American bombshell? Roe vs. Wade....

[mudsticks]

The vast majority of abortions are early, elective abortions. It's much easier for the debate to be centred on the issues of late term abortions, or abortion because of rape, though because they are understandably more emotive.

The vast majority of abortions are early abortions of accidental pregnancies concerning girls and women who don't wish to be pregnant - for a myriad of reasons. And we need to be ok about saying that is perfectly acceptable because, apart from those with a 'life starts at conception' religious view, we all know a 3 week pregnancy is not the same as an 8 and a half month one.

It's possible to have an abortion policy that weighs the rights of the woman as primary, and yet also accommodates the increasing rights of a foetus as a pregnancy progresses. We have it in the UK pretty much.

Well we might like to think we're super enlightened in this country compared to the US but did you see this .??

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-and-wales-after-miscarriages-and-stillbirths


Abortion (even early term) is still illegal in this country..
Unless you have permission from two doctors..
I can totally see the point of safeguarding against coercion of women who may be being persuaded into a termination, but I don't believe that's necessarily why the 'two doctors' rule is applied..

We're still being treated as less than fully mentally competent adults with less than full rights around our own bodies..

This is a historical hang over of course ..
Abortion policy is just one of many things that reinforces our status as 'second class' citizens under the patriachy.

And once more for those at the back..
There's not even good religious precedent for being anti abortion if religion is your thing..

https://theconversation.com/the-bib...-political-decision-not-a-biblical-one-185858


Amplifying the voices of women is really really important in all this..

Please take note...

It's deeply disingenuous stuff - abortion emphatically does not make women miserable, whilst the denial of reproductive autonomy does. So please can forced birthers stop pretending to care about women's emotional wellbeing?

 

[AuroraSaab]

I don't object to the 2 doctors regulation. I think it provides a safeguard against doctors who would bow to pressure to approve an abortion that they knew a woman was coerced into, or would even do so for financial gain. There are UK doctors who have happily performed fgm on girls or who will perform virginity tests for a price. It's only until fairly recently that 'virginity restoring' operations were willingly performed by UK surgeons.

Like the regs introduced after Shipman, requiring 2 doctors to sign brings to light any unusual activity.

 

[winjim]

I don't object to the 2 doctors regulation. I think it provides a safeguard against doctors who would bow to pressure to approve an abortion that they knew a woman was coerced into, or would even do so for financial gain. There are UK doctors who have happily performed fgm on girls or who will perform virginity tests for a price. It's only until fairly recently that 'virginity restoring' operations were willingly performed by UK surgeons.

Like the regs introduced after Shipman, requiring 2 doctors to sign brings to light any unusual activity.

I think if we're going to have the two doctors regulation it might make sense to flip it around though. So instead of them agreeing that continuing the pregnancy would cause physical or psychological harm, which AIUI is the current situation, they should have to agree that there is not a good reason to not terminate the pregnancy.

That's a bit wordy and full of double negatives but I can phrase it: 'Is there a good reason to deny the woman's choice?', not 'is there a good reason to agree to it?'. It shifts the emphasis so that the default is that a woman's choice is always respected unless there's a good reason not to.

 

[mudsticks]

I think if we're going to have the two doctors regulation it might make sense to flip it around though. So instead of them agreeing that continuing the pregnancy would cause physical or psychological harm, which AIUI is the current situation, they should have to agree that there is not a good reason to not terminate the pregnancy.

That's a bit wordy and full of double negatives but I can phrase it: 'Is there a good reason to deny the woman's choice?', not 'is there a good reason to agree to it?'. It shifts the emphasis so that the default is that a woman's choice is always respected unless there's a good reason not to.

Yup that's my feeling too.

Although (of course) I'm totally in favour of women no longer feeling pressured or coerced into any bodily event, medical, sexual or otherwise..

If we're to have two doctors having to agree to any medical procedure to 'safeguard against coercion'

Then that should apply to any elective procedure, reproductive or otherwise..

Vascectomy ?

Two doctors permission..

Breast reduction??

Two doctors..

Stetilisation??

Two doctors..

And so on..

The two doctors is in place mainly because abortion is still illegal in this country .

Not to safeguard against coercion..

Of course fight against fgm, unnecessary circumcision, coercion and violence in relationships.. etc etc.

But that's a wider society problem of putting cultural and social 'norms' about. bodily autonomy..

None if it is OK, but doesn't mean that 'two doctors' 'permission' to procure an (early term) abortion should stand .

To me it's just another way of disempowering women, and telling them they shouldn't have the final choice over what happens to their own bodies..

 

[winjim]

So. Say a woman is refused an abortion by two doctors because they believe there has been coercion.

What happens next?

 

[spen666]

I think if we're going to have the two doctors regulation it might make sense to flip it around though. So instead of them agreeing that continuing the pregnancy would cause physical or psychological harm, which AIUI is the current situation, they should have to agree that there is not a good reason to not terminate the pregnancy.

That's a bit wordy and full of double negatives but I can phrase it: 'Is there a good reason to deny the woman's choice?', not 'is there a good reason to agree to it?'. It shifts the emphasis so that the default is that a woman's choice is always respected unless there's a good reason not to.

So, that means any woman who wants a baby needs 2 doctors to certify there is not a good reason to terminate the pregnancy?

Think you haven't actually thought your idea through.
That is even more denying woman a choice than current position

 

[winjim]

So, that means any woman who wants a baby needs 2 doctors to certify there is not a good reason to terminate the pregnancy?

Think you haven't actually thought your idea through.
That is even more denying woman a choice than current position

What? Why would a woman who wants a baby, exceptional circumstances notwithstanding, be seeking an abortion?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Yup that's my feeling too.

Although (of course) I'm totally in favour of women no longer feeling pressured or coerced into any bodily event, medical, sexual or otherwise..

If we're to have two doctors having to agree to any medical procedure to 'safeguard against coercion'

Then that should apply to any elective procedure, reproductive or otherwise..

Vascectomy ?

Two doctors permission..

Breast reduction??

Two doctors..

Stetilisation??

Two doctors..

And so on..

The two doctors is in place mainly because abortion is still illegal in this country .

Not to safeguard against coercion..

Of course fight against fgm, unnecessary circumcision, coercion and violence in relationships.. etc etc.

But that's a wider society problem of putting cultural and social 'norms' about. bodily autonomy..

None if it is OK, but doesn't mean that 'two doctors' 'permission' to procure an (early term) abortion should stand .

To me it's just another way of disempowering women, and telling them they shouldn't have the final choice over what happens to their own bodies..

Perhaps that's the origin of the rule, but whilst we are still in a situation where women can and are pressured into abortion I think it provides a useful safeguard.

We don't have 100% bodily autonomy in the UK. We routinely restrict medical procedures not out of disempowering people but because they might regret it or not appreciate the risks involved. If you are under 25 you would struggle to find a UK surgeon to perform a sterilisation or a vasectomy on you at all. We don't allow people to sell their kidneys or be paid surrogates either.

There's a whole issue of informed consent that is easier to side step if only one doctor is involved.

The system seems to work quite well over here. If there were only one doctor's signature required I can imagine a scenario where certain doctors would develop a lucrative sideline in approving and performing late term abortion for women who were under duress.

I would agree that there are grounds for looking at changing these regulations in relation to early stage abortion.

 

[winjim]

I think the issue of coercion is a complicated one and potentially lies outside the scope of practice of medical professionals. I don't want to indulge in too much whataboutery but I can imagine situations where a properly conducted abortion might be preferable to the potential alternatives for a woman under duress. It's not a very nice circumstance to have to think about and I don't know what the proper course of action should be. I'm also aware of my own statement regarding exceptions and complications and muddying the waters...

 

[AuroraSaab]

And of course it actually works the other way most of the time ...... woman and young girls under duress from husbands and family, forced to endure pregnancy after pregnancy because they aren't allowed access to contraception nevermind abortion.

 

[mudsticks]

So. Say a woman is refused an abortion by two doctors because they believe there has been coercion.

What happens next?

Exactly..

It's symptomatic of this almost baked in idea that a woman must surely want to be pregnant, bear children, have a family by default..

If she doesn't then there must be a lack of something about her ..

I use contraception in order that I can enjoy a happy normal sex life (notwithstanding the abstinence promoters) , I don't wish to become pregnant thanks..

But then i accidently fall pregnant, because the contraception has failed..
And for some reason I've missed the 'window' for using morning after medication*.

I still don't wish to be pregnant .

Why then is it assumed that I now suddenly don't know my own mind about wishing not to be pregnant.??
I find it insulting that I'm suddenly considered less than competent to make this decision for myself, about continuing this pregnancy....

Of course we should address the coercion issue..
Either the coercion to terminate or to carry the pregnancy.

Who is speaking up for the rights of women who are pressurised not to terminate.??

Are two doctors required to ensure she really really wants this child ??

*And then they come for that too??

Perhaps that's the origin of the rule, but whilst we are still in a situation where women can and are pressured into abortion I think it provides a useful safeguard.

We don't have 100% bodily autonomy in the UK. We routinely restrict medical procedures not out of disempowering people but because they might regret it or not appreciate the risks involved. If you are under 25 you would struggle to find a UK surgeon to perform a sterilisation or a vasectomy on you at all. We don't allow people to sell their kidneys or be paid surrogates either.

There's a whole issue of informed consent that is easier to side step if only one doctor is involved.

The system seems to work quite well over here. If there were only one doctor's signature required I can imagine a scenario where certain doctors would develop a lucrative sideline in approving and performing late term abortion for women who were under duress.

I would agree that there are grounds for looking at changing these regulations in relation to early stage abortion.

Don't forget many women are also pressurised into not terminating when they would prefer to have done so..

We need to address that pressure too.

Late term abortion is already restricted under law, so removing the two doctor rule for early terminations wouldn't precipitate a greater number of them imo..

 

[mudsticks]

So, that means any woman who wants a baby needs 2 doctors to certify there is not a good reason to terminate the pregnancy?

Think you haven't actually thought your idea through.
That is even more denying woman a choice than current position

I may be wrong,
But I think Jim was performing what is known as a 'thought experiment' here.

By turning the situation around it is revealed that there's no logic or reason in either case, for requiring two doctors permission ..

If we are to grant full freedom of fertility choice to women..

And I'm hoping that is what people want.??

An article I posted upthread revealed that a not inconsiderable number of women have reported being coerced over their fertility choices .

In this country - the UK - not just in The States, where we imagine things are far worse .

That may (or may not) come as a shock to some guys on here .

Using the two doctors rule as a supposed 'safeguard' is brushing under the carpet that much larger issue of women being coerced..

Either over their fertility choices .

Or elsewhere - bodily autonomy and true consent, doesn't stop at choosing whether or not to bear a child.

Sadly it's all too common in other parts of their lives.
That needs recognising and addressing properly.

Men need to take a far greater active role in facing up to, and tackling this problem.

 

[spen666]

......

Men need to take a far greater active role in facing up to, and tackling this problem.

The problem is that when men do try to play a role, they are told its nothing to do with them and its a women's right, her body, her issues etc


You can't call men out for not getting active when they are shouted down for expressing views.


Its one or the other

 

[mudsticks]

The problem is that when men do try to play a role, they are told its nothing to do with them and its a women's right, her body, her issues etc


You can't call men out for not getting active when they are shouted down for expressing views.


Its one or the other

I'm talking about the overall issue of coercion of women, the violence done to them, in various forms.

And the diminishing of their rights..
Not about whether or not they should have terminations, of course that's up to them, their bodies their rights.

I've never come across any man being 'shouted down' for genuinely upholding women's rights..

So long as he's not trying to tell women, how to do it.

And anyway, it's men who need to look to the behaviour and attitudes of other men, and sort that..

It's not about men telling women , what's what.

 

[winjim]

I may be wrong,
But I think Jim was performing what is known as a 'thought experiment' here.

By turning the situation around it is revealed that there's no logic or reason in either case, for requiring two doctors permission ..

My point about duress was kind of a thought experiment I guess, since I can imagine circumstances which would result in a poor outcome were safe, medically supervised abortion to be refused even on the grounds of coercion.

My point about the two doctors thing was straight though. If we are going to require the opinion of two doctors then the default assumption should be to proceed with the pregnant woman's choice, unless they agree that there is very good reason not to. Coercion I think is likely to become a safeguarding issue which would need referring to the courts.