UK Abortion Law

[ZedLeg]

Didn’t take this thread long to devolve into exactly the kind of semantic arguments that leads to the situation in the US where women are dehumanised vessels for offspring.

[BobsPigeon]

ZedLeg said:

Didn’t take this thread long to devolve into exactly the kind of semantic arguments that leads to the situation in the US where women are dehumanised vessels for offspring.

Way to avoid hyperbole dude.

[ChocolateFrog]

oddman said:

Banning/limiting it doesn't stop it.

I was a trainee for a gynaecologist who practised before the '67 Act. Quite a conservative chap in many ways but he'd seen enough young women suffer and die of haemorrhage and septicaemia after illegal abortions to make him 'pro life' and pro choice.

Problem with bringing the opportunity down to 20 weeks is that late terminations are usually for dreadful foetal abnormalities and for the kind of women who present late due to fear, denial low IQ and other vulnerabilities

Plenty above making good points about screening. Lots of parents have blood tests and trot along to scans 'to make sure the baby is all right' and to get pretty pictures. Little do they realise that the only 'treatment' on offer for some abnormalities is termination.

Generally societies which are fairest (ie smallest interquartile range in income distribution) have the lowest rate of unwanted pregnancies (suicide addcition obesity etc) - The placard wavers on the religious right don't seem interested in addressing this.

We were under no illusion that if if something serious cropped up on the scan we'd have an abortion.

Many foetal abnormalities are life sentences for the parents and we didn't want that, lucky we live in a country that facilitates that wish and even luckier that we ended up with a healthy baby.

[ZedLeg]

What would you call it when legislation has been pushed that would see women subject to criminal investigation for having a miscarriage?

[ChocolateFrog]

ZedLeg said:

What would you call it when legislation has been pushed that would see women subject to criminal investigation for having a miscarriage?

US Senete?

[BobsPigeon]

ZedLeg said:

What would you call it when legislation has been pushed that would see women subject to criminal investigation for having a miscarriage?

Again I must stress IANAL, but I think that under current UK legislation it would be illegal to induce a miscarriage without the relevant medical advice/intervention/supervision. Women seeking terminations in the UK can only do it on medical grounds, for those that decide they want one to abort a healthy featus, when they are in fact physically healthy, they have to claim that the pregnancy and birth will cause them undue/unbearable physical and mental health issues.

[HM-2]

BobsPigeon said:

Women seeking terminations in the UK can only do it on medical grounds, for those that decide they want one to abort a healthy featus, when they are in fact physically healthy, they have to claim that the pregnancy and birth will cause them undue/unbearable physical and mental health issues.

My understanding was that the requirements to provide a truly validated justification for abortion only exist if its post 24 weeks. Before 24 weeks essentially no real restrictions exist and, as long as the proper process is followed, is is essentially elective and entirely at the discretion of the person involved. This under Ground C of the Abortion Act:

That the pregnancy has NOT exceeded its 24th week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.

Because the physical risks of termination via medically induced abortion are very low, and the mental health risks of an unwanted pregnancy vastly outweigh the implications of a typical termination, Ground C essentially functions to legalise almost all elective abortions under 24 weeks as long as the recipient is sound of mind and makes the decision of their own free will.

[b0rk]

ZedLeg said:

What would you call it when legislation has been pushed that would see women subject to criminal investigation for having a miscarriage?

Are you thinking of Georgia HB481? Which yes theoretically criminalises miscarriages (and out of state abortions).

bristolbaron said:

What a phrase to use in this thread!

Yeah, in hindsight I could have used better wording, but the point on hollowing of middles wasn't what happens with abortions rather political movements.

[oddman]

ChocolateFrog said:

We were under no illusion that if if something serious cropped up on the scan we'd have an abortion.

Many foetal abnormalities are life sentences for the parents and we didn't want that, lucky we live in a country that facilitates that wish and even luckier that we ended up with a healthy baby.

Sounds like you had the right attitude going in. It's a deadly serious process which a lot of naive parents treat as their first photo opportunity.

My son was off the scale for Downs risk on the triple test and the missus was encouraged to have amnio. Fortunately that result was OK. From the conversations we had at the time, although she is normally a very rational and clear sighted decision maker, she was definitely 'following process' without understanding the next steps ahead.

I support a woman's right to choose termination and I have no issue with others' decisions in re termination for Downs and would certainly support termination of my (hypothetical) non viable or very disabled foetus but personally struggle with the idea of termination on grounds of Downs alone.

I am probably one of the few people here who has performed late terminations and delivered still born babies and they are certainly the grimmest experiences of my career.

[Ayahuasca]

Vanden Saab said:

If a person is created at the moment of conception then we have to assume you are also against the morning after pill.

Also the IUD contraceptive device that works by dislodging fertilised eggs from the uterus.

[Biker 1]

Like many other comments here, I think we have it about right here. As soon as religion rears its head, problems ensue. Viz Eire & various other countries.
Personally it boils down to a couple of things:

If a woman becomes pregnant due to rape, surely it is her choice to abort?

If there is a clear & present danger to the mother's life due to pregnancy complications or a high chance of the child being born with 'abnormal' conditions, then again, abortion should be allowed.

However, pregnancy as a result of stupidity/naivety is a very grey area.

[Trackdayer]

BobsPigeon said:

Again I must stress IANAL

That's one way to avoid pregnancy

[andyeds1234]

We could follow good wholesome US Christian values, where every life is sacred, from the point of conception, all the way up to the point that he or she announces that they are Gay.

I think we strike a fair balance, not overly hindered by Christian values, instead focusing on the health and well-being of the people involved.

Edited by andyeds1234 on Sunday 20th June 19:37

[TwigtheWonderkid]

BobsPigeon said:

I'm not entirely convinced by your argument about recreational sex above either, I'm no evolutionary phychologist either but I'm not sure your the suggestion that recreational sex (or any other recreational activities) don't encode some sort of deeper cultural or biological imperative.

I didn't use the term recreational sex. I just stated that humans, along with the other 4 great apes, and some of the more intelligent marine mammals, have evolved to use sex as something way beyond a tool for procreation, to the extent that procreation isn't even the primary function of sex in humans. This seems pretty clear given the level of sexual activity in humans compared to the number of times that it leads or can lead to pregnancy.

The church has been keen to claim that sex is purely for procreation as a way of demonising homosexuality, and latterly to argue against gay marriage, yet those same churches would have no issue in marrying a widow and widower in their 60s.

[BobsPigeon]

HM-2 said:

BobsPigeon said:

Women seeking terminations in the UK can only do it on medical grounds, for those that decide they want one to abort a healthy featus, when they are in fact physically healthy, they have to claim that the pregnancy and birth will cause them undue/unbearable physical and mental health issues.

My understanding was that the requirements to provide a truly validated justification for abortion only exist if its post 24 weeks. Before 24 weeks essentially no real restrictions exist and, as long as the proper process is followed, is is essentially elective and entirely at the discretion of the person involved. This under Ground C of the Abortion Act:

That the pregnancy has NOT exceeded its 24th week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.

Because the physical risks of termination via medically induced abortion are very low, and the mental health risks of an unwanted pregnancy vastly outweigh the implications of a typical termination, Ground C essentially functions to legalise almost all elective abortions under 24 weeks as long as the recipient is sound of mind and makes the decision of their own free will.

I don't think it's supposed to be read like that, or if it is it can be read as...

You can terminate a pregnancy if you're going to suffer more or risk suffering more by not terminating... But I'm not sure that should be read as a purely mathematical statement of risk, a healthy women carrying a healthy baby to full term is also pretty low risk... Not zero risk obviously... Perhaps lower than aborting, but I'm sure there's individual cases where for physical or mental reasons a women would have been better of carrying to full term than aborting... Obviously knowing the risk of that before hand is impossible, a meta data mathematical reasoning isn't enough for me I'm afraid.

If you look on Wikipedia you'll see the UK (excluding NI) is not considered to be a state where "no questions asked" elective abortion is legal as it is currently (or was) in most US states.

It's this sort of legal clarity that I think a debate on amending the law could achieve.

[Gecko1978]

Esceptico said:

Any discussion about abortion will throw up oft repeated fallacies.

Medical practitioners cannot tell you what a “person” is. The definition of “person” is done by society. In the past non white, Jews and gypsies (amongst others) have not been treated as persons. Medical “evidence” was used to support such treatment.

A new life comes into existence at conception. The unique genetic information that will largely determine how that new life grows is set at that time (and certainly by the time the pregnancy is detectable). That new life will continue until death, whether that is in the womb or a hundred years after birth.

The most obvious and natural time to treat a person as coming into being is conception.

When I look at my dog I don’t wonder when he became a dog. It seems clear to me he became a dog at conception and he is still one now.

If you are stating that humans are special so that we have to a special distinction between people and non people you need to provide the argument and evidence for it.

I kind of agree except I would say at birth till then its a collection of cells part of the mother. If was being really harsh I could liken it to cancer. One set of cells from me can after some time become another person but untill it does its just part of me.

In the future (or now in all likelihood) we might be able to create a human without a host and again we will have to ask when its alive etc when do the cells in the test tube become more then just an experiment.

[BobsPigeon]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

BobsPigeon said:

I'm not entirely convinced by your argument about recreational sex above either, I'm no evolutionary phychologist either but I'm not sure your the suggestion that recreational sex (or any other recreational activities) don't encode some sort of deeper cultural or biological imperative.

I didn't use the term recreational sex. I just stated that humans, along with the other 4 great apes, and some of the more intelligent marine mammals, have evolved to use sex as something way beyond a tool for procreation, to the extent that procreation isn't even the primary function of sex in humans. This seems pretty clear given the level of sexual activity in humans compared to the number of times that it leads or can lead to pregnancy.

The church has been keen to claim that sex is purely for procreation as a way of demonising homosexuality, and latterly to argue against gay marriage, yet those same churches would have no issue in marrying a widow and widower in their 60s.

I don't really give much credence to what the church say, they've proven to be a poor witness in this debate and moral matters in general.

But I'm given to thinking that virtually everything we do (I can't speak for the chimps or bonobos) is in some way related to the continuance of our genetic line. And in that sense, whether we know or accept it it, each and every time we have sex (even homosexual sex I'd argue) we are giving way to some part of our operating system that is interrupting the day to day to remind us we need to keep fking.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

BobsPigeon said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

BobsPigeon said:

I'm not entirely convinced by your argument about recreational sex above either, I'm no evolutionary phychologist either but I'm not sure your the suggestion that recreational sex (or any other recreational activities) don't encode some sort of deeper cultural or biological imperative.

I didn't use the term recreational sex. I just stated that humans, along with the other 4 great apes, and some of the more intelligent marine mammals, have evolved to use sex as something way beyond a tool for procreation, to the extent that procreation isn't even the primary function of sex in humans. This seems pretty clear given the level of sexual activity in humans compared to the number of times that it leads or can lead to pregnancy.

The church has been keen to claim that sex is purely for procreation as a way of demonising homosexuality, and latterly to argue against gay marriage, yet those same churches would have no issue in marrying a widow and widower in their 60s.

I don't really give much credence to what the church say, they've proven to be a poor witness in this debate and moral matters in general.

But I'm given to thinking that virtually everything we do (I can't speak for the chimps or bonobos) is in some way related to the continuance of our genetic line. And in that sense, whether we know or accept it it, each and every time we have sex (even homosexual sex I'd argue) we are giving way to some part of our operating system that is interrupting the day to day to remind us we need to keep fking.

Well if you take it to that extreme, given that everything we do is somehow about continuing to survive as a species, you could say we eat for procreation, as without food we wouldn't have energy for sex.

The point is, most mammals have sex to reproduce, and for no other reason. Humans aren't like that. We have sex for social bonding, stress relief, or whatever reason. We've evolved that way. Just like the other great apes we are closely related to.

[Esceptico]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

roger.mellie said:

Esceptico said:

It is pretty clear that life starts at conception (given any reasonable, scientific definition of life). Some definitions of legal person or human with rights don’t start at conception. The former is biology the latter is politic

Stop saying that like it’s an indisputable fact. It isn’t and most of the rest of your argument immediately falls apart if you base it on that assumption.

Agreed. A one day old clutch of cells, that will eventually grow into a new human, is a far less sophisticated lifeform than an established cancerous tumour, which we wouldn't hesitate to cut out.

The other issue with the "life begins at conception" view is that it gets you into a load of hot water when it comes to IVF, stored embryos etc. What's their status? Most embryos stored for IVF will never be used, so what about their rights. Embryos are created after mum has had her eggs extracted and dad has provided a sperm sample, yet neither are there at the time. At the point of conception, the parents are on their way home from hospital on the tube, or already at home. What if they don't wish to proceed, suddenly can't afford it, die in an accident before implantation?

You get into a legal quagmire believing that those embryos, a clutch of maybe 4 or 8 cells, are actually human beings.

Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Sunday 20th June 15:40

This is typical backwards arguing. The thought that IVF involves creating and then destroying people is unpalatable - so let’s just not call them people.

Your argument is rather odd to be honest. The vast majority of life on earth is made up of single cell organisms. Most of the history of life on Earth there were only single cell organisms. Yes you claim that a human in its earliest phase (with more than one cell) is not alive? What does that say about most of life on Earth then?

[Esceptico]

roger.mellie said:

What do you understand by conception? The sperm fuses with the egg and then that single cell starts to divide. The new cells continue to divide with the division process changing so that cells become more differentiated. However all the cells contain the same DNA and that DNA differs from the two parents.

You keep denying that a new, separate life (different from either parent cell ie sperm and egg) comes into existence at conception but then never offer an explanation of why it doesn’t or give an alternative that makes more sense.