinely pro-choice I wonder why you would even say that? What relevance is there?

Personally, I've said induced labour should be offered in those rare cases, if a foetus is genuinely viable. But given many women probably won't relinquish the baby once they've had it, I find the idea of not allowing abortion to be an option, therefore bringing an unwanted child into a chaotic, vulnerable situation, to be less than ideal.

The issue is also that I doubt people who are against late term abortion would be any happier about allowing induced labour at 26 weeks, or 30 weeks – and frankly I think that would be irresponsible, and more harmful than abortion.

No one has said what Carla foster did was ok or anything to be approved of. What the experts who will have known the ins and outs of her case and others have said is that vulnerable women need support not prosecution and that there isn't a benefit to society to prosecuting vulnerable women especially when they are mothers to children with additional needs. You don't need to know the specifics of her case imo as it doesn't need your approval or understanding, I think the point that's being lost on here is no one expects everyone to be happy with other people's choices but perhaps accept they're private and complex and the person's own business, not something that needs to be legislated according to your own personal morals.

I didn't say it out of the blue, I was commenting on what another poster said.

I agree with this if it can be done safely.

You're missing the point that imo Carla Foster took the life of a viable infant. That is a crime, and rightly so imo. Not a private matter. And being vulnerable is not an excuse