Gender again. Sorry!

[icowden]

Ah yes, I'd forgotten that hysterical, hormonal, and feckless women need to be protected from themselves.

Yes sometimes. It's called sectioning and can happen for all sorts of reasons. Some women find pregnancy very difficult indeed. I have a distant Aunt who spent most of her life under psychiatric care after her second child (she was told not to have a second child after having post child birth psychosis but went ahead anyway). These problems can arise during pregnancy. Late term abortions are always rare and a decision is best made by the woman in conjunction with doctors. The foetus doesn't just "pop out" if you abort at 32 weeks.

Any abortion is traumatic, some are neccessary.

 

[newfhouse]

Well yes, but you could say that about any subject of the 'culture wars' we don't lump them all together as one topic though..

I don't mind too much either way. One thread, multiple threads, it's all fine with me.

 

[mudsticks]

Any abortion is traumatic, some are neccessary.

Nope, not 'all' abortions are 'traumatic' not by any means.

That's another trope trotted out by the anti abortion lot.

Some abortions are traumatic, yes, for any number of reasons.

But very often an early termination is no different to taking the morning after pill, after contraception has failed.
It just takes a bit longer to procure.

That time delay may in itself lead to some kind of trauma, as being pregnant when you don't want to be isn't very pleasant.

 

[icowden]

But very often an early termination is no different to taking the morning after pill, after contraception has failed.

Agreed. My bad - I was thinking of late terminations rather than early.

 

[mudsticks]

I don't mind too much either way. One thread, multiple threads, it's all fine with me.

Well it's all much of a muchness really isn't it.??

'Wimmin' and their 'inconvenient' bodies, feelings, fears, needs etc..

May as well 'lump' it all together eh ?? 😉

 

[newfhouse]

Well it's all much of a muchness really isn't it.??

'Wimmin' and their 'inconvenient' bodies, feelings, fears, needs etc..

May as well 'lump' it all together eh ?? 😉

You said that, not me.

Now tell me, hand on heart, you've never drifted away from the central focus of a thread as a result of responding to something you have read within it. It's what we all do; it's natural.

 

[newfhouse]

It's called sectioning and can happen for all sorts of reasons.

As I said, there are safeguarding measures for those rare cases. How about, instead, basing policy on the vast majority of women who are capable of deciding for themselves?

 

[mudsticks]

You said that, not me.

Now tell me, hand on heart, you've never drifted away from the central focus of a thread as a result of responding to something you have read within it. It's what we all do; it's natural.

Moi??

Drift a thread..Not never 😳

As I said, there are safeguarding measures for those rare cases. How about, instead, basing policy on the vast majority of women who are capable of deciding for themselves?

TBF to @icowden I don't think he was proposing sectioning every single pregnant woman.

Thing is if you start letting women decide for themselves what happens to their own bodies then before you know it they start getting ideass about having power and autonomy in other spheres of existence..
Then where will we be?!?!?!?😳

 

[monkers]

How did this discussion slide into abortion rights.??

Bit too much of a rabbit hole eh? Or maybe you are having more difficulty spotting irony? Wouldn't be your first time would it!

Yeah right,.
Except Aurora didn't say or imply anything of the sort.

You can't leap on people for alleged 'misrepresentation' and dissect their every word and misplaced hyphen, for 'inaccuracies' on the one hand, and then come up with stuff like this.

That's right. Not once has Aurora even hinted that trans women are seizing women's rights. It's all my imagination.

I don't dissect every word. I call out the harmful lies and actual misrepresentations about law. In UK law there are not increasing rights of the fetus according to how many weeks they are. Naturally people are free to hold opinions that should be the case, but this casual reframing of the law to suit a personal opinion is unsafe.

There is a tension within existing UK laws, and this does need to be formally addressed.

In UK law a foetus doesn’t have rights. An unborn baby doesn’t become a separate person with legal rights until they are born and draw breath by themselves.

https://www.birthrights.org.uk/fact...UK law a foetus,and draw breath by themselves.

However the law relating to destruction of a child has not been repealed.

This can be interpreted in two ways that I can see; there is an unintended oversight in law where more recent law has not led to repeal of previous law; destruction of a child is not a legal consequence of rights of a fetus but something else.

 

[monkers]

Abortion is still not technically legal even in the UK. It is 'permitted' in certain circumstances.

At first I thought this must be Aurora, but now I see you are at it. This is of course complete bollocks.

Abortion is fully legal under the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967 (as amended by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990).

 

[mudsticks]

At first I thought this must be Aurora, but now I see you are at it. This is of course complete bollocks.

Abortion is fully legal under the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967 (as amended by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990).

It's only legal under certain circumstances, and still (patronisingly) requires 'permission' from two doctors.

The Abortion Act 1967 states that an abortion is legal if it is performed by a registered medical practitioner (a doctor), and that it is authorised by two doctors, acting in good faith, on one (or more) of the following grounds (with each needing to agree that at least one and the same ground is met):

(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth 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 or any existing children of her family; or
(b) that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or
(c) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or
(d) that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

 

[Bromptonaut]

At first I thought this must be Aurora, but now I see you are at it. This is of course complete bollocks.

Abortion is fully legal under the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967 (as amended by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990).

I think one way of looking at it is that Abortion remains illegal under Victorian era legislation.

The 67 act in effect provides a defence, ie a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion where an Abortion is performed under its provisions.

 

[monkers]

It's only legal under certain circumstances, and still (patronisingly) requires 'permission' from two doctors.

The Abortion Act 1967 states that an abortion is legal if it is performed by a registered medical practitioner (a doctor), and that it is authorised by two doctors, acting in good faith, on one (or more) of the following grounds (with each needing to agree that at least one and the same ground is met):

(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth 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 or any existing children of her family; or
(b) that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or
(c) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or
(d) that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

Well abortion is legal then isn't it - why say that it technically isn't?

 

[mudsticks]

I think one way of looking at it is that Abortion remains illegal under Victorian era legislation.

The 67 act in effect provides a defence, ie a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion where an Abortion is performed under its provisions.

Well abortion is legal then isn't it - why say that it technically isn't?

Because as brommers has laid out it technically isn't.

It's only 'not illegal' if certain provisions are met.

 

[matticus]

Well yes, but you could say that about any subject of the 'culture wars' we don't lump them all together as one topic though..

Are you new here?!?