Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
It seems as though Starmer sees it as his defining purpose as PM to get this sort of thing onto the statue book.
Yes
He's intensely weird, and a streak of Fabian eugenics runs through his eerily rigid body
Also I think he's accepted he's likely a one term PM who will do nothing for the economy, and probably make everything worse, so THIS will be his legacy - mad inflation of "human rights" (however perversely framed), which befits a human rights lawyer
As I have already pointed out in reply to you, Kier Starmer has absolutely nothing to do with the passing of this amendment. It was tabled by a backbencher and was classed as a free vote which is entirely usual for matters of conscience. If the Conservatives were in government then this would have been handled exactly the same. Starmer didn't even vote for it. Are you going to continue to peddle this falsehood?
Yes, because it is not a falsehood
This is Starmerism. He makes space for this kind of evil shit, his existence as leader allows it to happen, because he approves. See the State Assisted Suicide Act
That's not true though. There was absolutely nothing he could have done to stop that amendment being tabled. He didn't even vote for it. You just want to use lies and misinformation to sew seeds of hatred and mistrust whilst dressing yourself up in a moral cloak. Why don't you actually say what he should have done to prevent that amendment being passed?
3 line whip against it, I guess. But he forgets that the Party largely supports it and the country appears to largely support it.
Reform may change the rules if they win of course but I don’t think Nigel wants to turn a GE into a referendum on abortion seeing as he is too afraid to even make it a referendum on economic policy.
A quick Google search tells me there are nearly 10 million people in Tehran itself, and nearly 17 million in the wider metropolitan area. I'm not convinced by the practicality of Israel and/or Trump advising people to leave Tehran.
I'm sure they'd love to create a huge internal crisis in Iran that would ensue if they did all try to leave.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
No, they aren't. The amendment voted only applies only to the pregnant woman.
To move the following clause — “Removal of women from the criminal law related to abortion For the purposes of the law related to abortion, including sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy.”
Opinions are sharply divided on this, but you should be clear on what the change actually is.
So I'll repeat the question I asked earlier:
And how could a backstreet abortion be prosecuted ? The mother wouldn't be prosecuted and she wouldn't say that someone had helped here would she.
The Police have other ways and means of investigating things other than speaking to one person. Do you realise that? If someone was advertising illegal abortions that information could end up in the Police’s hands.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
It seems as though Starmer sees it as his defining purpose as PM to get this sort of thing onto the statue book.
Yes
He's intensely weird, and a streak of Fabian eugenics runs through his eerily rigid body
Also I think he's accepted he's likely a one term PM who will do nothing for the economy, and probably make everything worse, so THIS will be his legacy - mad inflation of "human rights" (however perversely framed), which befits a human rights lawyer
As I have already pointed out in reply to you, Kier Starmer has absolutely nothing to do with the passing of this amendment. It was tabled by a backbencher and was classed as a free vote which is entirely usual for matters of conscience. If the Conservatives were in government then this would have been handled exactly the same. Starmer didn't even vote for it. Are you going to continue to peddle this falsehood?
Yes, because it is not a falsehood
This is Starmerism. He makes space for this kind of evil shit, his existence as leader allows it to happen, because he approves. See the State Assisted Suicide Act
That's not true though. There was absolutely nothing he could have done to stop that amendment being tabled. He didn't even vote for it. You just want to use lies and misinformation to sew seeds of hatred and mistrust whilst dressing yourself up in a moral cloak. Why don't you actually say what he should have done to prevent that amendment being passed?
Leon whipping up a storm with alternate facts is a little bit tiresome.
I think we should just allow women to kill their babies up to the age of, say, two, because erm Feminism and also because it will "annoy rightwingers"
As usual you are being wilfully mischievous.
The Creasey amendment was more troublesome but the passed amendment simply decriminalises the mother. It doesn't allow a clinician induced abortion at full term, which is what you are implying.
The moral issues are complex. You however are making cheap political points.
It is only complex if you have lost leave of your humanity and morality.
Blessed be the fruit
The only mainstream politician in this country I can remember talk willingly about a personal preference for an outright abortion ban is Tim Farron. It is not a view you tend to come across much and isn’t one I take either.
In a stroke however our parliament has just politicised what was a relatively settled issue in this country. But go ahead with your insults taken from crap cable tv.
It clearly wasn’t settled as over 50% of people favour the change it seems. Everything is political.
Was this in the Labour Manifesto? I certainly don't remember it
If it was, I might be mollified, but my strong suspicion is that this made no appearance whatsoever, Labour have just shunted this odious, pro-death bill through the Commons, because they have a big majority on 32% of the vote and they are morally diseased
But wait, I will quickly check
Ah yes
"Abortion – The Labour Party makes no explicit mention of abortion in its manifesto. Labour does say it “will prioritise women’s health as we reform the NHS”."
It's a tactic that could be copied by a party that was serious about implementing a right-wing agenda. Don't make a song and dance about it - just quietly change the law in consequential ways while hiding the real strategic intent.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
So is it back to the old days of a bottle of gin and a knitting needle ?
Is it clear what this means in reality.?
Are our law makers confident that a baby aborted by an amateur will actually be delivered dead? Suppose the child is alive on arrival? Is mother allowed to kill him/her?
Nothing has changed other than the woman herself is no longer committing a criminal offence. Any abortions happening outside the approved channels were illegal and are still illegal.
So this is one of those non-crime crimes. That still leaves open the question of what happens if the late term baby is delivered alive instead of dead. The mother doesn't want the child. Who will take it into care immediately? Is the mother still not committing a crime if she induces death after delivery? How will the remains be dealt with? Does it go into the organic waste recycling bin for collection next week?
I think we should just allow women to kill their babies up to the age of, say, two, because erm Feminism and also because it will "annoy rightwingers"
As usual you are being wilfully mischievous.
The Creasey amendment was more troublesome but the passed amendment simply decriminalises the mother. It doesn't allow a clinician induced abortion at full term, which is what you are implying.
The moral issues are complex. You however are making cheap political points.
It is only complex if you have lost leave of your humanity and morality.
Blessed be the fruit
The only mainstream politician in this country I can remember talk willingly about a personal preference for an outright abortion ban is Tim Farron. It is not a view you tend to come across much and isn’t one I take either.
In a stroke however our parliament has just politicised what was a relatively settled issue in this country. But go ahead with your insults taken from crap cable tv.
It clearly wasn’t settled as over 50% of people favour the change it seems. Everything is political.
Was this in the Labour Manifesto? I certainly don't remember it
If it was, I might be mollified, but my strong suspicion is that this made no appearance whatsoever, Labour have just shunted this odious, pro-death bill through the Commons, because they have a big majority on 32% of the vote and they are morally diseased
But wait, I will quickly check
Ah yes
"Abortion – The Labour Party makes no explicit mention of abortion in its manifesto. Labour does say it “will prioritise women’s health as we reform the NHS”."
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
It seems as though Starmer sees it as his defining purpose as PM to get this sort of thing onto the statue book.
Yes
He's intensely weird, and a streak of Fabian eugenics runs through his eerily rigid body
Also I think he's accepted he's likely a one term PM who will do nothing for the economy, and probably make everything worse, so THIS will be his legacy - mad inflation of "human rights" (however perversely framed), which befits a human rights lawyer
As I have already pointed out in reply to you, Kier Starmer has absolutely nothing to do with the passing of this amendment. It was tabled by a backbencher and was classed as a free vote which is entirely usual for matters of conscience. If the Conservatives were in government then this would have been handled exactly the same. Starmer didn't even vote for it. Are you going to continue to peddle this falsehood?
Yes, because it is not a falsehood
This is Starmerism. He makes space for this kind of evil shit, his existence as leader allows it to happen, because he approves. See the State Assisted Suicide Act
That's not true though. There was absolutely nothing he could have done to stop that amendment being tabled. He didn't even vote for it. You just want to use lies and misinformation to sew seeds of hatred and mistrust whilst dressing yourself up in a moral cloak. Why don't you actually say what he should have done to prevent that amendment being passed?
He's the fecking leader. Show some cullions
Tell these MPS "you will be expelled from Labour if you table this disgusting amendment, and hurry this law into force, this needs a national conversation, first, and I will lead it"
Shut them up. Exercise discipline. Lead the national discourse. And if we all agree, fair enough
But instead we have this extraordinary new law on the statute books, and it wasn't in the manifesto, and we have had virtually no debate. We are one sick country
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
So is it back to the old days of a bottle of gin and a knitting needle ?
Is it clear what this means in reality.?
Are our law makers confident that a baby aborted by an amateur will actually be delivered dead? Suppose the child is alive on arrival? Is mother allowed to kill him/her?
Nothing has changed other than the woman herself is no longer committing a criminal offence. Any abortions happening outside the approved channels were illegal and are still illegal.
So this is one of those non-crime crimes. That still leaves open the question of what happens if the late term baby is delivered alive instead of dead. The mother doesn't want the child. Who will take it into care immediately? Is the mother still not committing a crime if she induces death after delivery? How will the remains be dealt with? Does it go into the organic waste recycling bin for collection next week?
If a child is born alive then anyone who kills it is committing murder (including the mother). I am fairly certain that is clear in law.
Also, it is not a non-crime. A person or persons aiding a woman in terminating a pregnancy would presumably still be committing a criminal offence. For example, if a doctor was doing this sort of thing on the side.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
Who provides the abortion pills or whatever?
If she is well off, she goes abroad and has it done in comfort. If she is poor, she does it with stuff/instructions off the internet, and she's lucky if she doesn't die or become infertile. It's always the same... ☹️
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
It seems as though Starmer sees it as his defining purpose as PM to get this sort of thing onto the statue book.
Yes
He's intensely weird, and a streak of Fabian eugenics runs through his eerily rigid body
Also I think he's accepted he's likely a one term PM who will do nothing for the economy, and probably make everything worse, so THIS will be his legacy - mad inflation of "human rights" (however perversely framed), which befits a human rights lawyer
As I have already pointed out in reply to you, Kier Starmer has absolutely nothing to do with the passing of this amendment. It was tabled by a backbencher and was classed as a free vote which is entirely usual for matters of conscience. If the Conservatives were in government then this would have been handled exactly the same. Starmer didn't even vote for it. Are you going to continue to peddle this falsehood?
Yes, because it is not a falsehood
This is Starmerism. He makes space for this kind of evil shit, his existence as leader allows it to happen, because he approves. See the State Assisted Suicide Act
That's not true though. There was absolutely nothing he could have done to stop that amendment being tabled. He didn't even vote for it. You just want to use lies and misinformation to sew seeds of hatred and mistrust whilst dressing yourself up in a moral cloak. Why don't you actually say what he should have done to prevent that amendment being passed?
Three-line-whip?
It's a long standing convention that matters of conscience are not whipped. The same would be true if a backbencher wanted to table an amendment to bring back the death penalty. There's a reason why governments don't break this convention even if the Prime Minister of the day profoundly agrees with the amendment.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
So is it back to the old days of a bottle of gin and a knitting needle ?
Is it clear what this means in reality.?
Are our law makers confident that a baby aborted by an amateur will actually be delivered dead? Suppose the child is alive on arrival? Is mother allowed to kill him/her?
Nothing has changed other than the woman herself is no longer committing a criminal offence. Any abortions happening outside the approved channels were illegal and are still illegal.
So this is one of those non-crime crimes. That still leaves open the question of what happens if the late term baby is delivered alive instead of dead. The mother doesn't want the child. Who will take it into care immediately? Is the mother still not committing a crime if she induces death after delivery? How will the remains be dealt with? Does it go into the organic waste recycling bin for collection next week?
If a child is born alive then anyone who kills it is committing murder (including the mother). I am fairly certain that is clear in law.
Also, it is not a non-crime. A person or persons aiding a woman in terminating a pregnancy would presumably still be committing a criminal offence. For example, if a doctor was doing this sort of thing on the side.
It shows the randomness of such research. If they were using PB for data the results may have been very different if @Leon was on one of his ban vacations.
This is an unedifying spectacle - given that - as you and @TSE both know - I am not allowed to answer back on this subject
But if that is the only way you guys are able to win a debate with me, and this pleases you, knock yerselves out
It was a joke as was TSE's comment. Being a little sensitive there aren't we?. You might want to bear that in mind when you use your extensive vocabulary to abuse others which you vdo regularly.. If you can't take a little ribbing you shouldn't give it out.
But the thing is, you ridiculous twerp, I am NOT allowed to answer back on this subject. As you well know
So it's not a case of give and take, is it?
Honestly for someone with a supposedly high IQ you aren't very bright are you? There was nothing to answer back to. It was innocent ribbing on our part. Neither of us were putting forward any serious argument. We were just making a joke at your expense. There was no argument to answer to, as neither of us were making one. We were just having fun.
The fact that you are taking that so seriously really does make my point in my last post more valid which is you should think a bit more when you make fun of or abuse others. If those trivial joking posts upset you, you might want to think of what effect you have on some others with your constant abrasive posts.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
It seems as though Starmer sees it as his defining purpose as PM to get this sort of thing onto the statue book.
Yes
He's intensely weird, and a streak of Fabian eugenics runs through his eerily rigid body
Also I think he's accepted he's likely a one term PM who will do nothing for the economy, and probably make everything worse, so THIS will be his legacy - mad inflation of "human rights" (however perversely framed), which befits a human rights lawyer
As I have already pointed out in reply to you, Kier Starmer has absolutely nothing to do with the passing of this amendment. It was tabled by a backbencher and was classed as a free vote which is entirely usual for matters of conscience. If the Conservatives were in government then this would have been handled exactly the same. Starmer didn't even vote for it. Are you going to continue to peddle this falsehood?
Yes, because it is not a falsehood
This is Starmerism. He makes space for this kind of evil shit, his existence as leader allows it to happen, because he approves. See the State Assisted Suicide Act
That's not true though. There was absolutely nothing he could have done to stop that amendment being tabled. He didn't even vote for it. You just want to use lies and misinformation to sew seeds of hatred and mistrust whilst dressing yourself up in a moral cloak. Why don't you actually say what he should have done to prevent that amendment being passed?
Three-line-whip?
It's a long standing convention that matters of conscience are not whipped. The same would be true if a backbencher wanted to table an amendment to bring back the death penalty. There's a reason why governments don't break this convention even if the Prime Minister of the day profoundly agrees with the amendment.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
No, they aren't. The amendment voted only applies only to the pregnant woman.
To move the following clause — “Removal of women from the criminal law related to abortion For the purposes of the law related to abortion, including sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy.”
Opinions are sharply divided on this, but you should be clear on what the change actually is.
So I'll repeat the question I asked earlier:
And how could a backstreet abortion be prosecuted ? The mother wouldn't be prosecuted and she wouldn't say that someone had helped here would she.
The Police have other ways and means of investigating things other than speaking to one person. Do you realise that? If someone was advertising illegal abortions that information could end up in the Police’s hands.
I realise you're flailing around.
If you or the Labour party want unlimited abortion rights up to birth then advocate that.
That would be in logical and practical terms be preferable.
I think we should just allow women to kill their babies up to the age of, say, two, because erm Feminism and also because it will "annoy rightwingers"
As usual you are being wilfully mischievous.
The Creasey amendment was more troublesome but the passed amendment simply decriminalises the mother. It doesn't allow a clinician induced abortion at full term, which is what you are implying.
The moral issues are complex. You however are making cheap political points.
It is only complex if you have lost leave of your humanity and morality.
Blessed be the fruit
The only mainstream politician in this country I can remember talk willingly about a personal preference for an outright abortion ban is Tim Farron. It is not a view you tend to come across much and isn’t one I take either.
In a stroke however our parliament has just politicised what was a relatively settled issue in this country. But go ahead with your insults taken from crap cable tv.
It clearly wasn’t settled as over 50% of people favour the change it seems. Everything is political.
Was this in the Labour Manifesto? I certainly don't remember it
If it was, I might be mollified, but my strong suspicion is that this made no appearance whatsoever, Labour have just shunted this odious, pro-death bill through the Commons, because they have a big majority on 32% of the vote and they are morally diseased
But wait, I will quickly check
Ah yes
"Abortion – The Labour Party makes no explicit mention of abortion in its manifesto. Labour does say it “will prioritise women’s health as we reform the NHS”."
It's a tactic that could be copied by a party that was serious about implementing a right-wing agenda. Don't make a song and dance about it - just quietly change the law in consequential ways while hiding the real strategic intent.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
Get a grip you grumpy old man
You don't think the right to life of a nine month old fetus, entirely viable, waiting to be born, is worthy of debate?
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
No, they aren't. The amendment voted only applies only to the pregnant woman.
To move the following clause — “Removal of women from the criminal law related to abortion For the purposes of the law related to abortion, including sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy.”
Opinions are sharply divided on this, but you should be clear on what the change actually is.
So I'll repeat the question I asked earlier:
And how could a backstreet abortion be prosecuted ? The mother wouldn't be prosecuted and she wouldn't say that someone had helped here would she.
First tell me what incentive is there is for anyone to provide "backstreet abortions" - or pregnant women to seem them given the wide availability of drugs which will terminate the pregnancy.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
So is it back to the old days of a bottle of gin and a knitting needle ?
Is it clear what this means in reality.?
Are our law makers confident that a baby aborted by an amateur will actually be delivered dead? Suppose the child is alive on arrival? Is mother allowed to kill him/her?
Nothing has changed other than the woman herself is no longer committing a criminal offence. Any abortions happening outside the approved channels were illegal and are still illegal.
So this is one of those non-crime crimes. That still leaves open the question of what happens if the late term baby is delivered alive instead of dead. The mother doesn't want the child. Who will take it into care immediately? Is the mother still not committing a crime if she induces death after delivery? How will the remains be dealt with? Does it go into the organic waste recycling bin for collection next week?
If a child is born alive then anyone who kills it is committing murder (including the mother). I am fairly certain that is clear in law.
Also, it is not a non-crime. A person or persons aiding a woman in terminating a pregnancy would presumably still be committing a criminal offence. For example, if a doctor was doing this sort of thing on the side.
What’s the difference though? Really?
Well that’s the entire moral debate, isn’t it? Many do see a difference. Including myself. Others don’t.
No different to the debate as to whether a soldier dropping a bomb on a house in the desert is murder when compared to a gang member shooting another gang member on the streets of London. We draw moral lines everywhere.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
No, not allowed. Just the woman herself isn’t committing a crime as far as I understand it. A bit like how we handle prostitution.
And how could a backstreet abortion be prosecuted ?
The mother wouldn't be prosecuted and she wouldn't say that someone had helped here would she.
The Police could do their jobs and investigate I guess.
Plod: Who carried out the abortion ? Mother: I did. Plod: Did anyone help you ? Mother: No.
End of investigation.
What happens if the woman dies during the process?
I am assuming that unless they have some distinctly odd practices the police won't be interviewing her?
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
No, they aren't. The amendment voted only applies only to the pregnant woman.
To move the following clause — “Removal of women from the criminal law related to abortion For the purposes of the law related to abortion, including sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy.”
Opinions are sharply divided on this, but you should be clear on what the change actually is.
So I'll repeat the question I asked earlier:
And how could a backstreet abortion be prosecuted ? The mother wouldn't be prosecuted and she wouldn't say that someone had helped here would she.
The Police have other ways and means of investigating things other than speaking to one person. Do you realise that? If someone was advertising illegal abortions that information could end up in the Police’s hands.
I realise you're flailing around.
If you or the Labour party want unlimited abortion rights up to birth then advocate that.
That would be in logical and practical terms be preferable.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
It seems as though Starmer sees it as his defining purpose as PM to get this sort of thing onto the statue book.
Yes
He's intensely weird, and a streak of Fabian eugenics runs through his eerily rigid body
Also I think he's accepted he's likely a one term PM who will do nothing for the economy, and probably make everything worse, so THIS will be his legacy - mad inflation of "human rights" (however perversely framed), which befits a human rights lawyer
As I have already pointed out in reply to you, Kier Starmer has absolutely nothing to do with the passing of this amendment. It was tabled by a backbencher and was classed as a free vote which is entirely usual for matters of conscience. If the Conservatives were in government then this would have been handled exactly the same. Starmer didn't even vote for it. Are you going to continue to peddle this falsehood?
Yes, because it is not a falsehood
This is Starmerism. He makes space for this kind of evil shit, his existence as leader allows it to happen, because he approves. See the State Assisted Suicide Act
That's not true though. There was absolutely nothing he could have done to stop that amendment being tabled. He didn't even vote for it. You just want to use lies and misinformation to sew seeds of hatred and mistrust whilst dressing yourself up in a moral cloak. Why don't you actually say what he should have done to prevent that amendment being passed?
He's the fecking leader. Show some cullions
Tell these MPS "you will be expelled from Labour if you table this disgusting amendment, and hurry this law into force, this needs a national conversation, first, and I will lead it"
Shut them up. Exercise discipline. Lead the national discourse. And if we all agree, fair enough
But instead we have this extraordinary new law on the statute books, and it wasn't in the manifesto, and we have had virtually no debate. We are one sick country
As @Cyclefree 's article pointed out yesterday he reacts, not acts. It never occured to him to do as you suggest.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
It seems as though Starmer sees it as his defining purpose as PM to get this sort of thing onto the statue book.
Yes
He's intensely weird, and a streak of Fabian eugenics runs through his eerily rigid body
Also I think he's accepted he's likely a one term PM who will do nothing for the economy, and probably make everything worse, so THIS will be his legacy - mad inflation of "human rights" (however perversely framed), which befits a human rights lawyer
As I have already pointed out in reply to you, Kier Starmer has absolutely nothing to do with the passing of this amendment. It was tabled by a backbencher and was classed as a free vote which is entirely usual for matters of conscience. If the Conservatives were in government then this would have been handled exactly the same. Starmer didn't even vote for it. Are you going to continue to peddle this falsehood?
Yes, because it is not a falsehood
This is Starmerism. He makes space for this kind of evil shit, his existence as leader allows it to happen, because he approves. See the State Assisted Suicide Act
That's not true though. There was absolutely nothing he could have done to stop that amendment being tabled. He didn't even vote for it. You just want to use lies and misinformation to sew seeds of hatred and mistrust whilst dressing yourself up in a moral cloak. Why don't you actually say what he should have done to prevent that amendment being passed?
Three-line-whip?
It's a long standing convention that matters of conscience are not whipped. The same would be true if a backbencher wanted to table an amendment to bring back the death penalty. There's a reason why governments don't break this convention even if the Prime Minister of the day profoundly agrees with the amendment.
What if a Labour MP wishes to sponsor a bill to reduce the age of consent to 9, in line with when Muhammad consummated his marriage to Aisha and as seen for example in modern Iraq? Is that a matter of conscience and religious freedom that Starmer has no place interceding on?
I think we should just allow women to kill their babies up to the age of, say, two, because erm Feminism and also because it will "annoy rightwingers"
As usual you are being wilfully mischievous.
The Creasey amendment was more troublesome but the passed amendment simply decriminalises the mother. It doesn't allow a clinician induced abortion at full term, which is what you are implying.
The moral issues are complex. You however are making cheap political points.
It is only complex if you have lost leave of your humanity and morality.
Blessed be the fruit
The only mainstream politician in this country I can remember talk willingly about a personal preference for an outright abortion ban is Tim Farron. It is not a view you tend to come across much and isn’t one I take either.
In a stroke however our parliament has just politicised what was a relatively settled issue in this country. But go ahead with your insults taken from crap cable tv.
It clearly wasn’t settled as over 50% of people favour the change it seems. Everything is political.
Was this in the Labour Manifesto? I certainly don't remember it
If it was, I might be mollified, but my strong suspicion is that this made no appearance whatsoever, Labour have just shunted this odious, pro-death bill through the Commons, because they have a big majority on 32% of the vote and they are morally diseased
But wait, I will quickly check
Ah yes
"Abortion – The Labour Party makes no explicit mention of abortion in its manifesto. Labour does say it “will prioritise women’s health as we reform the NHS”."
It's a tactic that could be copied by a party that was serious about implementing a right-wing agenda. Don't make a song and dance about it - just quietly change the law in consequential ways while hiding the real strategic intent.
I think we should just allow women to kill their babies up to the age of, say, two, because erm Feminism and also because it will "annoy rightwingers"
As usual you are being wilfully mischievous.
The Creasey amendment was more troublesome but the passed amendment simply decriminalises the mother. It doesn't allow a clinician induced abortion at full term, which is what you are implying.
The moral issues are complex. You however are making cheap political points.
It is only complex if you have lost leave of your humanity and morality.
Blessed be the fruit
The only mainstream politician in this country I can remember talk willingly about a personal preference for an outright abortion ban is Tim Farron. It is not a view you tend to come across much and isn’t one I take either.
In a stroke however our parliament has just politicised what was a relatively settled issue in this country. But go ahead with your insults taken from crap cable tv.
It clearly wasn’t settled as over 50% of people favour the change it seems. Everything is political.
Was this in the Labour Manifesto? I certainly don't remember it
If it was, I might be mollified, but my strong suspicion is that this made no appearance whatsoever, Labour have just shunted this odious, pro-death bill through the Commons, because they have a big majority on 32% of the vote and they are morally diseased
But wait, I will quickly check
Ah yes
"Abortion – The Labour Party makes no explicit mention of abortion in its manifesto. Labour does say it “will prioritise women’s health as we reform the NHS”."
It's a tactic that could be copied by a party that was serious about implementing a right-wing agenda. Don't make a song and dance about it - just quietly change the law in consequential ways while hiding the real strategic intent.
Which is of course what Hitler did, at first
Having the SA stand behind members of the Reichstag as they decided whether to vote for the Enabling Act or get beaten up was 'quietly changing the law?'
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
No, they aren't. The amendment voted only applies only to the pregnant woman.
To move the following clause — “Removal of women from the criminal law related to abortion For the purposes of the law related to abortion, including sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy.”
Opinions are sharply divided on this, but you should be clear on what the change actually is.
So I'll repeat the question I asked earlier:
And how could a backstreet abortion be prosecuted ? The mother wouldn't be prosecuted and she wouldn't say that someone had helped here would she.
First tell me what incentive is there is for anyone to provide "backstreet abortions" - or pregnant women to seem them given the wide availability of drugs which will terminate the pregnancy.
Providing such drugs is a form of backstreet abortions.
When abortions are carried out they should be done so in a proper medical setting with proper medical treatment.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
So is it back to the old days of a bottle of gin and a knitting needle ?
Is it clear what this means in reality.?
Are our law makers confident that a baby aborted by an amateur will actually be delivered dead? Suppose the child is alive on arrival? Is mother allowed to kill him/her?
Nothing has changed other than the woman herself is no longer committing a criminal offence. Any abortions happening outside the approved channels were illegal and are still illegal.
So this is one of those non-crime crimes. That still leaves open the question of what happens if the late term baby is delivered alive instead of dead. The mother doesn't want the child. Who will take it into care immediately? Is the mother still not committing a crime if she induces death after delivery? How will the remains be dealt with? Does it go into the organic waste recycling bin for collection next week?
If a child is born alive then anyone who kills it is committing murder (including the mother). I am fairly certain that is clear in law.
Also, it is not a non-crime. A person or persons aiding a woman in terminating a pregnancy would presumably still be committing a criminal offence. For example, if a doctor was doing this sort of thing on the side.
I understand that the poor woman has to do this alone. But I don't see how a DIY abortion can be all that safe for her and surely, the later she leaves it the less safe it becomes. But anyone who helps her out is liable to prosecution.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
So is it back to the old days of a bottle of gin and a knitting needle ?
Is it clear what this means in reality.?
Are our law makers confident that a baby aborted by an amateur will actually be delivered dead? Suppose the child is alive on arrival? Is mother allowed to kill him/her?
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
No, not allowed. Just the woman herself isn’t committing a crime as far as I understand it. A bit like how we handle prostitution.
And how could a backstreet abortion be prosecuted ?
The mother wouldn't be prosecuted and she wouldn't say that someone had helped here would she.
The Police could do their jobs and investigate I guess.
Plod: Who carried out the abortion ? Mother: I did. Plod: Did anyone help you ? Mother: No.
End of investigation.
What happens if the woman dies during the process?
I am assuming that unless they have some distinctly odd practices the police won't be interviewing her?
Well yes, but it was a genuine question. If she dies whilst undertaking an abortion on her own, has a crime been committed? If so, how would it be investigated?
Stanford just surveyed 1,500 workers and AI experts about which jobs AI will actually replace and automate. Turns out, we've been building AI for all the WRONG jobs.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
No, not allowed. Just the woman herself isn’t committing a crime as far as I understand it. A bit like how we handle prostitution.
And how could a backstreet abortion be prosecuted ?
The mother wouldn't be prosecuted and she wouldn't say that someone had helped here would she.
The Police could do their jobs and investigate I guess.
Plod: Who carried out the abortion ? Mother: I did. Plod: Did anyone help you ? Mother: No.
End of investigation.
What happens if the woman dies during the process?
I suppose there will be an autopsy and an inquest. Death by misadvantage probably. Funeral. Not much different to what happens now.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
Get a grip you grumpy old man
You don't think the right to life of a nine month old fetus, entirely viable, waiting to be born, is worthy of debate?
You tiresome little REDACTED
No.
It's not been born and its the woman's body.
So effectively murder of a viable post 24 week foetus has no consequence if the mother decides to kill it, only if a doctor or other 3rd party gets involved will a prosecution be made
I’m sure those supporting this will be fine when Reform take us out of ECHR and bring back the death penalty.
There’s a logical inconsistency when someone is prepared to risk coerced state assisted suicide, ascribes zero rights to a 9month old fetus and yet considers it a moral abomination to consider executing the very worst criminals.
Stanford just surveyed 1,500 workers and AI experts about which jobs AI will actually replace and automate. Turns out, we've been building AI for all the WRONG jobs.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
No, they aren't. The amendment voted only applies only to the pregnant woman.
To move the following clause — “Removal of women from the criminal law related to abortion For the purposes of the law related to abortion, including sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy.”
Opinions are sharply divided on this, but you should be clear on what the change actually is.
So I'll repeat the question I asked earlier:
And how could a backstreet abortion be prosecuted ? The mother wouldn't be prosecuted and she wouldn't say that someone had helped here would she.
First tell me what incentive is there is for anyone to provide "backstreet abortions" - or pregnant women to seem them given the wide availability of drugs which will terminate the pregnancy.
Providing such drugs is a form of backstreet abortions.
When abortions are carried out they should be done so in a proper medical setting with proper medical treatment.
And providing said drugs will still be illegal as I understand it and can be prosecuted
I don't actually have a strong view either in favour or against this amendment. The reality is that there will be injustices either way.
But I note its opponents have never expressed any strong feelings, let alone outrage, about the negative effects of the existing law.
...Each one of these cases is a travesty enabled by our outdated abortion law. Although abortion is available in England and Wales under conditions set by the 1967 Abortion Act, the law underpinning it dating back to 1861, the Offences against the Person Act, means that outside those conditions, it remains a criminal offence carrying a maximum life sentence. Originally passed by an all-male parliament elected by men alone, this Victorian law is increasingly used against vulnerable women and girls. Since 2020 more than 100 women have been criminally investigated … Women affected are often acutely vulnerable victims of domestic abuse and violence, human trafficking and sexual exploitation, girls under the age of 18 and women who have suffered miscarriage...
I’m sure those supporting this will be fine when Reform take us out of ECHR and bring back the death penalty.
Farage is opposed to the death penalty.
He even made the same point as me that juries would move the trigger point for conviction from beyond a reasonable doubt to 100% proof for death penalty cases.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
So is it back to the old days of a bottle of gin and a knitting needle ?
Is it clear what this means in reality.?
Are our law makers confident that a baby aborted by an amateur will actually be delivered dead? Suppose the child is alive on arrival? Is mother allowed to kill him/her?
I doubt it’s been considered
Given that the mother must be alone to prevent criminal charges for others, it's highly unlikely that an aborted child delivered alive will stay alive long. Lack of care, if nothing more active.
I’m sure those supporting this will be fine when Reform take us out of ECHR and bring back the death penalty.
Farage is opposed to the death penalty.
He even made the same point as me that juries would move the trigger point for conviction from beyond a reasonable doubt to 100% proof for death penalty cases.
That’s easily fixed. Just get rid juries. And trials… where is this country headed goodness me
I don't actually have a strong view either in favour or against this amendment. The reality is that there will be injustices either way.
But I note its opponents have never expressed any strong feelings, let alone outrage, about the negative effects of the existing law.
...Each one of these cases is a travesty enabled by our outdated abortion law. Although abortion is available in England and Wales under conditions set by the 1967 Abortion Act, the law underpinning it dating back to 1861, the Offences against the Person Act, means that outside those conditions, it remains a criminal offence carrying a maximum life sentence. Originally passed by an all-male parliament elected by men alone, this Victorian law is increasingly used against vulnerable women and girls. Since 2020 more than 100 women have been criminally investigated … Women affected are often acutely vulnerable victims of domestic abuse and violence, human trafficking and sexual exploitation, girls under the age of 18 and women who have suffered miscarriage...
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
No, not allowed. Just the woman herself isn’t committing a crime as far as I understand it. A bit like how we handle prostitution.
And how could a backstreet abortion be prosecuted ?
The mother wouldn't be prosecuted and she wouldn't say that someone had helped here would she.
This is the sort of law that is going to have all sorts of unintended consequences.
One consequence being that any future Reform or Conservative government might reduce the legal time for abortions.
Though I doubt the people in favour of this law were bothered about consequences as opposed to doing some virtue signalling cosplay.
The thing is that there will always be a chunk of Conservative MPs who will not vote to tighten abortion laws.
So in practice it would need a Con majority of probably at least 60 and maybe even 80 to make any such change. Very unlikely to actually happen in the next say 25 years.
And Boris's majority Government didn't try - and I'm not sure just decriminalising the mother really makes any difference to views on the limit which will still apply in well over 99% of cases.
However notice all the Gazan Independents voting with the Conservatives. If in a few decades they became a large block of say 30 to 40 then combined with a Conservative Government then maybe there could be a majority.
Looks like the vast majority of Conservative MPs voted against the amendment to decriminalise abortion, as did DUP and TUV and UUP MPs and most Reform and nearly half the Independent MPs too (yes while the Gazan Independents are economically left and anti Israel some are socially very conservative).
The amendment passed though with the support of the vast majority of Labour and LD MPs and Green and Plaid MPs
"Only three women were convicted of having an illegal abortion between 1861 and November 2022, when the law was changed to allow women to take abortion pills at home if they were less than 10 weeks pregnant.
Records collected by the UK's largest abortion services have found at least 100 women have been investigated for having an abortion in the last five years, and six have appeared in court."
So, if they don't like the new spate of prosecutions, instead of changing the law, how about reversing the previous change?
Somehow the police have so much spare time that they can massively increase their rate of investigating abortions. Seems a weird decision to make in terms of prioritising police time. I wonder how that happened?
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
It seems as though Starmer sees it as his defining purpose as PM to get this sort of thing onto the statue book.
Yes
He's intensely weird, and a streak of Fabian eugenics runs through his eerily rigid body
Also I think he's accepted he's likely a one term PM who will do nothing for the economy, and probably make everything worse, so THIS will be his legacy - mad inflation of "human rights" (however perversely framed), which befits a human rights lawyer
As I have already pointed out in reply to you, Kier Starmer has absolutely nothing to do with the passing of this amendment. It was tabled by a backbencher and was classed as a free vote which is entirely usual for matters of conscience. If the Conservatives were in government then this would have been handled exactly the same. Starmer didn't even vote for it. Are you going to continue to peddle this falsehood?
Yes, because it is not a falsehood
This is Starmerism. He makes space for this kind of evil shit, his existence as leader allows it to happen, because he approves. See the State Assisted Suicide Act
That's not true though. There was absolutely nothing he could have done to stop that amendment being tabled. He didn't even vote for it. You just want to use lies and misinformation to sew seeds of hatred and mistrust whilst dressing yourself up in a moral cloak. Why don't you actually say what he should have done to prevent that amendment being passed?
Three-line-whip?
It's a long standing convention that matters of conscience are not whipped. The same would be true if a backbencher wanted to table an amendment to bring back the death penalty. There's a reason why governments don't break this convention even if the Prime Minister of the day profoundly agrees with the amendment.
What if a Labour MP wishes to sponsor a bill to reduce the age of consent to 9, in line with when Muhammad consummated his marriage to Aisha and as seen for example in modern Iraq? Is that a matter of conscience and religious freedom that Starmer has no place interceding on?
I'm getting more than a little bored of explaining facts to people on here who are more interested in scoring political points. If that amendment were proposed then Starmer or any other Prime Minister couldn't stop it being tabled. That would be for the Speaker to do taking into account the will of the House. As almost every other MP would consider it morally repugnant then the Speaker almost certainly wouldn't call it. As the abortion amendment was cosponsored by a wide cross section of the House (including a number of Conservatives) then the Speaker was right to call it. Were such an amendment to be called and was deemed a matter of conscience (I'm not immediately sure if changes to the age of consent have been deemed as such in the past) then Starmer would be free to express his outrage at the amendment as any other Member can. He could even refuse to appoint anyone to his government who voted for it as is his perogative. The only point would be that it is not whipped. This protects all MPs from being forced to vote for something that they have a profound moral disagreement with.
Stanford just surveyed 1,500 workers and AI experts about which jobs AI will actually replace and automate. Turns out, we've been building AI for all the WRONG jobs.
I was asked a question by one of my clients to check some R code he had written with an AI. I checked it manually (found a mistake!), but when it came to some of the concepts one was so novel my textbooks (written in the 2010s) didn't cover it, so I used another AI to bridge the gap. I checked the sources, they were kosher and supported the concept, so job done.
I am currently a statistician (and enjoying it immensely), but I have been a coder in the past. I was always good enough to get by, but rarely more than mediocre. So I am very pleased by the step-change in speed that AI can provide. I think it's extended my working lifespan by at least three years.
"Only three women were convicted of having an illegal abortion between 1861 and November 2022, when the law was changed to allow women to take abortion pills at home if they were less than 10 weeks pregnant.
Records collected by the UK's largest abortion services have found at least 100 women have been investigated for having an abortion in the last five years, and six have appeared in court."
So, if they don't like the new spate of prosecutions, instead of changing the law, how about reversing the previous change?
Somehow the police have so much spare time that they can massively increase their rate of investigating abortions. Seems a weird decision to make in terms of prioritising police time. I wonder how that happened?
I think the point is that if you are allowed to take abortion pills at home, it's easier to lie about how far along you are. Or procure abortion pills on behalf of another person.
I don't actually have a strong view either in favour or against this amendment. The reality is that there will be injustices either way.
But I note its opponents have never expressed any strong feelings, let alone outrage, about the negative effects of the existing law.
...Each one of these cases is a travesty enabled by our outdated abortion law. Although abortion is available in England and Wales under conditions set by the 1967 Abortion Act, the law underpinning it dating back to 1861, the Offences against the Person Act, means that outside those conditions, it remains a criminal offence carrying a maximum life sentence. Originally passed by an all-male parliament elected by men alone, this Victorian law is increasingly used against vulnerable women and girls. Since 2020 more than 100 women have been criminally investigated … Women affected are often acutely vulnerable victims of domestic abuse and violence, human trafficking and sexual exploitation, girls under the age of 18 and women who have suffered miscarriage...
Strangely that doesn't mention the number of women convicted of having an illegal abortion.
I don't actually have a strong view either in favour or against this amendment. The reality is that there will be injustices either way.
But I note its opponents have never expressed any strong feelings, let alone outrage, about the negative effects of the existing law.
...Each one of these cases is a travesty enabled by our outdated abortion law. Although abortion is available in England and Wales under conditions set by the 1967 Abortion Act, the law underpinning it dating back to 1861, the Offences against the Person Act, means that outside those conditions, it remains a criminal offence carrying a maximum life sentence. Originally passed by an all-male parliament elected by men alone, this Victorian law is increasingly used against vulnerable women and girls. Since 2020 more than 100 women have been criminally investigated … Women affected are often acutely vulnerable victims of domestic abuse and violence, human trafficking and sexual exploitation, girls under the age of 18 and women who have suffered miscarriage...
It doesn't sound to me that the bill they've just passed is a proportionate remedy to the injustice perceived.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
Get a grip you grumpy old man
You don't think the right to life of a nine month old fetus, entirely viable, waiting to be born, is worthy of debate?
You tiresome little REDACTED
No.
It's not been born and its the woman's body.
So effectively murder of a viable post 24 week foetus has no consequence if the mother decides to kill it, only if a doctor or other 3rd party gets involved will a prosecution be made
I wondered when Pope Sixtus IV would enter the debate.
I don't actually have a strong view either in favour or against this amendment. The reality is that there will be injustices either way.
But I note its opponents have never expressed any strong feelings, let alone outrage, about the negative effects of the existing law.
...Each one of these cases is a travesty enabled by our outdated abortion law. Although abortion is available in England and Wales under conditions set by the 1967 Abortion Act, the law underpinning it dating back to 1861, the Offences against the Person Act, means that outside those conditions, it remains a criminal offence carrying a maximum life sentence. Originally passed by an all-male parliament elected by men alone, this Victorian law is increasingly used against vulnerable women and girls. Since 2020 more than 100 women have been criminally investigated … Women affected are often acutely vulnerable victims of domestic abuse and violence, human trafficking and sexual exploitation, girls under the age of 18 and women who have suffered miscarriage...
It doesn't sound to me that the bill they've just passed is a proportionate remedy to the injustice perceived.
It’s not a remedy. It simply makes the law clearer.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
No, they aren't. The amendment voted only applies only to the pregnant woman.
To move the following clause — “Removal of women from the criminal law related to abortion For the purposes of the law related to abortion, including sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy.”
Opinions are sharply divided on this, but you should be clear on what the change actually is.
So I'll repeat the question I asked earlier:
And how could a backstreet abortion be prosecuted ? The mother wouldn't be prosecuted and she wouldn't say that someone had helped here would she.
First tell me what incentive is there is for anyone to provide "backstreet abortions" - or pregnant women to seem them given the wide availability of drugs which will terminate the pregnancy.
Providing such drugs is a form of backstreet abortions.
When abortions are carried out they should be done so in a proper medical setting with proper medical treatment.
And providing said drugs will still be illegal as I understand it and can be prosecuted
Does that mean a mother who aborts could be prosecuted for procuring legal drugs?
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
Get a grip you grumpy old man
You don't think the right to life of a nine month old fetus, entirely viable, waiting to be born, is worthy of debate?
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
No, they aren't. The amendment voted only applies only to the pregnant woman.
To move the following clause — “Removal of women from the criminal law related to abortion For the purposes of the law related to abortion, including sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy.”
Opinions are sharply divided on this, but you should be clear on what the change actually is.
So I'll repeat the question I asked earlier:
And how could a backstreet abortion be prosecuted ? The mother wouldn't be prosecuted and she wouldn't say that someone had helped here would she.
First tell me what incentive is there is for anyone to provide "backstreet abortions" - or pregnant women to seem them given the wide availability of drugs which will terminate the pregnancy.
Providing such drugs is a form of backstreet abortions.
When abortions are carried out they should be done so in a proper medical setting with proper medical treatment.
And providing said drugs will still be illegal as I understand it and can be prosecuted
Does that mean a mother who aborts could be prosecuted for procuring legal drugs?
No. It isn’t illegal to possess prescription drugs without a prescription. However the person providing them to her could be prosecuted I assume.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
Get a grip you grumpy old man
You don't think the right to life of a nine month old fetus, entirely viable, waiting to be born, is worthy of debate?
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
So is it back to the old days of a bottle of gin and a knitting needle ?
Is it clear what this means in reality.?
Are our law makers confident that a baby aborted by an amateur will actually be delivered dead? Suppose the child is alive on arrival? Is mother allowed to kill him/her?
Nothing has changed other than the woman herself is no longer committing a criminal offence. Any abortions happening outside the approved channels were illegal and are still illegal.
So this is one of those non-crime crimes. That still leaves open the question of what happens if the late term baby is delivered alive instead of dead. The mother doesn't want the child. Who will take it into care immediately? Is the mother still not committing a crime if she induces death after delivery? How will the remains be dealt with? Does it go into the organic waste recycling bin for collection next week?
If a child is born alive then anyone who kills it is committing murder (including the mother). I am fairly certain that is clear in law.
Also, it is not a non-crime. A person or persons aiding a woman in terminating a pregnancy would presumably still be committing a criminal offence. For example, if a doctor was doing this sort of thing on the side.
I understand that the poor woman has to do this alone. But I don't see how a DIY abortion can be all that safe for her and surely, the later she leaves it the less safe it becomes. But anyone who helps her out is liable to prosecution.
Recipe for disaster, I'd say.
And, so the logic of that is that medical assistance ought to be provided.
A truck carrying one of the Army M1 Abrams tanks that participated in President Donald Trump's parade in honor of the service's 250th birthday struck and killed a woman Monday evening in Washington.
The occurred June 16 – two days after the parade – on New York Avenue while a contract truck driver was hauling the tank from the West Potomac Park staging area to a railyard in Jessup, Maryland, according to an internal Army document obtained by USA TODAY. The truck was part of a larger convoy of vehicles.
The woman, whose name was not included in the document, was alone at the time of her death.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
Get a grip you grumpy old man
You don't think the right to life of a nine month old fetus, entirely viable, waiting to be born, is worthy of debate?
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
So is it back to the old days of a bottle of gin and a knitting needle ?
Is it clear what this means in reality.?
Are our law makers confident that a baby aborted by an amateur will actually be delivered dead? Suppose the child is alive on arrival? Is mother allowed to kill him/her?
Nothing has changed other than the woman herself is no longer committing a criminal offence. Any abortions happening outside the approved channels were illegal and are still illegal.
So this is one of those non-crime crimes. That still leaves open the question of what happens if the late term baby is delivered alive instead of dead. The mother doesn't want the child. Who will take it into care immediately? Is the mother still not committing a crime if she induces death after delivery? How will the remains be dealt with? Does it go into the organic waste recycling bin for collection next week?
If a child is born alive then anyone who kills it is committing murder (including the mother). I am fairly certain that is clear in law.
Also, it is not a non-crime. A person or persons aiding a woman in terminating a pregnancy would presumably still be committing a criminal offence. For example, if a doctor was doing this sort of thing on the side.
I understand that the poor woman has to do this alone. But I don't see how a DIY abortion can be all that safe for her and surely, the later she leaves it the less safe it becomes. But anyone who helps her out is liable to prosecution.
Recipe for disaster, I'd say.
And, so the logic of that is that medical assistance ought to be provided.
And then how can you prosecute them? You can't, they were helping out in an emergency
And thus legal abortion is extended to full term, de facto
Absolutely disgraceful. This really is how Hitler smuggled through his early anti-Semitic laws
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
So is it back to the old days of a bottle of gin and a knitting needle ?
Is it clear what this means in reality.?
Are our law makers confident that a baby aborted by an amateur will actually be delivered dead? Suppose the child is alive on arrival? Is mother allowed to kill him/her?
Nothing has changed other than the woman herself is no longer committing a criminal offence. Any abortions happening outside the approved channels were illegal and are still illegal.
So this is one of those non-crime crimes. That still leaves open the question of what happens if the late term baby is delivered alive instead of dead. The mother doesn't want the child. Who will take it into care immediately? Is the mother still not committing a crime if she induces death after delivery? How will the remains be dealt with? Does it go into the organic waste recycling bin for collection next week?
If a child is born alive then anyone who kills it is committing murder (including the mother). I am fairly certain that is clear in law.
Also, it is not a non-crime. A person or persons aiding a woman in terminating a pregnancy would presumably still be committing a criminal offence. For example, if a doctor was doing this sort of thing on the side.
I understand that the poor woman has to do this alone. But I don't see how a DIY abortion can be all that safe for her and surely, the later she leaves it the less safe it becomes. But anyone who helps her out is liable to prosecution.
Recipe for disaster, I'd say.
And, so the logic of that is that medical assistance ought to be provided.
And then how can you prosecute them? You can't, they were helping out in an emergency
And thus legal abortion is extended to full term, de facto
Absolutely disgraceful. This really is how Hitler smuggled through his early anti-Semitic laws
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
So is it back to the old days of a bottle of gin and a knitting needle ?
Is it clear what this means in reality.?
Are our law makers confident that a baby aborted by an amateur will actually be delivered dead? Suppose the child is alive on arrival? Is mother allowed to kill him/her?
Nothing has changed other than the woman herself is no longer committing a criminal offence. Any abortions happening outside the approved channels were illegal and are still illegal.
So this is one of those non-crime crimes. That still leaves open the question of what happens if the late term baby is delivered alive instead of dead. The mother doesn't want the child. Who will take it into care immediately? Is the mother still not committing a crime if she induces death after delivery? How will the remains be dealt with? Does it go into the organic waste recycling bin for collection next week?
If a child is born alive then anyone who kills it is committing murder (including the mother). I am fairly certain that is clear in law.
Also, it is not a non-crime. A person or persons aiding a woman in terminating a pregnancy would presumably still be committing a criminal offence. For example, if a doctor was doing this sort of thing on the side.
I understand that the poor woman has to do this alone. But I don't see how a DIY abortion can be all that safe for her and surely, the later she leaves it the less safe it becomes. But anyone who helps her out is liable to prosecution.
Recipe for disaster, I'd say.
And, so the logic of that is that medical assistance ought to be provided.
And then how can you prosecute them? You can't, they were helping out in an emergency
And thus legal abortion is extended to full term, de facto
Absolutely disgraceful. This really is how Hitler smuggled through his early anti-Semitic laws
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
So is it back to the old days of a bottle of gin and a knitting needle ?
Is it clear what this means in reality.?
Are our law makers confident that a baby aborted by an amateur will actually be delivered dead? Suppose the child is alive on arrival? Is mother allowed to kill him/her?
Nothing has changed other than the woman herself is no longer committing a criminal offence. Any abortions happening outside the approved channels were illegal and are still illegal.
So this is one of those non-crime crimes. That still leaves open the question of what happens if the late term baby is delivered alive instead of dead. The mother doesn't want the child. Who will take it into care immediately? Is the mother still not committing a crime if she induces death after delivery? How will the remains be dealt with? Does it go into the organic waste recycling bin for collection next week?
If a child is born alive then anyone who kills it is committing murder (including the mother). I am fairly certain that is clear in law.
Also, it is not a non-crime. A person or persons aiding a woman in terminating a pregnancy would presumably still be committing a criminal offence. For example, if a doctor was doing this sort of thing on the side.
I understand that the poor woman has to do this alone. But I don't see how a DIY abortion can be all that safe for her and surely, the later she leaves it the less safe it becomes. But anyone who helps her out is liable to prosecution.
Recipe for disaster, I'd say.
And, so the logic of that is that medical assistance ought to be provided.
Which is why legalising is better than decriminalising.
We have now created a situation where a woman who was over 24 weeks pregnant would be turned away by an abortion clinic but allowed to have a solo abortion at home with nothing more than an internet tutorial.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
So is it back to the old days of a bottle of gin and a knitting needle ?
Is it clear what this means in reality.?
Are our law makers confident that a baby aborted by an amateur will actually be delivered dead? Suppose the child is alive on arrival? Is mother allowed to kill him/her?
Nothing has changed other than the woman herself is no longer committing a criminal offence. Any abortions happening outside the approved channels were illegal and are still illegal.
So this is one of those non-crime crimes. That still leaves open the question of what happens if the late term baby is delivered alive instead of dead. The mother doesn't want the child. Who will take it into care immediately? Is the mother still not committing a crime if she induces death after delivery? How will the remains be dealt with? Does it go into the organic waste recycling bin for collection next week?
If a child is born alive then anyone who kills it is committing murder (including the mother). I am fairly certain that is clear in law.
Also, it is not a non-crime. A person or persons aiding a woman in terminating a pregnancy would presumably still be committing a criminal offence. For example, if a doctor was doing this sort of thing on the side.
I understand that the poor woman has to do this alone. But I don't see how a DIY abortion can be all that safe for her and surely, the later she leaves it the less safe it becomes. But anyone who helps her out is liable to prosecution.
Recipe for disaster, I'd say.
And, so the logic of that is that medical assistance ought to be provided.
And then how can you prosecute them? You can't, they were helping out in an emergency
And thus legal abortion is extended to full term, de facto
Absolutely disgraceful. This really is how Hitler smuggled through his early anti-Semitic laws
You really have become a parody
Of what? lol
A grumpy old man raging against the march of youth
I’m sure those supporting this will be fine when Reform take us out of ECHR and bring back the death penalty.
Farage is opposed to the death penalty.
He even made the same point as me that juries would move the trigger point for conviction from beyond a reasonable doubt to 100% proof for death penalty cases.
There are cases that have 100% proof. Rigby springs to mind; lots of others are beyond reasonable doubt but not all doubt - Letby is a good example tbh
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
Get a grip you grumpy old man
You don't think the right to life of a nine month old fetus, entirely viable, waiting to be born, is worthy of debate?
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
So is it back to the old days of a bottle of gin and a knitting needle ?
Is it clear what this means in reality.?
Are our law makers confident that a baby aborted by an amateur will actually be delivered dead? Suppose the child is alive on arrival? Is mother allowed to kill him/her?
Nothing has changed other than the woman herself is no longer committing a criminal offence. Any abortions happening outside the approved channels were illegal and are still illegal.
So this is one of those non-crime crimes. That still leaves open the question of what happens if the late term baby is delivered alive instead of dead. The mother doesn't want the child. Who will take it into care immediately? Is the mother still not committing a crime if she induces death after delivery? How will the remains be dealt with? Does it go into the organic waste recycling bin for collection next week?
If a child is born alive then anyone who kills it is committing murder (including the mother). I am fairly certain that is clear in law.
Also, it is not a non-crime. A person or persons aiding a woman in terminating a pregnancy would presumably still be committing a criminal offence. For example, if a doctor was doing this sort of thing on the side.
I understand that the poor woman has to do this alone. But I don't see how a DIY abortion can be all that safe for her and surely, the later she leaves it the less safe it becomes. But anyone who helps her out is liable to prosecution.
Recipe for disaster, I'd say.
And, so the logic of that is that medical assistance ought to be provided.
Which is why legalising is better than decriminalising.
We have now created a situation where a woman who was over 24 weeks pregnant would be turned away by an abortion clinic but allowed to have a solo abortion at home with nothing more than an internet tutorial.
If they wanted an abortion that badly they would have done it anyway. The difference is now they don’t have to deal with the stress and anxiety of a possible prosecution.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
So is it back to the old days of a bottle of gin and a knitting needle ?
Is it clear what this means in reality.?
Are our law makers confident that a baby aborted by an amateur will actually be delivered dead? Suppose the child is alive on arrival? Is mother allowed to kill him/her?
Nothing has changed other than the woman herself is no longer committing a criminal offence. Any abortions happening outside the approved channels were illegal and are still illegal.
So this is one of those non-crime crimes. That still leaves open the question of what happens if the late term baby is delivered alive instead of dead. The mother doesn't want the child. Who will take it into care immediately? Is the mother still not committing a crime if she induces death after delivery? How will the remains be dealt with? Does it go into the organic waste recycling bin for collection next week?
If a child is born alive then anyone who kills it is committing murder (including the mother). I am fairly certain that is clear in law.
Also, it is not a non-crime. A person or persons aiding a woman in terminating a pregnancy would presumably still be committing a criminal offence. For example, if a doctor was doing this sort of thing on the side.
I understand that the poor woman has to do this alone. But I don't see how a DIY abortion can be all that safe for her and surely, the later she leaves it the less safe it becomes. But anyone who helps her out is liable to prosecution.
Recipe for disaster, I'd say.
And, so the logic of that is that medical assistance ought to be provided.
Which is why legalising is better than decriminalising.
We have now created a situation where a woman who was over 24 weeks pregnant would be turned away by an abortion clinic but allowed to have a solo abortion at home with nothing more than an internet tutorial.
Though she can't buy the drugs to do so after 10 weeks pregnant
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
Get a grip you grumpy old man
You don't think the right to life of a nine month old fetus, entirely viable, waiting to be born, is worthy of debate?
You tiresome little REDACTED
No.
It's not been born and its the woman's body.
So effectively murder of a viable post 24 week foetus has no consequence if the mother decides to kill it, only if a doctor or other 3rd party gets involved will a prosecution be made
It's not murder.
What a woman does with her own body is nobody's business but her own.
Carla Denyer @carla_denyer · 1h I had an abortion in my 20s - I know how important it is that women have control over our own bodies and don't face criminalisation for our choices
So glad to be 1 of 379 MPs who successfully voted to decriminalise abortion - an historic vote to protect a woman's right to choose
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
So is it back to the old days of a bottle of gin and a knitting needle ?
Is it clear what this means in reality.?
Are our law makers confident that a baby aborted by an amateur will actually be delivered dead? Suppose the child is alive on arrival? Is mother allowed to kill him/her?
Nothing has changed other than the woman herself is no longer committing a criminal offence. Any abortions happening outside the approved channels were illegal and are still illegal.
So this is one of those non-crime crimes. That still leaves open the question of what happens if the late term baby is delivered alive instead of dead. The mother doesn't want the child. Who will take it into care immediately? Is the mother still not committing a crime if she induces death after delivery? How will the remains be dealt with? Does it go into the organic waste recycling bin for collection next week?
If a child is born alive then anyone who kills it is committing murder (including the mother). I am fairly certain that is clear in law.
Also, it is not a non-crime. A person or persons aiding a woman in terminating a pregnancy would presumably still be committing a criminal offence. For example, if a doctor was doing this sort of thing on the side.
I understand that the poor woman has to do this alone. But I don't see how a DIY abortion can be all that safe for her and surely, the later she leaves it the less safe it becomes. But anyone who helps her out is liable to prosecution.
Recipe for disaster, I'd say.
And, so the logic of that is that medical assistance ought to be provided.
Which is why legalising is better than decriminalising.
We have now created a situation where a woman who was over 24 weeks pregnant would be turned away by an abortion clinic but allowed to have a solo abortion at home with nothing more than an internet tutorial.
The question now becomes, how late term is too late term to flush baby down the loo?
I’m sure those supporting this will be fine when Reform take us out of ECHR and bring back the death penalty.
There’s a logical inconsistency when someone is prepared to risk coerced state assisted suicide, ascribes zero rights to a 9month old fetus and yet considers it a moral abomination to consider executing the very worst criminals.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
Get a grip you grumpy old man
You don't think the right to life of a nine month old fetus, entirely viable, waiting to be born, is worthy of debate?
You tiresome little REDACTED
No.
It's not been born and its the woman's body.
Just kill the little fucker.
I wonder how David Steel feels about this.
Pleased?
I thought he envisaged legalised abortion remaining quite rare.
Carla Denyer @carla_denyer · 1h I had an abortion in my 20s - I know how important it is that women have control over our own bodies and don't face criminalisation for our choices
So glad to be 1 of 379 MPs who successfully voted to decriminalise abortion - an historic vote to protect a woman's right to choose
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
So is it back to the old days of a bottle of gin and a knitting needle ?
Is it clear what this means in reality.?
Are our law makers confident that a baby aborted by an amateur will actually be delivered dead? Suppose the child is alive on arrival? Is mother allowed to kill him/her?
Nothing has changed other than the woman herself is no longer committing a criminal offence. Any abortions happening outside the approved channels were illegal and are still illegal.
So this is one of those non-crime crimes. That still leaves open the question of what happens if the late term baby is delivered alive instead of dead. The mother doesn't want the child. Who will take it into care immediately? Is the mother still not committing a crime if she induces death after delivery? How will the remains be dealt with? Does it go into the organic waste recycling bin for collection next week?
If a child is born alive then anyone who kills it is committing murder (including the mother). I am fairly certain that is clear in law.
Also, it is not a non-crime. A person or persons aiding a woman in terminating a pregnancy would presumably still be committing a criminal offence. For example, if a doctor was doing this sort of thing on the side.
I understand that the poor woman has to do this alone. But I don't see how a DIY abortion can be all that safe for her and surely, the later she leaves it the less safe it becomes. But anyone who helps her out is liable to prosecution.
Recipe for disaster, I'd say.
And, so the logic of that is that medical assistance ought to be provided.
Which is why legalising is better than decriminalising.
We have now created a situation where a woman who was over 24 weeks pregnant would be turned away by an abortion clinic but allowed to have a solo abortion at home with nothing more than an internet tutorial.
If they wanted an abortion that badly they would have done it anyway. The difference is now they don’t have to deal with the stress and anxiety of a possible prosecution.
Do you ever wonder how the baby feels? Because there is no doubt that a full-term baby at 39 weeks is conscious and sentient and ready for life, and eager to be born, with a personality forming inside its expectant little limbs, all it needs is to be eased into the air so it can yowl
Unless of course the mother decides fuck it and they crunch in a metal tube into the baby's skull, as the baby tries to be born, and they vigorously hoover the brains out of its skull and then chop up its entirely healthy limbs in the birth canal, because THAT is late term abortion, THAT is what happens
My guess is the baby might be less keen on this law change. But that's just a thought. No need to trouble yourself
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
Whatever else might be true, we absolutely can still sneer at the Americans.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
Get a grip you grumpy old man
You don't think the right to life of a nine month old fetus, entirely viable, waiting to be born, is worthy of debate?
You tiresome little REDACTED
No.
It's not been born and its the woman's body.
So effectively murder of a viable post 24 week foetus has no consequence if the mother decides to kill it, only if a doctor or other 3rd party gets involved will a prosecution be made
It's not murder.
What a woman does with her own body is nobody's business but her own.
The law determines a foetus after the age of 24 weeks is a human being effectively so it is murder, even if legally if a mother does it it might have been charged as infanticide.
After that age it is not just her body she is dealing with but a viable foetus
"Only three women were convicted of having an illegal abortion between 1861 and November 2022, when the law was changed to allow women to take abortion pills at home if they were less than 10 weeks pregnant.
Records collected by the UK's largest abortion services have found at least 100 women have been investigated for having an abortion in the last five years, and six have appeared in court."
So, if they don't like the new spate of prosecutions, instead of changing the law, how about reversing the previous change?
Somehow the police have so much spare time that they can massively increase their rate of investigating abortions. Seems a weird decision to make in terms of prioritising police time. I wonder how that happened?
The cases may well be in Northern Ireland, where legislation had been different for a substantial period of time - most cases I heard about were NI based.
Carla Denyer @carla_denyer · 1h I had an abortion in my 20s - I know how important it is that women have control over our own bodies and don't face criminalisation for our choices
So glad to be 1 of 379 MPs who successfully voted to decriminalise abortion - an historic vote to protect a woman's right to choose
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
So is it back to the old days of a bottle of gin and a knitting needle ?
Is it clear what this means in reality.?
Are our law makers confident that a baby aborted by an amateur will actually be delivered dead? Suppose the child is alive on arrival? Is mother allowed to kill him/her?
Nothing has changed other than the woman herself is no longer committing a criminal offence. Any abortions happening outside the approved channels were illegal and are still illegal.
So this is one of those non-crime crimes. That still leaves open the question of what happens if the late term baby is delivered alive instead of dead. The mother doesn't want the child. Who will take it into care immediately? Is the mother still not committing a crime if she induces death after delivery? How will the remains be dealt with? Does it go into the organic waste recycling bin for collection next week?
If a child is born alive then anyone who kills it is committing murder (including the mother). I am fairly certain that is clear in law.
Also, it is not a non-crime. A person or persons aiding a woman in terminating a pregnancy would presumably still be committing a criminal offence. For example, if a doctor was doing this sort of thing on the side.
I understand that the poor woman has to do this alone. But I don't see how a DIY abortion can be all that safe for her and surely, the later she leaves it the less safe it becomes. But anyone who helps her out is liable to prosecution.
Recipe for disaster, I'd say.
And, so the logic of that is that medical assistance ought to be provided.
Which is why legalising is better than decriminalising.
We have now created a situation where a woman who was over 24 weeks pregnant would be turned away by an abortion clinic but allowed to have a solo abortion at home with nothing more than an internet tutorial.
If they wanted an abortion that badly they would have done it anyway. The difference is now they don’t have to deal with the stress and anxiety of a possible prosecution.
Do you ever wonder how the baby feels? Because there is no doubt that a full-term baby at 39 weeks is conscious and sentient and ready for life, and eager to be born, with a personality forming inside its expectant little limbs, all it needs is to be eased into the air so it can yowl
Unless of course the mother decides fuck it and they crunch in a metal tube into the baby's skull, as the baby tries to be born, and they vigorously hoover the brains out of its skull and then chop up its entirely healthy limbs in the birth canal, because THAT is late term abortion, THAT is what happens
My guess is the baby might be less keen on this law change. But that's just a thought. No need to trouble yourself
Well that’s a real shame for the baby but until it is born it is not born. It’s not for men (or anyone else) to tell a woman what she can do with it (in my view).
I’m sure those supporting this will be fine when Reform take us out of ECHR and bring back the death penalty.
There’s a logical inconsistency when someone is prepared to risk coerced state assisted suicide, ascribes zero rights to a 9month old fetus and yet considers it a moral abomination to consider executing the very worst criminals.
A 9 month old is someone born 9 months ago.
I'm not sure if this is just semantics or sophistry, what it certainly isn't is useful.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
So is it back to the old days of a bottle of gin and a knitting needle ?
Is it clear what this means in reality.?
Are our law makers confident that a baby aborted by an amateur will actually be delivered dead? Suppose the child is alive on arrival? Is mother allowed to kill him/her?
Nothing has changed other than the woman herself is no longer committing a criminal offence. Any abortions happening outside the approved channels were illegal and are still illegal.
So this is one of those non-crime crimes. That still leaves open the question of what happens if the late term baby is delivered alive instead of dead. The mother doesn't want the child. Who will take it into care immediately? Is the mother still not committing a crime if she induces death after delivery? How will the remains be dealt with? Does it go into the organic waste recycling bin for collection next week?
If a child is born alive then anyone who kills it is committing murder (including the mother). I am fairly certain that is clear in law.
Also, it is not a non-crime. A person or persons aiding a woman in terminating a pregnancy would presumably still be committing a criminal offence. For example, if a doctor was doing this sort of thing on the side.
I understand that the poor woman has to do this alone. But I don't see how a DIY abortion can be all that safe for her and surely, the later she leaves it the less safe it becomes. But anyone who helps her out is liable to prosecution.
Recipe for disaster, I'd say.
And, so the logic of that is that medical assistance ought to be provided.
Which is why legalising is better than decriminalising.
We have now created a situation where a woman who was over 24 weeks pregnant would be turned away by an abortion clinic but allowed to have a solo abortion at home with nothing more than an internet tutorial.
If they wanted an abortion that badly they would have done it anyway. The difference is now they don’t have to deal with the stress and anxiety of a possible prosecution.
Do you ever wonder how the baby feels? Because there is no doubt that a full-term baby at 39 weeks is conscious and sentient and ready for life, and eager to be born, with a personality forming inside its expectant little limbs, all it needs is to be eased into the air so it can yowl
Unless of course the mother decides fuck it and they crunch in a metal tube into the baby's skull, as the baby tries to be born, and they vigorously hoover the brains out of its skull and then chop up its entirely healthy limbs in the birth canal, because THAT is late term abortion, THAT is what happens
My guess is the baby might be less keen on this law change. But that's just a thought. No need to trouble yourself
Well that’s a real shame for the baby but until it is born it is not born. It’s not for men (or anyone else) to tell a woman what she can do with it (in my view).
"Well that is a real shame for the baby"
*stares into the twilight*
I will have to restrain myself from answering lest I fall foul of the @TSE "do not swear at other commenters" Act, of 2025
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
So is it back to the old days of a bottle of gin and a knitting needle ?
Is it clear what this means in reality.?
Are our law makers confident that a baby aborted by an amateur will actually be delivered dead? Suppose the child is alive on arrival? Is mother allowed to kill him/her?
Nothing has changed other than the woman herself is no longer committing a criminal offence. Any abortions happening outside the approved channels were illegal and are still illegal.
So this is one of those non-crime crimes. That still leaves open the question of what happens if the late term baby is delivered alive instead of dead. The mother doesn't want the child. Who will take it into care immediately? Is the mother still not committing a crime if she induces death after delivery? How will the remains be dealt with? Does it go into the organic waste recycling bin for collection next week?
If a child is born alive then anyone who kills it is committing murder (including the mother). I am fairly certain that is clear in law.
Also, it is not a non-crime. A person or persons aiding a woman in terminating a pregnancy would presumably still be committing a criminal offence. For example, if a doctor was doing this sort of thing on the side.
I understand that the poor woman has to do this alone. But I don't see how a DIY abortion can be all that safe for her and surely, the later she leaves it the less safe it becomes. But anyone who helps her out is liable to prosecution.
Recipe for disaster, I'd say.
And, so the logic of that is that medical assistance ought to be provided.
Which is why legalising is better than decriminalising.
We have now created a situation where a woman who was over 24 weeks pregnant would be turned away by an abortion clinic but allowed to have a solo abortion at home with nothing more than an internet tutorial.
If they wanted an abortion that badly they would have done it anyway. The difference is now they don’t have to deal with the stress and anxiety of a possible prosecution.
Do you ever wonder how the baby feels? Because there is no doubt that a full-term baby at 39 weeks is conscious and sentient and ready for life, and eager to be born, with a personality forming inside its expectant little limbs, all it needs is to be eased into the air so it can yowl
Unless of course the mother decides fuck it and they crunch in a metal tube into the baby's skull, as the baby tries to be born, and they vigorously hoover the brains out of its skull and then chop up its entirely healthy limbs in the birth canal, because THAT is late term abortion, THAT is what happens
My guess is the baby might be less keen on this law change. But that's just a thought. No need to trouble yourself
Well that’s a real shame for the baby but until it is born it is not born. It’s not for men (or anyone else) to tell a woman what she can do with it (in my view).
"Well that is a real shame for the baby"
*stares into the twilight*
I will have to restrain myself from answering lest I fall foul of the @TSE "do not swear at other commenters" Act, of 2025
Please continue to rage against the world, it clearly brings you some comfort.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
No, not allowed. Just the woman herself isn’t committing a crime as far as I understand it. A bit like how we handle prostitution.
And how could a backstreet abortion be prosecuted ?
The mother wouldn't be prosecuted and she wouldn't say that someone had helped here would she.
The Police could do their jobs and investigate I guess.
Plod: Who carried out the abortion ? Mother: I did. Plod: Did anyone help you ? Mother: No.
End of investigation.
Who supplied you with the abortifacient pills that you took?
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
So is it back to the old days of a bottle of gin and a knitting needle ?
Is it clear what this means in reality.?
Are our law makers confident that a baby aborted by an amateur will actually be delivered dead? Suppose the child is alive on arrival? Is mother allowed to kill him/her?
Nothing has changed other than the woman herself is no longer committing a criminal offence. Any abortions happening outside the approved channels were illegal and are still illegal.
So this is one of those non-crime crimes. That still leaves open the question of what happens if the late term baby is delivered alive instead of dead. The mother doesn't want the child. Who will take it into care immediately? Is the mother still not committing a crime if she induces death after delivery? How will the remains be dealt with? Does it go into the organic waste recycling bin for collection next week?
If a child is born alive then anyone who kills it is committing murder (including the mother). I am fairly certain that is clear in law.
Also, it is not a non-crime. A person or persons aiding a woman in terminating a pregnancy would presumably still be committing a criminal offence. For example, if a doctor was doing this sort of thing on the side.
I understand that the poor woman has to do this alone. But I don't see how a DIY abortion can be all that safe for her and surely, the later she leaves it the less safe it becomes. But anyone who helps her out is liable to prosecution.
Recipe for disaster, I'd say.
And, so the logic of that is that medical assistance ought to be provided.
Which is why legalising is better than decriminalising.
We have now created a situation where a woman who was over 24 weeks pregnant would be turned away by an abortion clinic but allowed to have a solo abortion at home with nothing more than an internet tutorial.
If they wanted an abortion that badly they would have done it anyway. The difference is now they don’t have to deal with the stress and anxiety of a possible prosecution.
Do you ever wonder how the baby feels? Because there is no doubt that a full-term baby at 39 weeks is conscious and sentient and ready for life, and eager to be born, with a personality forming inside its expectant little limbs, all it needs is to be eased into the air so it can yowl
Unless of course the mother decides fuck it and they crunch in a metal tube into the baby's skull, as the baby tries to be born, and they vigorously hoover the brains out of its skull and then chop up its entirely healthy limbs in the birth canal, because THAT is late term abortion, THAT is what happens
My guess is the baby might be less keen on this law change. But that's just a thought. No need to trouble yourself
Well that’s a real shame for the baby but until it is born it is not born. It’s not for men (or anyone else) to tell a woman what she can do with it (in my view).
In any other context, dehumanisation is often frowned upon.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
So is it back to the old days of a bottle of gin and a knitting needle ?
Is it clear what this means in reality.?
Are our law makers confident that a baby aborted by an amateur will actually be delivered dead? Suppose the child is alive on arrival? Is mother allowed to kill him/her?
Nothing has changed other than the woman herself is no longer committing a criminal offence. Any abortions happening outside the approved channels were illegal and are still illegal.
So this is one of those non-crime crimes. That still leaves open the question of what happens if the late term baby is delivered alive instead of dead. The mother doesn't want the child. Who will take it into care immediately? Is the mother still not committing a crime if she induces death after delivery? How will the remains be dealt with? Does it go into the organic waste recycling bin for collection next week?
If a child is born alive then anyone who kills it is committing murder (including the mother). I am fairly certain that is clear in law.
Also, it is not a non-crime. A person or persons aiding a woman in terminating a pregnancy would presumably still be committing a criminal offence. For example, if a doctor was doing this sort of thing on the side.
I understand that the poor woman has to do this alone. But I don't see how a DIY abortion can be all that safe for her and surely, the later she leaves it the less safe it becomes. But anyone who helps her out is liable to prosecution.
Recipe for disaster, I'd say.
And, so the logic of that is that medical assistance ought to be provided.
Which is why legalising is better than decriminalising.
We have now created a situation where a woman who was over 24 weeks pregnant would be turned away by an abortion clinic but allowed to have a solo abortion at home with nothing more than an internet tutorial.
If they wanted an abortion that badly they would have done it anyway. The difference is now they don’t have to deal with the stress and anxiety of a possible prosecution.
Do you ever wonder how the baby feels? Because there is no doubt that a full-term baby at 39 weeks is conscious and sentient and ready for life, and eager to be born, with a personality forming inside its expectant little limbs, all it needs is to be eased into the air so it can yowl
Unless of course the mother decides fuck it and they crunch in a metal tube into the baby's skull, as the baby tries to be born, and they vigorously hoover the brains out of its skull and then chop up its entirely healthy limbs in the birth canal, because THAT is late term abortion, THAT is what happens
My guess is the baby might be less keen on this law change. But that's just a thought. No need to trouble yourself
Well that’s a real shame for the baby but until it is born it is not born. It’s not for men (or anyone else) to tell a woman what she can do with it (in my view).
When people are treated as things, it’s always a shame for them.
And, I think that third parties are fully entitled to speak up.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
No, not allowed. Just the woman herself isn’t committing a crime as far as I understand it. A bit like how we handle prostitution.
And how could a backstreet abortion be prosecuted ?
The mother wouldn't be prosecuted and she wouldn't say that someone had helped here would she.
The Police could do their jobs and investigate I guess.
Plod: Who carried out the abortion ? Mother: I did. Plod: Did anyone help you ? Mother: No.
End of investigation.
Who supplied you with the abortifacient pills that you took?
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
So is it back to the old days of a bottle of gin and a knitting needle ?
Is it clear what this means in reality.?
Are our law makers confident that a baby aborted by an amateur will actually be delivered dead? Suppose the child is alive on arrival? Is mother allowed to kill him/her?
Nothing has changed other than the woman herself is no longer committing a criminal offence. Any abortions happening outside the approved channels were illegal and are still illegal.
So this is one of those non-crime crimes. That still leaves open the question of what happens if the late term baby is delivered alive instead of dead. The mother doesn't want the child. Who will take it into care immediately? Is the mother still not committing a crime if she induces death after delivery? How will the remains be dealt with? Does it go into the organic waste recycling bin for collection next week?
If a child is born alive then anyone who kills it is committing murder (including the mother). I am fairly certain that is clear in law.
Also, it is not a non-crime. A person or persons aiding a woman in terminating a pregnancy would presumably still be committing a criminal offence. For example, if a doctor was doing this sort of thing on the side.
I understand that the poor woman has to do this alone. But I don't see how a DIY abortion can be all that safe for her and surely, the later she leaves it the less safe it becomes. But anyone who helps her out is liable to prosecution.
Recipe for disaster, I'd say.
And, so the logic of that is that medical assistance ought to be provided.
Which is why legalising is better than decriminalising.
We have now created a situation where a woman who was over 24 weeks pregnant would be turned away by an abortion clinic but allowed to have a solo abortion at home with nothing more than an internet tutorial.
If they wanted an abortion that badly they would have done it anyway. The difference is now they don’t have to deal with the stress and anxiety of a possible prosecution.
Do you ever wonder how the baby feels? Because there is no doubt that a full-term baby at 39 weeks is conscious and sentient and ready for life, and eager to be born, with a personality forming inside its expectant little limbs, all it needs is to be eased into the air so it can yowl
Unless of course the mother decides fuck it and they crunch in a metal tube into the baby's skull, as the baby tries to be born, and they vigorously hoover the brains out of its skull and then chop up its entirely healthy limbs in the birth canal, because THAT is late term abortion, THAT is what happens
My guess is the baby might be less keen on this law change. But that's just a thought. No need to trouble yourself
Well that’s a real shame for the baby but until it is born it is not born. It’s not for men (or anyone else) to tell a woman what she can do with it (in my view).
When people are treated as things, it’s always a shame for them.
And, I think that third parties are fully entitled to speak up.
Indeed. You'd think a lawyer would understand that this is in fact the basis of the law.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
Get a grip you grumpy old man
You don't think the right to life of a nine month old fetus, entirely viable, waiting to be born, is worthy of debate?
You tiresome little REDACTED
No.
It's not been born and its the woman's body.
Just kill the little fucker.
I wonder how David Steel feels about this.
Pleased?
I thought he envisaged legalised abortion remaining quite rare.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
So is it back to the old days of a bottle of gin and a knitting needle ?
Is it clear what this means in reality.?
Are our law makers confident that a baby aborted by an amateur will actually be delivered dead? Suppose the child is alive on arrival? Is mother allowed to kill him/her?
Nothing has changed other than the woman herself is no longer committing a criminal offence. Any abortions happening outside the approved channels were illegal and are still illegal.
So this is one of those non-crime crimes. That still leaves open the question of what happens if the late term baby is delivered alive instead of dead. The mother doesn't want the child. Who will take it into care immediately? Is the mother still not committing a crime if she induces death after delivery? How will the remains be dealt with? Does it go into the organic waste recycling bin for collection next week?
If a child is born alive then anyone who kills it is committing murder (including the mother). I am fairly certain that is clear in law.
Also, it is not a non-crime. A person or persons aiding a woman in terminating a pregnancy would presumably still be committing a criminal offence. For example, if a doctor was doing this sort of thing on the side.
I understand that the poor woman has to do this alone. But I don't see how a DIY abortion can be all that safe for her and surely, the later she leaves it the less safe it becomes. But anyone who helps her out is liable to prosecution.
Recipe for disaster, I'd say.
And, so the logic of that is that medical assistance ought to be provided.
Which is why legalising is better than decriminalising.
We have now created a situation where a woman who was over 24 weeks pregnant would be turned away by an abortion clinic but allowed to have a solo abortion at home with nothing more than an internet tutorial.
If they wanted an abortion that badly they would have done it anyway. The difference is now they don’t have to deal with the stress and anxiety of a possible prosecution.
Do you ever wonder how the baby feels? Because there is no doubt that a full-term baby at 39 weeks is conscious and sentient and ready for life, and eager to be born, with a personality forming inside its expectant little limbs, all it needs is to be eased into the air so it can yowl
Unless of course the mother decides fuck it and they crunch in a metal tube into the baby's skull, as the baby tries to be born, and they vigorously hoover the brains out of its skull and then chop up its entirely healthy limbs in the birth canal, because THAT is late term abortion, THAT is what happens
My guess is the baby might be less keen on this law change. But that's just a thought. No need to trouble yourself
Well that’s a real shame for the baby but until it is born it is not born. It’s not for men (or anyone else) to tell a woman what she can do with it (in my view).
The tragic thing here is that Labour, in their juvenile eagerness to "annoy the right" and do something "progressive" (having run out of anything else "progressive" they can do) have deeply politicised abortion law, in a country which, mercifully, had a humane, apolitical consensus around 24 weeks - until today
From now on it will be a battleground. It's so STUPID and so self-harming
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
So is it back to the old days of a bottle of gin and a knitting needle ?
Is it clear what this means in reality.?
Are our law makers confident that a baby aborted by an amateur will actually be delivered dead? Suppose the child is alive on arrival? Is mother allowed to kill him/her?
Nothing has changed other than the woman herself is no longer committing a criminal offence. Any abortions happening outside the approved channels were illegal and are still illegal.
So this is one of those non-crime crimes. That still leaves open the question of what happens if the late term baby is delivered alive instead of dead. The mother doesn't want the child. Who will take it into care immediately? Is the mother still not committing a crime if she induces death after delivery? How will the remains be dealt with? Does it go into the organic waste recycling bin for collection next week?
If a child is born alive then anyone who kills it is committing murder (including the mother). I am fairly certain that is clear in law.
Also, it is not a non-crime. A person or persons aiding a woman in terminating a pregnancy would presumably still be committing a criminal offence. For example, if a doctor was doing this sort of thing on the side.
I understand that the poor woman has to do this alone. But I don't see how a DIY abortion can be all that safe for her and surely, the later she leaves it the less safe it becomes. But anyone who helps her out is liable to prosecution.
Recipe for disaster, I'd say.
And, so the logic of that is that medical assistance ought to be provided.
Which is why legalising is better than decriminalising.
We have now created a situation where a woman who was over 24 weeks pregnant would be turned away by an abortion clinic but allowed to have a solo abortion at home with nothing more than an internet tutorial.
If they wanted an abortion that badly they would have done it anyway. The difference is now they don’t have to deal with the stress and anxiety of a possible prosecution.
Do you ever wonder how the baby feels? Because there is no doubt that a full-term baby at 39 weeks is conscious and sentient and ready for life, and eager to be born, with a personality forming inside its expectant little limbs, all it needs is to be eased into the air so it can yowl
Unless of course the mother decides fuck it and they crunch in a metal tube into the baby's skull, as the baby tries to be born, and they vigorously hoover the brains out of its skull and then chop up its entirely healthy limbs in the birth canal, because THAT is late term abortion, THAT is what happens
My guess is the baby might be less keen on this law change. But that's just a thought. No need to trouble yourself
Well that’s a real shame for the baby but until it is born it is not born. It’s not for men (or anyone else) to tell a woman what she can do with it (in my view).
"Well that is a real shame for the baby"
*stares into the twilight*
I will have to restrain myself from answering lest I fall foul of the @TSE "do not swear at other commenters" Act, of 2025
Please continue to rage against the world, it clearly brings you some comfort.
Going forward, I wonder how long it will be before sewage workers have to deal with aborted humans like they have to deal with fat balls. Or maybe the rats will eat the bodies first.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
So is it back to the old days of a bottle of gin and a knitting needle ?
Is it clear what this means in reality.?
Are our law makers confident that a baby aborted by an amateur will actually be delivered dead? Suppose the child is alive on arrival? Is mother allowed to kill him/her?
Nothing has changed other than the woman herself is no longer committing a criminal offence. Any abortions happening outside the approved channels were illegal and are still illegal.
So this is one of those non-crime crimes. That still leaves open the question of what happens if the late term baby is delivered alive instead of dead. The mother doesn't want the child. Who will take it into care immediately? Is the mother still not committing a crime if she induces death after delivery? How will the remains be dealt with? Does it go into the organic waste recycling bin for collection next week?
If a child is born alive then anyone who kills it is committing murder (including the mother). I am fairly certain that is clear in law.
Also, it is not a non-crime. A person or persons aiding a woman in terminating a pregnancy would presumably still be committing a criminal offence. For example, if a doctor was doing this sort of thing on the side.
I understand that the poor woman has to do this alone. But I don't see how a DIY abortion can be all that safe for her and surely, the later she leaves it the less safe it becomes. But anyone who helps her out is liable to prosecution.
Recipe for disaster, I'd say.
And, so the logic of that is that medical assistance ought to be provided.
Which is why legalising is better than decriminalising.
We have now created a situation where a woman who was over 24 weeks pregnant would be turned away by an abortion clinic but allowed to have a solo abortion at home with nothing more than an internet tutorial.
If they wanted an abortion that badly they would have done it anyway. The difference is now they don’t have to deal with the stress and anxiety of a possible prosecution.
Do you ever wonder how the baby feels? Because there is no doubt that a full-term baby at 39 weeks is conscious and sentient and ready for life, and eager to be born, with a personality forming inside its expectant little limbs, all it needs is to be eased into the air so it can yowl
Unless of course the mother decides fuck it and they crunch in a metal tube into the baby's skull, as the baby tries to be born, and they vigorously hoover the brains out of its skull and then chop up its entirely healthy limbs in the birth canal, because THAT is late term abortion, THAT is what happens
My guess is the baby might be less keen on this law change. But that's just a thought. No need to trouble yourself
Well that’s a real shame for the baby but until it is born it is not born. It’s not for men (or anyone else) to tell a woman what she can do with it (in my view).
Comments
Reform may change the rules if they win of course but I don’t think Nigel wants to turn a GE into a referendum on abortion seeing as he is too afraid to even make it a referendum on economic policy.
Ditto for drug use and any other issue for which decriminalisation is proposed.
Tell these MPS "you will be expelled from Labour if you table this disgusting amendment, and hurry this law into force, this needs a national conversation, first, and I will lead it"
Shut them up. Exercise discipline. Lead the national discourse. And if we all agree, fair enough
But instead we have this extraordinary new law on the statute books, and it wasn't in the manifesto, and we have had virtually no debate. We are one sick country
Also, it is not a non-crime. A person or persons aiding a woman in terminating a pregnancy would presumably still be committing a criminal offence. For example, if a doctor was doing this sort of thing on the side.
If she is poor, she does it with stuff/instructions off the internet, and she's lucky if she doesn't die or become infertile.
It's always the same... ☹️
The fact that you are taking that so seriously really does make my point in my last post more valid which is you should think a bit more when you make fun of or abuse others. If those trivial joking posts upset you, you might want to think of what effect you have on some others with your constant abrasive posts.
If you or the Labour party want unlimited abortion rights up to birth then advocate that.
That would be in logical and practical terms be preferable.
It's not been born and its the woman's body.
No different to the debate as to whether a soldier dropping a bomb on a house in the desert is murder when compared to a gang member shooting another gang member on the streets of London. We draw moral lines everywhere.
https://x.com/AlnaouqA/status/1934949634109030430
Well, it's a view.
When abortions are carried out they should be done so in a proper medical setting with proper medical treatment.
Recipe for disaster, I'd say.
Stanford just surveyed 1,500 workers and AI experts about which jobs AI will actually replace and automate. Turns out, we've been building AI for all the WRONG jobs.
Future of Work with AI Agents
https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.06576
https://futureofwork.saltlab.stanford.edu/
Can you give a short summary as to which jobs.
But I note its opponents have never expressed any strong feelings, let alone outrage, about the negative effects of the existing law.
...Each one of these cases is a travesty enabled by our outdated abortion law.
Although abortion is available in England and Wales under conditions set by the 1967 Abortion Act, the law underpinning it dating back to 1861, the Offences against the Person Act, means that outside those conditions, it remains a criminal offence carrying a maximum life sentence.
Originally passed by an all-male parliament elected by men alone, this Victorian law is increasingly used against vulnerable women and girls.
Since 2020 more than 100 women have been criminally investigated …
Women affected are often acutely vulnerable victims of domestic abuse and violence, human trafficking and sexual exploitation, girls under the age of 18 and women who have suffered miscarriage...
He even made the same point as me that juries would move the trigger point for conviction from beyond a reasonable doubt to 100% proof for death penalty cases.
The amendment passed though with the support of the vast majority of Labour and LD MPs and Green and Plaid MPs
I am currently a statistician (and enjoying it immensely), but I have been a coder in the past. I was always good enough to get by, but rarely more than mediocre. So I am very pleased by the step-change in speed that AI can provide. I think it's extended my working lifespan by at least three years.
https://open.spotify.com/track/7rTg8NpLI1NN4zEf7FdvGG?si=3VgHNWMVTYaQBTYp90Zjdw&context=spotify:playlist:0RzKKdFWvr4tqPD66XpO7w
Which was three, between 1861 and 2022.
😎
The occurred June 16 – two days after the parade – on New York Avenue while a contract truck driver was hauling the tank from the West Potomac Park staging area to a railyard in Jessup, Maryland, according to an internal Army document obtained by USA TODAY. The truck was part of a larger convoy of vehicles.
The woman, whose name was not included in the document, was alone at the time of her death.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/06/17/army-tank-kills-dc-pedestrian-birthday-parade/84246151007/
And thus legal abortion is extended to full term, de facto
Absolutely disgraceful. This really is how Hitler smuggled through his early anti-Semitic laws
@ZiaYusufUK
·
3h
Being built, will be ready in the next few days!
Quote
lambo
@26lambo
Replying to @ZiaYusufUK
Can you set up a website or even an email where members of the public can raise any concerns to DOGE please!
https://x.com/ZiaYusufUK/status/1935020987613069604
We have now created a situation where a woman who was over 24 weeks pregnant would be turned away by an abortion clinic but allowed to have a solo abortion at home with nothing more than an internet tutorial.
What a woman does with her own body is nobody's business but her own.
@carla_denyer
·
1h
I had an abortion in my 20s - I know how important it is that women have control over our own bodies and don't face criminalisation for our choices
So glad to be 1 of 379 MPs who successfully voted to decriminalise abortion - an historic vote to protect a woman's right to choose
https://x.com/carla_denyer/status/1935043807185354900
Maybe I have such severe Trump Derangement Syndrome that I am not properly focussed on UK politics?
Instead of the mealy mouthed decriminalisation ?
If she has advocated complete legalisation of abortion with no time limits then fair play to her as she's been intellectually logical.
Unless of course the mother decides fuck it and they crunch in a metal tube into the baby's skull, as the baby tries to be born, and they vigorously hoover the brains out of its skull and then chop up its entirely healthy limbs in the birth canal, because THAT is late term abortion, THAT is what happens
My guess is the baby might be less keen on this law change. But that's just a thought. No need to trouble yourself
Indeed we must.
After that age it is not just her body she is dealing with but a viable foetus
There's probably business opportunities for people to produce TACO equivalents of all those MAGA caps.
"Well that is a real shame for the baby"
*stares into the twilight*
I will have to restrain myself from answering lest I fall foul of the @TSE "do not swear at other commenters" Act, of 2025
And, I think that third parties are fully entitled to speak up.
From now on it will be a battleground. It's so STUPID and so self-harming