UK Abortion Law
Discussion
First of all let me state that I hope this topic can be discussed in a respectful and mature manner, and it's not my wish to offend or upset anyone, this is a touchy subject, I know that.
But given there appears to be a legal step change (forward or backwards) in the US at the moment and we often take our cultural cues from them I think its worth discussion. Also I think this subject and the laws in the UK should benefit from regular review so I just wondered how this forum felt about the current position of the UK law and whether, in light of medical advances, cultural changes etc they'd support a parliamentary discussion or debate, just so as a nation we can democratically decide whether we've still got it right.
As I said in opening, this is often a polarising subject and I do have strong feelings but am willing to hear all sides and its not really the sort of thing that goes down well at my dinner table (usually ends in did slamming doors, cold shoulders, and dinners)
But given there appears to be a legal step change (forward or backwards) in the US at the moment and we often take our cultural cues from them I think its worth discussion. Also I think this subject and the laws in the UK should benefit from regular review so I just wondered how this forum felt about the current position of the UK law and whether, in light of medical advances, cultural changes etc they'd support a parliamentary discussion or debate, just so as a nation we can democratically decide whether we've still got it right.
As I said in opening, this is often a polarising subject and I do have strong feelings but am willing to hear all sides and its not really the sort of thing that goes down well at my dinner table (usually ends in did slamming doors, cold shoulders, and dinners)
t crazy right wing evangelicals, and thankfully we have very few of those....so far!(Broad strokes here): the current position is about right. It is set at 24 weeks being the point AIUI at which a baby is typically viable outside the mother without intervention.
Obviously there is a +/- around 24w dependent on individual cases, but you can’t legislate for individual cases.
Medical developments probably mean that now, vs the late 1960s, it is easier to help a pre 24w delivery survive. We spent some time in neonatal ICU with our eldest and my limited experience of that is that very premmie deliveries require a lot of medical intervention in the early and medium term and can then still suffer long term development difficulties. Of course babies born at term can also suffer such difficulties, but that is a vicissitude of life.
Obviously there is a +/- around 24w dependent on individual cases, but you can’t legislate for individual cases.
Medical developments probably mean that now, vs the late 1960s, it is easier to help a pre 24w delivery survive. We spent some time in neonatal ICU with our eldest and my limited experience of that is that very premmie deliveries require a lot of medical intervention in the early and medium term and can then still suffer long term development difficulties. Of course babies born at term can also suffer such difficulties, but that is a vicissitude of life.
I don't know why anyone would look at the US for guidance on this. They like to take things to both (stupid) extremes - chasing anything from total bans regardless of medical necessity through to full term abortion.
As it is people are mostly unaware of how legislation varies from country to country even inside Europe.
Between the various available options the UK - and the stretching of the 'medical necessity' justification - there isn't really much that would obviously need to change in the UK? The only real argument is around what constitutes necessity which has gradually merged with the 'on demand with counselling' bit.
As it is people are mostly unaware of how legislation varies from country to country even inside Europe.
Between the various available options the UK - and the stretching of the 'medical necessity' justification - there isn't really much that would obviously need to change in the UK? The only real argument is around what constitutes necessity which has gradually merged with the 'on demand with counselling' bit.
gregs656 said:
Don’t see what is happening in the US happening in the UK in the short/medium term. The UK is not a very religious country any more, if anything it seems like it will become increasingly secular. I guess that could change over the long term, but hopefully not.
Objections/reservations regarding the matter don’t necessarily have a religious background.Kawasicki said:
gregs656 said:
Don’t see what is happening in the US happening in the UK in the short/medium term. The UK is not a very religious country any more, if anything it seems like it will become increasingly secular. I guess that could change over the long term, but hopefully not.
Objections/reservations regarding the matter don’t necessarily have a religious background.I just don’t see that happening; while Britain has imported elements of US culture we haven’t imported the kind of Christian fundamentalism they seem increasingly in love with.
As a man who is never going to have an abortion but believes in a woman’s right to choose, I think Britain has it about right.
we have it right, pre 24 week without intervention survival is all but impossible also you can have an abortion but u do not have to ever so its a choice and that is it. Unwanted children become a burden an the state ends up picking up the peaces for a life time. Conversely we shpuld educate people on contraception and not rusing to have sex (i think we do but I hear kids to day are averaging 15 which is less than age of consent) so keep law as it is but educate young people
If anyone is interested:
In the US Roe v Wade established as a matter of federal (ie national) law a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion in certain circumstances. In Planned Parenthood v Casey the Supreme Court modified the approach to abortion by stating that prior to foetal viability states could not place undue burdens on a woman’s right to an abortion but after that point states could regulate abortions. Viability in Casey was found to be around 23-24 weeks. Each state can make its own abortion laws within that framework.
The uniquely American factors we don’t have are that our abortion law is written in statute whereas in America it is derived by the courts from a constitutional right to privacy. Because it is court-based law it is more open to challenge as the make up of the Supreme Court shifts right wards (although ironically the majority in Casey were Republican appointees).
Furthermore conservative states in the US have a political desire to push to expand their ability to regulate or remove the right to an abortion prior to foetal viability. We don’t have any similar bodies lobbying Parliament on a regular and vocal basis. Finally, the anti-abortion lobby in the US is as others have said almost wholly ideologically driven, it being an area where politics and religion intersect, and disinterested in scientific notions of foetal viability.
In the US Roe v Wade established as a matter of federal (ie national) law a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion in certain circumstances. In Planned Parenthood v Casey the Supreme Court modified the approach to abortion by stating that prior to foetal viability states could not place undue burdens on a woman’s right to an abortion but after that point states could regulate abortions. Viability in Casey was found to be around 23-24 weeks. Each state can make its own abortion laws within that framework.
The uniquely American factors we don’t have are that our abortion law is written in statute whereas in America it is derived by the courts from a constitutional right to privacy. Because it is court-based law it is more open to challenge as the make up of the Supreme Court shifts right wards (although ironically the majority in Casey were Republican appointees).
Furthermore conservative states in the US have a political desire to push to expand their ability to regulate or remove the right to an abortion prior to foetal viability. We don’t have any similar bodies lobbying Parliament on a regular and vocal basis. Finally, the anti-abortion lobby in the US is as others have said almost wholly ideologically driven, it being an area where politics and religion intersect, and disinterested in scientific notions of foetal viability.
BlackWidow13 said:
If anyone is interested:
In the US Roe v Wade established as a matter of federal (ie national) law a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion in certain circumstances. In Planned Parenthood v Casey the Supreme Court modified the approach to abortion by stating that prior to foetal viability states could not place undue burdens on a woman’s right to an abortion but after that point states could regulate abortions. Viability in Casey was found to be around 23-24 weeks. Each state can make its own abortion laws within that framework.
The uniquely American factors we don’t have are that our abortion law is written in statute whereas in America it is derived by the courts from a constitutional right to privacy. Because it is court-based law it is more open to challenge as the make up of the Supreme Court shifts right wards (although ironically the majority in Casey were Republican appointees).
Furthermore conservative states in the US have a political desire to push to expand their ability to regulate or remove the right to an abortion prior to foetal viability. We don’t have any similar bodies lobbying Parliament on a regular and vocal basis. Finally, the anti-abortion lobby in the US is as others have said almost wholly ideologically driven, it being an area where politics and religion intersect, and disinterested in scientific notions of foetal viability.
There was a significant number of, mainly, women arguing for a reduction of the 24-week limit in this country in the past. There was a lull, but it seemed to return a couple/few years ago. There's been nothing these last two years that I've read, but the research into viability of a 21-week-old foetus remains. I expect opposition to surface again. In the US Roe v Wade established as a matter of federal (ie national) law a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion in certain circumstances. In Planned Parenthood v Casey the Supreme Court modified the approach to abortion by stating that prior to foetal viability states could not place undue burdens on a woman’s right to an abortion but after that point states could regulate abortions. Viability in Casey was found to be around 23-24 weeks. Each state can make its own abortion laws within that framework.
The uniquely American factors we don’t have are that our abortion law is written in statute whereas in America it is derived by the courts from a constitutional right to privacy. Because it is court-based law it is more open to challenge as the make up of the Supreme Court shifts right wards (although ironically the majority in Casey were Republican appointees).
Furthermore conservative states in the US have a political desire to push to expand their ability to regulate or remove the right to an abortion prior to foetal viability. We don’t have any similar bodies lobbying Parliament on a regular and vocal basis. Finally, the anti-abortion lobby in the US is as others have said almost wholly ideologically driven, it being an area where politics and religion intersect, and disinterested in scientific notions of foetal viability.
I'm pro choice. However, when my wife fell pregnant at 40, she was put under pressure with regards an abortion, particularly at the time of an amniocentesis, by medical staff. She was quite upset by it all. I'm against what I saw as bullying.
I policed a number of abortion rallies (demonstrations) in the 70s. All turned violent, although it was a small minority in most. There seemed to be no difference in the pro- anti- people. They appeared interchangeable.
The US is IMHO becoming increasingly polarised into religious fundamentalism and secular groups. The pro and anti abortion movement that has grown to prominence over the last few years over there reflects the shrinking moderate middle ground. I can’t see this occurring in the UK as religion just isn’t as tied up with politics.
However on a more general level the hollowing out of the middle is a problem increasingly faced by all western democracies. This is for the future going to lead to a less stable world as the shift between different factions of power becomes evermore extreme.
However on a more general level the hollowing out of the middle is a problem increasingly faced by all western democracies. This is for the future going to lead to a less stable world as the shift between different factions of power becomes evermore extreme.
I think the UK laws are right and there is no need to change.
The worst thing about the situation in the US is the huge swathe of men that think they have the right to decide what a woman can do with her body and make choices on their behalf. If i was a woman I would like the right to decide what I do with my body without being criminalised or endangered for it. Religion has far too much of an impact on life and politics in the US
The worst thing about the situation in the US is the huge swathe of men that think they have the right to decide what a woman can do with her body and make choices on their behalf. If i was a woman I would like the right to decide what I do with my body without being criminalised or endangered for it. Religion has far too much of an impact on life and politics in the US
I think we're probably about right with how we do things.
My position is that women's bodies are their own business, and making someone have a child they did not want, intend, or plan for is bad for them, and bad for society as a whole.
America can keep its insane oppressive religious nonsense to itself, thanks.
My position is that women's bodies are their own business, and making someone have a child they did not want, intend, or plan for is bad for them, and bad for society as a whole.
America can keep its insane oppressive religious nonsense to itself, thanks.
One way of looking at this is to see it as a balance between the rights of the woman and those of the foetus.
That starts more or less totally in favour of the former and gradually shifts towards the latter as the pregnancy progresses.
Which is something like English law AIUI with a higher bar past 24 weeks.
Am aware of more entrenched views either side of this.
That starts more or less totally in favour of the former and gradually shifts towards the latter as the pregnancy progresses.
Which is something like English law AIUI with a higher bar past 24 weeks.
Am aware of more entrenched views either side of this.
Edited by standards on Saturday 19th June 18:40
Kawasicki said:
gregs656 said:
Don’t see what is happening in the US happening in the UK in the short/medium term. The UK is not a very religious country any more, if anything it seems like it will become increasingly secular. I guess that could change over the long term, but hopefully not.
Objections/reservations regarding the matter don’t necessarily have a religious background.BobsPigeon said:
First of all let me state that I hope this topic can be discussed in a respectful and mature manner, and it's not my wish to offend or upset anyone, this is a touchy subject, I know that.
But given there appears to be a legal step change (forward or backwards) in the US at the moment and we often take our cultural cues from them I think its worth discussion. Also I think this subject and the laws in the UK should benefit from regular review so I just wondered how this forum felt about the current position of the UK law and whether, in light of medical advances, cultural changes etc they'd support a parliamentary discussion or debate, just so as a nation we can democratically decide whether we've still got it right.
As I said in opening, this is often a polarising subject and I do have strong feelings but am willing to hear all sides and its not really the sort of thing that goes down well at my dinner table (usually ends in did slamming doors, cold shoulders, and dinners)
Parliament are not fit to decide anything at present. But given there appears to be a legal step change (forward or backwards) in the US at the moment and we often take our cultural cues from them I think its worth discussion. Also I think this subject and the laws in the UK should benefit from regular review so I just wondered how this forum felt about the current position of the UK law and whether, in light of medical advances, cultural changes etc they'd support a parliamentary discussion or debate, just so as a nation we can democratically decide whether we've still got it right.
As I said in opening, this is often a polarising subject and I do have strong feelings but am willing to hear all sides and its not really the sort of thing that goes down well at my dinner table (usually ends in did slamming doors, cold shoulders, and dinners)
Not aimed at the OP but Why are people so keen to tell others what to do?
InitialDave said:
I think we're probably about right with how we do things.
My position is that women's bodies are their own business, and making someone have a child they did not want, intend, or plan for is bad for them, and bad for society as a whole.
America can keep its insane oppressive religious nonsense to itself, thanks.
In todays climate I would say that a persons body is their own business. male or female. Its abhorrent to tell others what they should do or have done to their own bodies.My position is that women's bodies are their own business, and making someone have a child they did not want, intend, or plan for is bad for them, and bad for society as a whole.
America can keep its insane oppressive religious nonsense to itself, thanks.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff