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)
Thanks for the opinions everyone, that's the sort of range I was expecting, the majority seem to support the status quo which is probably in tune with the nation as a whole.
The intractability of religion from the debate is disappointing, religion played a blinding hand when involving itself with moral issues and judgments, its a shame, morality should be open for discussion without any reference to religion but I suppose there's is something innately human about looking for answers without rather within.
My personal opinion is that the UK law could be revisited with the addition of purely choice abortions added (I. E no need to give health reasons) as I suspect the reasons are almost always a matter of formality but I also think, rare as they are, late term abortions are problamatic both morally and practically for everyone involved including the women and I think the law should probably reflect that with some sort of higher barrier and more support to be met over 18 to 20 weeks.
The intractability of religion from the debate is disappointing, religion played a blinding hand when involving itself with moral issues and judgments, its a shame, morality should be open for discussion without any reference to religion but I suppose there's is something innately human about looking for answers without rather within.
My personal opinion is that the UK law could be revisited with the addition of purely choice abortions added (I. E no need to give health reasons) as I suspect the reasons are almost always a matter of formality but I also think, rare as they are, late term abortions are problamatic both morally and practically for everyone involved including the women and I think the law should probably reflect that with some sort of higher barrier and more support to be met over 18 to 20 weeks.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
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.
You're correct and this is handled in law by the "Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990" Ianal... But it's my understanding that this act in 1990 was debated and passed in conjunction with the amendments to the abortion laws in that year. 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
It's a scary thought to those of us in middle age but 1990 was 31 years ago and I think it's fair to say that medical technology, cultural understandings and people's opinion could have changed significantly since then.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 f
king. Harry Flashman said:
Esceptico said:
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?
I think you are focusing on "life". I think the real issue at debate is whether a foetus is "life to which rights should attach".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?
No one is arguing that protozoan aren't life forms, and no one is arguing that they should have rights.
king slippers again you're the opitamy of evil... Apparently. Now I don't have the answers her, but a discussion about it can't do any harm. I think we all agree there is a shade of grey issue going on, people just don't seem to agree where to draw the lines. Either end of the spectrum would appear unsuitable.
HM-2 said:
Esceptico said:
You are arbitrarily deciding what counts as human
A foetus does not fit the vast majority of definitions for "human". The onus is on you to provide a working definition that it does fit in order for this assertion to be valid.I'm not claiming to be able to pin the take on this donkey, and to be fair to Esceptico neither is he, he's just taken a logical position and said its aswell to be at day 1 than day 150 or day 300.
Infantacide was practiced widely in the UK and wasn't treated as murder until modern history... Our moral view changes over time, long periods of time but they're not stagnant absolutes. We don't know who will be on the right side of this argument, but you can't just assume the status quo will last.
AJL308 said:
BobsPigeon said:
HM-2 said:
Esceptico said:
You are arbitrarily deciding what counts as human
A foetus does not fit the vast majority of definitions for "human". The onus is on you to provide a working definition that it does fit in order for this assertion to be valid.I'm not claiming to be able to pin the take on this donkey, and to be fair to Esceptico neither is he, he's just taken a logical position and said its aswell to be at day 1 than day 150 or day 300.
Infantacide was practiced widely in the UK and wasn't treated as murder until modern history... Our moral view changes over time, long periods of time but they're not stagnant absolutes. We don't know who will be on the right side of this argument, but you can't just assume the status quo will last.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind
The mirror with dot on forehead test is often the crudest example.
AJL308 said:
I kind of knew what you were getting at. The point is that in the context of an abortion discussion any type of awareness is what we are getting at. Pre-12 weeks there is no possibility of any awareness at all as there simply is not the means for it to be present. It's a collection of cells and not a person.
OK, my point was that it's probably fair to say that about a 1 week old baby as well but you can't terminate that "thing" legally... The law is a frame work, a compromised moral position to offer an acceptable position for the majority, that's how democracy should work. I'm not claiming to know when full legal rights should be afforded to the baby/feautus but my feeling is it somewhere before 24 weeks and probably after 12 weeks, that's just my opinion and feelings on the matter. You seem to be more secure in your opinion of when a feautus becomes a baby, I'm not sure I understand where your confidence comes from. I'm not entirely convinced the law is correct at this juncture, you seem to be saying you'd be happy if it extended the other way into the 3rd trimester. Correct?
Ntv said:
There is at least a moral argument for aligning the date with the date from which many foetuses can be kept alive outside the womb. Now, that might not be an absolute ... imagine that date was 1 week ... though it seems to me a relevant moral consideration.
Well if that were the case a solution would be to remove the embryo from the womb at 1 week and allow it to gestate exutero under the sponsorship of someone who did want a baby. Or the state. If this was medically possible I suspect pretty soon all babies would be brought into the world like this and it would be like that Brave New World book and we'd all be much happier, except those that weren't.
lrdisco said:
Oh dear. Always about “the unborn child”.
Please stop with the pseudo philosophy. Abortion laws are just another religious, misogynistic way for men to control women.
America is an awful place where gun massacres are just swept under the carpet and the murder of doctors who practice in abortion clinics are welcomed by large parts of the population.
It’s the woman’s right to control her body in all ways.
Hyperbolic nonsense, this thread was started in good faith to discuss the legality of abortion. Please stop with the pseudo philosophy. Abortion laws are just another religious, misogynistic way for men to control women.
America is an awful place where gun massacres are just swept under the carpet and the murder of doctors who practice in abortion clinics are welcomed by large parts of the population.
It’s the woman’s right to control her body in all ways.
In law nobody has the "right" to control there own body to the detriment of others or wider society, this was pretty much concluded by Hobbes and Locke 300+ years ago and no one's been able to really undermine or argue social contract theory since so I doubt your bleating is going to add anything.
InitialDave said:
BobsPigeon said:
Hyperbolic nonsense, this thread was started in good faith to discuss the legality of abortion.
In law nobody has the "right" to control there own body to the detriment of others or wider society, this was pretty much concluded by Hobbes and Locke 300+ years ago and no one's been able to really undermine or argue social contract theory since so I doubt your bleating is going to add anything.
Forcing women to have an unwanted child, particularly somewhere which is so hostile to supporting or funding the care of that child, very solidly fits into "to the detriment of others or wider society".In law nobody has the "right" to control there own body to the detriment of others or wider society, this was pretty much concluded by Hobbes and Locke 300+ years ago and no one's been able to really undermine or argue social contract theory since so I doubt your bleating is going to add anything.
The push to restrict abortion as much as possible is absolutely nothing to do with the life of a potential child, if it were, they'd actually do something to make sure said child can have a good life.
It's about trying to enforce a certain viewpoint on how people should live their lives, an attitude that you shouldn't be having sex unless you're married and able to support a child, and that not meeting any part of this metric (sex outside of marriage, pregnancy outside of marriage, lacking the resources to support a child etc etc) is a direct moral failing on your part.
But I suspect it's not quite as clear cut as your attempting to make it... I find myself quoting this line more and more these days "Tyrrany is the deliberate removal of nuance" - Albert Maysles
This argument is much more nuanced, I have no religious or theological affiliation what so ever and I am quite troubled by the current UK abortion law for the arguments I've laid out previously in this thread. (Fwiw I also think the new Texas situation is bat s
t)Those of us who have the ability/privilege/time to take a dispassionate and thoughtful view of this subject shouldn't be trying to frame it in the most extremists terms of those that don't have that privilege and need to, for whatever reason, cling to the extreme positions.
Morality is a floating vessel that moves over time and in response to circumstances and environmental changes. I'm sick of good thoughtful human enquiry being shouted down by bigoted extremism.
Bill said:
BobsPigeon said:
Hyperbolic nonsense, this thread was started in good faith to discuss the legality of abortion.
In law nobody has the "right" to control there own body to the detriment of others or wider society, this was pretty much concluded by Hobbes and Locke 300+ years ago and no one's been able to really undermine or argue social contract theory since so I doubt your bleating is going to add anything.
Fascinating passive aggressive attempt to shut down discussion.In law nobody has the "right" to control there own body to the detriment of others or wider society, this was pretty much concluded by Hobbes and Locke 300+ years ago and no one's been able to really undermine or argue social contract theory since so I doubt your bleating is going to add anything.
Everyone has the right to control their body when it has no detrimental effect on others or society. Currently in the UK that's up to 24 weeks post conception, or beyond if the risk to the mother or baby is high. Which seems about right IMO.
Legal abortion is preferable to illegal abortion or obliging women to risk their health carrying an unwanted child to term.
The post 24 week abortions that take place are argued on grounds of medical ethics as much as law, doctors make clinical calls day in day out about where the risks and rewards of medical interventions lie and I'm more than happy to let that continue, I have much more faith in their integrity than I would of law makers and politicians.
Bill said:
BobsPigeon said:
Ok, fair enough, but the 24 weeks is an arbitrary point, I'm not arguing for 6 weeks or 12 weeks but given changing medical technology and social attitudes to healthcare and disability 24 weeks can easily be argued as too late. To dismiss that argument is in itself unreasonable and becomes rhetorical very quickly.
What argument? You haven't made any reasoned explanation as to why 24 weeks is too late, merely tried to claim the moral high ground to shut others down.How many births at 24 weeks happen, what proportion survive? And what proportion of those have some form of disability?
And then how many abortions are carried out in the UK between, say, 20&24 weeks gestation?
Its true that few abortions in the UK occur post 20 weeks, it's something like 90% occur before week 13... But there is still a few thousand every year post 18 weeks.
Like I said, attitudes to disability are changing, you're just going to have to accept that and you need to accept that modern medicine means people born very premature, around 24 weeks, can be considered as viable human life.
I haven't claimed any moral high ground I'm attempting to discuss the failing of the 1967 abortion act, which seems outdated to me.
Evanivitch said:
Northernboy said:
Your argument if taken at face value implies that abortion is acceptable right up to the moment of birth.
Is that your position? If not then you agree that society has a right to draw a line somewhere before birth, and that the argument is then about where the line should be drawn.
From a deeply philosophical position, why does birth make the difference?Is that your position? If not then you agree that society has a right to draw a line somewhere before birth, and that the argument is then about where the line should be drawn.
The Wikipedia article on infantacide is interesting. Also interesting the difference in attitude to infantacide between the genders, perhaps there is a feeling amongst women that they own their babies or are tied to them in a way men don't, seems reasonable.
Someone alluded to the trolley problem above, we have an innate reaction to icky problems as humans. I'm sure many of us aren't suited to working in abattoirs but quite happy to eat bacon butties, it's a form of dishonesty but a simple human truth that the practical ickiness of an act often trumps any underlying moral or philosophical reasoning for it.
eldar said:
BobsPigeon said:
Hyperbolic nonsense, this thread was started in good faith to discuss the legality of abortion.
In law nobody has the "right" to control there own body to the detriment of others or wider society, this was pretty much concluded by Hobbes and Locke 300+ years ago and no one's been able to really undermine or argue social contract theory since so I doubt your bleating is going to add anything.
300 years ago women were tortured and killed for being witches.In law nobody has the "right" to control there own body to the detriment of others or wider society, this was pretty much concluded by Hobbes and Locke 300+ years ago and no one's been able to really undermine or argue social contract theory since so I doubt your bleating is going to add anything.
The right to remain unvaccinated to the possible detriment of others is embedded in law.
At the risk of coming across as some sort of insane incel, which I'm definitely not, I think the idea that abortion laws are some sort of integral part of women's liberation from the yoke of patriarchal oppression is a fairly weak trope.
I think you could definitely argue that of the pill and other methods of birth control and as the cultural shift of the 60s and early 70s caused such a jamboree of new cultural freedoms it all gets mashed together with hindsight, but I'm deeply concerned that abortion should be treated as a means of birth control, and that is not the purpose of the 1967 act as far as I can tell. The purpose of the act is to prevent women suffering "harm" not suffering a pregnancy.
Several posters asking above what my argument actually is. It's partly to do with the shift in viability given medical advances, so from that point of view yes it is about dates, a reduction to 18 weeks before the higher medical requirement threshold would, I think, be more reasonable.
But more it's about the silly and dishonest ambiguity of the current UK law where we effectively have abortion on request up to 24 weeks even though that's not a reasonable reading of the law even if it is a literal and logical one, especially again given medical advances which means the risk of carrying a pregnancy full term have been massively reduced since the 1960s.
Biggy Stardust said:
Bill said:
What would be your cut off?
Mine would be when the individual is capable of independent life away from the mother. It's as good a definition as any & works for my ethics.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff