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/

As long as a foetus is being grown by a woman's body, in her body, she must have dominion over it

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.

There was really no need to push the window beyond viability and I wonder why it was ever deemed necessary. Most abortions are performed before 10 weeks—and the emphasis should always have been to increase access at the early end rather than be stupidly permissive at the tail end.

Exactly. One of my oldest friends went for an urgent pre-natal appointment at 7 months because she stopped feeling any foetal movement. She was told that sadly her much-wanted first baby had died in her womb and she had to go through an induced labour to deliver her dead child (this was 50 years ago). A shattering experience for her.

No, I'm just confused at how anyone can believe that a fetus (or a virus for that matter) isn't alive, in the face of complete and utter unanimous scientific opinion that they are. I'm trying to understand where you come from. Are dogs alive? Joes in a kangaroos pouch? Bacteria? A spoon?

If she can’t see it, it doesn’t exist.

Some people just have trouble with the concept of object permanence …

I've no idea why you're going down this obscure side-road but, since we're here:
Viruses (and prions) are on the borders of 'living'. By most definitions, they aren't. They can only perform 'living' functions by utilising a third party's cells or proteins, respectively, altering the other to suit their needs.

In that respect, a foetus is a bit like a virus.

You might want to be careful with that line of thought. In an increasing number of places, women are criminalised for having miscarriages and/or stillbirths.

Should @NotAtMyAge's friend have been prosecuted for murder or manslaughter, having already suffered a devastating foetal death at 7 months?

My point was that it's baffling that some posters on here can't accept that a fetus is alive, when it's just simple accepted biological fact.

I didn't start this rabbit hole. Those posters did. There was also one who said that something couldn't be alive unless it had a death certificate to say when it was dead, which would render every animal and plant on this planet also not alive.

There was really no need to push the window beyond viability and I wonder why it was ever deemed necessary.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/10/the-women-being-prosecuted-in-great-britain-for-abortions-her-confidentiality-was-completely-destroyed

I think it is in response to the quite sudden recent increase in prosecutions of women relating to late term abortions despite the law not having changed at all. The women in these cases are often in complicated, unfortunate scenarios and people have raised concerns as to whether punishment and particularly prison sentences are appropriate for essentially highly vulnerable women. Then women who have had stillbirths are also being criminally investigated, adding to their distress.

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.

Im assuming you meant full term foetus not infant but I do think there is a massive distinction as a full term foetus is in its mother's womb and is reliant on its mother to survive, until it is born, at which point it is a newborn and does not need its own mother to survive. Birth is the distinction.

A stillbirth is not an abortion. The two cases I mentioned involved women who deliberately lied about their gestation and used this medication to kill their children

You don’t need to try and understand where I am coming from. We have different opinions. I have the right to hold and express my own views in exactly the same way as you are and I genuinely don’t feel the need to justify them to anyone.

I only know of the two prosecutions involving women who LIED to medical professionals to obtain these drugs and kill a viable fetus. Both appear to have done it because the baby would have been inconvenient for their relationship (ie they did it for a man)

If you know of another, please inform me.

And some people clearly can’t stand it when another person has a different point of view.

Can we clear something up @Batties? Do you believe a foetus is not alive as in not a person yet? Or as in biologically not alive?

It’s like saying, ‘the world was created by God 6000 years ago’ is merely a different POV instead of just WRONG

You're quite right, @Bobblebottle.

It's dangerous to apply anything other than cold logic to the law.

I realise I'm opening a whole can of worms here, but we should also recognise that many serious birth defects are undetectable until near full term. It's usually due to micro-deletions, of which there are many.

These pregnancies are often aborted, but communicated as late-term foetal deaths. Reason being the foetus was unviable or barely viable; it's marginally less awful for the mother than going through an assisted birth then having to wait for her child to die.

In fact, two of my relations experienced this. One chose abortion - she told people her baby died in the womb, which is true. The other went through an induced delivery. Both women, obviously, have suffered greatly with their losses ... but the first handles it better. I imagine a 20-hour birth, knowing the baby's already as good as dead, is more horrible than making one awful decision and then being able to get on with processing the emotions.

My closest friend was pregnant with multiples, which were not thriving. She took the option of aborting all but two, who are now extremely healthy twins. Yet another case where 'killing babies' was the right and most constructive choice, in face of nature's unpredictability.

Why is it okay if nature 'kills a baby' but not if the woman incubating it does?

The issue of men forcing abortions is Baroness Falkner's reason for wanting to limit access to abortion pills. This discussion's veered heavily into the rights & wrongs of abortion, but I take her point. I don't know if I think it's a good enough reason.

Like other posters, if we were forced to accept either no abortion at all or abortion up to term then I’m afraid I would have to reluctantly take the side of no abortion.

This, without a doubt, would (and does where no abortion is available) result in the loss of women's lives. There's no way to hold that position and claim to value human life.

Yes, legally, but as you already know we already have adequate healthcare available to women at that stage so why would she procure a DIY abortion? Just logically, she wouldn't would she? It's an emotive example not based in reality. What would be legal is that the vast amount of abortions that take place at very early stages could be accessible to a woman without the red tape of two doctors granting her permission so that she's within the law and making her healthcare a decision between her and a doctor without the criminal law getting involved, there would still be healthcare legislation as we have now.

I agree. It's more obviously wrong than that though, which is why I'm flabbergasted. It's like suggesting that humans can fly. It's just obviously plain wrong.

It's not a different viewpoint. It's not arguable, even in the slightest. I respect the posters right to have this opinion, but it is a wrong opinion.

Her point was that women do actually get investigated and in some cases prosecuted when they've experienced a stillbirth. We know they're not the same but when you take a hard line approach to criminalising abortion, you create an environment that we've seen actually does result in women experiencing heartbreaking loss being suspected of deliberately causing their baby to be stillborn or miscarry at a late term when that's actually drastically very rare.

Fortunately, Falkner, Davies and the other reactionary Lords have been defeated on their amendment.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mps-blackstone-sarah-mullally-bill-b2941478.html

I think it's because you're sounding obtuse unless you really mean that you view every single living organism as alive in the same way which I very much doubt you do. If you do, do you think men masturbating and committing mass murder? Am I committing a mass murder when I use antibac? The reason people are supportive of decriminalising abortion is for harm reduction and a protective measure for women against the current status quo which is legal within limits but we know people are always trying to restrict those legal limits. I don't see the need for these obtuse arguments about semantics on an issue that is so important to women's lives and their healthcare. It's not hard for accept that for some women there is a baby and it's alive either from the moment they saw a wanted positive pregnancy test and for some it's different. No one's asking you to not see your own pregnancy as a fully alive human being, they're just asking their own choices about their pregnancy to have your opinion imposed on it via the law.

Humanist report
https://humanists.uk/2026/03/19/lords-vote-to-uphold-decriminalisation-of-abortion-and-secure-historic-pardons-for-women/

Sigh...
Again, you're confusing being alive with (1) worth (2) equal rights to a born human being. Those are judgement calls. The fetus being a living organism isn't. It's a fact.

Today I've probably stood on bugs in the garden. I've eaten dead chicken and dead pig. I'd look daft if I pretended those weren't living organisms, but that doesn't give them equal rights to me.

Anyway,this ridiculous tangent is now being discussed on its own thread, so if you wish to discuss it further there, then please pop over. The main view is that of course it's biologically alive, what a silly question, but that doesn't mean that abortion is necessarily wrong.

No I'm not actually and that's what you keep missing in your obtuseness. It's not about worth it equality, it's about what that living organism needs to maintain it's "aliveness" which PP did already explain to you the difference between how alive a virus is for example Vs a human. And since you do understand that not every living thing needs the same legal protections of it's life, I'm unsure why you're pretending you not to on a discussion about an important woman's issue where emotive unscientific beliefs in "life" kill actual living women.