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).
"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.
AnneJGP and Andy_JS are the two posters here who surprise me most often. I can only aspire to such unpredictability.
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.
It's very telling that most businesses deploying AI are doing so with a laser-focus on achieving quick savings - customer service is the main area; sack most of your CS agents and replace them with AI that doesn't need paid, instant win!
Of course AI is completely useless at this. No sane company will allow it to actually make decisions or take consequential actions (correctly, in my view) so all it can ever do is act as a barrier between customers and people who can actually help them. CS people are probably safe, long-term.
But if I was in a job that involved a lot of data analysis, I'd be worried. Current LLMs are pretty damn good at sifting through data looking for patterns and trends. They're going to be a huge force multiplier in those areas. It'll be like the late 70s and 80s, where one secretary with a computer could suddenly do the work of 20 using typewriters and paper files.
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.
I don’t think he meant it.
I'm shocked. I hope you're wrong, even though he was a politician.
Why can't people just admit that the question of when the rights of the unborn child override the rights of the mother is a difficult one, and that reasonable intelligent people can reach different conclusions ?
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?
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).
Too bad your mother didn’t do that with you.
Well if she had done I wouldn’t know otherwise
You wouldn’t know about it up until (at least) six months, so why make birth the threshold? Why not allow it for three months after?
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?
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).
Too bad your mother didn’t do that with you.
Well if she had done I wouldn’t know otherwise
You wouldn’t know about it up until (at least) six months, so why make birth the threshold? Why not allow it for three months after?
We have to draw a line somewhere. Personally I am pretty content with the current limit i.e. the first trimester but I don’t think women should be criminalised for ignoring this (up until birth). To be frank the (new) law aligns pretty much with my moral opinion.
I don’t think it is murder until the baby takes its first breath outside the womb. That’s just my own personal opinion.
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
The MP leading this change according to Wiki:
"June 2019, Antoniazzi secured a debate in parliament about the health risks of electromagnetic fields, particularly 5G technology, in which she asked the government to commit to ensuring that Public Health England informed the public that all radio frequency signals are a possible human carcinogen."
Why can't people just admit that the question of when the rights of the unborn child override the rights of the mother is a difficult one, and that reasonable intelligent people can reach different conclusions ?
I think most if not all of us acknowledge that, which is why the exchanges are more or less civil. Or do you mean we shouldn't be exchanging our differing views?
Why can't people just admit that the question of when the rights of the unborn child override the rights of the mother is a difficult one, and that reasonable intelligent people can reach different conclusions ?
I think most people do understand and admit that, accept that others will reasonably have different conclusions, the difficulty is more in assessing what the range of 'reasonable' conclusions is, so the fact of different conclusions is accepted in principle but the specific alternative conclusions continue to bemuse one another.
Why can't people just admit that the question of when the rights of the unborn child override the rights of the mother is a difficult one, and that reasonable intelligent people can reach different conclusions ?
I think most if not all of us acknowledge that, which is why the exchanges are more or less civil. Or do you mean we shouldn't be exchanging our differing views?
According to polls, one percent of Britons support abortion up to 40 weeks and birth
ONE PERCENT
And yet - after less than two hours debate in the Commons- this is now English law
What has happened to us?
You wanted parliament to be Sovereign
You won!
Surely he's not suggesting with that comment Parliament does not have the legal right to make the change, he's suggesting they should not have made the change? (whether the point is framed in an accurate way is a secondary matter to that point).
I confess I had not really heard anything about this matter coming up before today so don't know whether it truly will set the stage for politicisation of the issue in the future as some suggest, but it doesn't seem to be a matter of questioning parliamentary sovereignty at least.
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).
Too bad your mother didn’t do that with you.
Well if she had done I wouldn’t know otherwise
You wouldn’t know about it up until (at least) six months, so why make birth the threshold? Why not allow it for three months after?
We have to draw a line somewhere. Personally I am pretty content with the current limit i.e. the first trimester but I don’t think women should be criminalised for ignoring this (up until birth). To be frank the (new) law aligns pretty much with my moral opinion.
I don’t think it is murder until the baby takes its first breath outside the womb. That’s just my own personal opinion.
Are you aware of the law on child destruction? Do you think mothers should have immunity from prosecution on that law?
Carla Foster was initially charged with child destruction, but the CPS dropped it. I hope they now prosecute in egregious cases like Foster’s.
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).
Too bad your mother didn’t do that with you.
Well if she had done I wouldn’t know otherwise
You wouldn’t know about it up until (at least) six months, so why make birth the threshold? Why not allow it for three months after?
We have to draw a line somewhere. Personally I am pretty content with the current limit i.e. the first trimester but I don’t think women should be criminalised for ignoring this (up until birth). To be frank the (new) law aligns pretty much with my moral opinion.
I don’t think it is murder until the baby takes its first breath outside the womb. That’s just my own personal opinion.
Interesting. I thought the law regarded an injury to a pregnant woman that resulted in the death of her unborn baby as murder.
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?
I got them on eBay six months ago.
So why does the label say “prescribed by Dr Pete at MexicanPete.com”?
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.
It's very telling that most businesses deploying AI are doing so with a laser-focus on achieving quick savings - customer service is the main area; sack most of your CS agents and replace them with AI that doesn't need paid, instant win!
Of course AI is completely useless at this. No sane company will allow it to actually make decisions or take consequential actions (correctly, in my view) so all it can ever do is act as a barrier between customers and people who can actually help them. CS people are probably safe, long-term.
But if I was in a job that involved a lot of data analysis, I'd be worried. Current LLMs are pretty damn good at sifting through data looking for patterns and trends. They're going to be a huge force multiplier in those areas. It'll be like the late 70s and 80s, where one secretary with a computer could suddenly do the work of 20 using typewriters and paper files.
I feel like there is going to be a rush to use it for things that are of very limited or even no utility, so whilst I think you're right about the customer service point longer term, there will probably be a lot of unnecessary disruption in the short and medium term.
Personally I should really be looking a new career as I'm very confident AI could do my job.
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).
Too bad your mother didn’t do that with you.
Well if she had done I wouldn’t know otherwise
You wouldn’t know about it up until (at least) six months, so why make birth the threshold? Why not allow it for three months after?
We have to draw a line somewhere. Personally I am pretty content with the current limit i.e. the first trimester but I don’t think women should be criminalised for ignoring this (up until birth). To be frank the (new) law aligns pretty much with my moral opinion.
I don’t think it is murder until the baby takes its first breath outside the womb. That’s just my own personal opinion.
Interesting. I thought the law regarded an injury to a pregnant woman that resulted in the death of her unborn baby as murder.
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
It really isn't.
The morality questions about abortion, any abortion remains, however you are manipulating reality on here to get a reaction. And you certainly have tonight.
When you have the bit between your teeth over some issue you believe will trigger other posters you diminish this site. It is a shame.
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?
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).
Too bad your mother didn’t do that with you.
Well if she had done I wouldn’t know otherwise
You wouldn’t know about it up until (at least) six months, so why make birth the threshold? Why not allow it for three months after?
We have to draw a line somewhere. Personally I am pretty content with the current limit i.e. the first trimester but I don’t think women should be criminalised for ignoring this (up until birth). To be frank the (new) law aligns pretty much with my moral opinion.
I don’t think it is murder until the baby takes its first breath outside the womb. That’s just my own personal opinion.
Interesting. I thought the law regarded an injury to a pregnant woman that resulted in the death of her unborn baby as murder.
I don’t really know the details of what the current law is. I am giving my personal opinion.
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).
Too bad your mother didn’t do that with you.
Well if she had done I wouldn’t know otherwise
You wouldn’t know about it up until (at least) six months, so why make birth the threshold? Why not allow it for three months after?
We have to draw a line somewhere. Personally I am pretty content with the current limit i.e. the first trimester but I don’t think women should be criminalised for ignoring this (up until birth). To be frank the (new) law aligns pretty much with my moral opinion.
I don’t think it is murder until the baby takes its first breath outside the womb. That’s just my own personal opinion.
Interesting. I thought the law regarded an injury to a pregnant woman that resulted in the death of her unborn baby as murder.
Well, it's not Biblical law. Exodus 21:22–25 is clear that that does not count as murder.
This discussion reminds me of the debates/arguments I had in the early days of my relationship with my now wife. She was at the time fiercely Catholic and anti-abortion.
It’s one of the nastiest political topics out there, I think because both sides seem to feel burning righteousness and anger on behalf of their cause. The right of a woman to have control over her own body and the right of a viable at or near-term baby to the chance of being born seem both to be irreconcilable absolutes. The one crumb of comfort is that we’re talking about something pretty rare in reality.
I think it’s regrettable it’s come up suddenly like this. I’m not entirely sure it needed to be legislated, if what’s really at stake is police over-zealously investigating vulnerable women. Could guidance have achieved this? I think the majority of the population feel the current term limits are about right.
But I also know it’s really none of my business. Because I’m a man, and we don’t have to deal with pregnancy or childbirth or being left carrying the baby of an abusive partner. Unless fathers were to be equally liable to prosecution as accessories in these cases, it remains an issue about women that should be settled by women.
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).
Leaving this highly emotive issue aside for a moment though, we do pass laws restricting things people can do themselves even if it affects no one else, so I do have some issues with the 'not for anyone else to tell x what to do on y' kind of reasoning as a general principle. But I've yet to wrestle my own thoughts on this particular example.
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.
"Now you're talking semantics! What if I told you insane was working fifty hours a week in some office for fifty years... at the end of which they tell you to piss off? Ending up in some retirement village... hoping to die before suffering the indignity of trying to make it to the toilet on time. Wouldn't you consider that to be insane?"
Our previous abortion law was I think a good balance between women's rights and those of that foetus.
24 weeks is broadly when the foetus can survive without the mother in a hospital. We can argue over percentage chances and a couple of weeks, but it's still mostly correct.
After then, the women's rights should be to have an early induced birth (or C-section) to remove the baby safely and give him or her to the care of doctors.
Women's rights should not extend to what happens to the baby once it leaves her body.
This discussion reminds me of the debates/arguments I had in the early days of my relationship with my now wife. She was at the time fiercely Catholic and anti-abortion.
It’s one of the nastiest political topics out there, I think because both sides seem to feel burning righteousness and anger on behalf of their cause. The right of a woman to have control over her own body and the right of a viable at or near-term baby to the chance of being born seem both to be irreconcilable absolutes. The one crumb of comfort is that we’re talking about something pretty rare in reality.
I think it’s regrettable it’s come up suddenly like this. I’m not entirely sure it needed to be legislated, if what’s really at stake is police over-zealously investigating vulnerable women. Could guidance have achieved this? I think the majority of the population feel the current term limits are about right.
But I also know it’s really none of my business. Because I’m a man, and we don’t have to deal with pregnancy or childbirth of being left carrying the baby of an abusive partner. Unless fathers were to be equally liable to prosecution as accessories in these cases, it remains an issue about women that should be settled by women.
A man can still be prosecuted for killing a post 24 week foetus even if the mother can't now
Mr Trump is also now considering striking Iran’s nuclear sites, including Iran’s Fordow facility, sources told CBS News. The plans were set to be discussed in the President’s Situation Room meeting on Tuesday night.
This discussion reminds me of the debates/arguments I had in the early days of my relationship with my now wife. She was at the time fiercely Catholic and anti-abortion.
It’s one of the nastiest political topics out there, I think because both sides seem to feel burning righteousness and anger on behalf of their cause. The right of a woman to have control over her own body and the right of a viable at or near-term baby to the chance of being born seem both to be irreconcilable absolutes. The one crumb of comfort is that we’re talking about something pretty rare in reality.
I think it’s regrettable it’s come up suddenly like this. I’m not entirely sure it needed to be legislated, if what’s really at stake is police over-zealously investigating vulnerable women. Could guidance have achieved this? I think the majority of the population feel the current term limits are about right.
But I also know it’s really none of my business. Because I’m a man, and we don’t have to deal with pregnancy or childbirth or being left carrying the baby of an abusive partner. Unless fathers were to be equally liable to prosecution as accessories in these cases, it remains an issue about women that should be settled by women.
Yeah blah centrist dad fucksake. You are a pathetic excuse. You have brains, use them
Take a stand: for once in your dismal little bourgeois life
This discussion reminds me of the debates/arguments I had in the early days of my relationship with my now wife. She was at the time fiercely Catholic and anti-abortion.
It’s one of the nastiest political topics out there, I think because both sides seem to feel burning righteousness and anger on behalf of their cause. The right of a woman to have control over her own body and the right of a viable at or near-term baby to the chance of being born seem both to be irreconcilable absolutes. The one crumb of comfort is that we’re talking about something pretty rare in reality.
I think it’s regrettable it’s come up suddenly like this. I’m not entirely sure it needed to be legislated, if what’s really at stake is police over-zealously investigating vulnerable women. Could guidance have achieved this? I think the majority of the population feel the current term limits are about right.
But I also know it’s really none of my business. Because I’m a man, and we don’t have to deal with pregnancy or childbirth of being left carrying the baby of an abusive partner. Unless fathers were to be equally liable to prosecution as accessories in these cases, it remains an issue about women that should be settled by women.
I think the point about whether it needed to be legislated in this way is an interesting one, and am curious if that was suggested, attempted, rejected, or whatever, if this was the culmination of something or the initial approach.
I don't really agree with the point it's none of your business through being a man, or mine for that matter, as it is a general societal issue of which we're all a part, we don't separate out segments of society to rule on specific matters - I'd think it more than the views of women in this situation and more generally can reasonably be given far greater weight than my opinion, due to being a great deal more pertinent.
But it would not be impossible for you or I to have a relevant and reasonable take or opinion on the subject which should not be dismissed as having no weight.
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?
I got them on eBay six months ago.
So why does the label say “prescribed by Dr Pete at MexicanPete.com”?
No, but the purveyor can suggest he did his due diligence and as I was within 24 weeks when I bought them, so it was perfectly legitimate for him/ her to supply them to me. Besides it might have been a transfrontier shipment.
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).
Too bad your mother didn’t do that with you.
Well if she had done I wouldn’t know otherwise
You wouldn’t know about it up until (at least) six months, so why make birth the threshold? Why not allow it for three months after?
We have to draw a line somewhere. Personally I am pretty content with the current limit i.e. the first trimester but I don’t think women should be criminalised for ignoring this (up until birth). To be frank the (new) law aligns pretty much with my moral opinion.
I don’t think it is murder until the baby takes its first breath outside the womb. That’s just my own personal opinion.
Interesting. I thought the law regarded an injury to a pregnant woman that resulted in the death of her unborn baby as murder.
I don’t really know the details of what the current law is. I am giving my personal opinion.
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
Yes, this will have infuriated conservative Roman Catholics and evangelicals in particular as well as most Muslims and there are a lot of such voters in traditional Labour seats and marginal seats in towns and suburbs.
I suspect many priests, Bishops, ministers and Imams will be condemning the Labour government from the church pulpit or mosque this weekend
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.
Which means they will be able to access medical care.
No-one should be performing an abortion on themselves, just as we wouldn't want anyone to be committing suicide. But we don't prosecute people for attempting suicide anymore, and we shouldn't prosecute people in these sorts of cases either.
The reaction on X to this new abortion law is total shock, horror and shame
Wow
Of course, X is not the UK or the world. But, hmm. This could pan out very badly for Labour
If the British Right are to benefit politically from the abortion issue - and I'm not convinced it's particularly fertile ground - then they'll need to work out a way of addressing the Boris factor. Otherwise it will appear to many as so much cant.
This discussion reminds me of the debates/arguments I had in the early days of my relationship with my now wife. She was at the time fiercely Catholic and anti-abortion.
It’s one of the nastiest political topics out there, I think because both sides seem to feel burning righteousness and anger on behalf of their cause. The right of a woman to have control over her own body and the right of a viable at or near-term baby to the chance of being born seem both to be irreconcilable absolutes. The one crumb of comfort is that we’re talking about something pretty rare in reality.
I think it’s regrettable it’s come up suddenly like this. I’m not entirely sure it needed to be legislated, if what’s really at stake is police over-zealously investigating vulnerable women. Could guidance have achieved this? I think the majority of the population feel the current term limits are about right.
But I also know it’s really none of my business. Because I’m a man, and we don’t have to deal with pregnancy or childbirth or being left carrying the baby of an abusive partner. Unless fathers were to be equally liable to prosecution as accessories in these cases, it remains an issue about women that should be settled by women.
Absurd to think that as a man you don’t deserve an opinion on week 40 abortions.
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).
Too bad your mother didn’t do that with you.
Well if she had done I wouldn’t know otherwise
You wouldn’t know about it up until (at least) six months, so why make birth the threshold? Why not allow it for three months after?
We have to draw a line somewhere. Personally I am pretty content with the current limit i.e. the first trimester but I don’t think women should be criminalised for ignoring this (up until birth). To be frank the (new) law aligns pretty much with my moral opinion.
I don’t think it is murder until the baby takes its first breath outside the womb. That’s just my own personal opinion.
Interesting. I thought the law regarded an injury to a pregnant woman that resulted in the death of her unborn baby as murder.
I don’t really know the details of what the current law is. I am giving my personal opinion.
This discussion reminds me of the debates/arguments I had in the early days of my relationship with my now wife. She was at the time fiercely Catholic and anti-abortion.
It’s one of the nastiest political topics out there, I think because both sides seem to feel burning righteousness and anger on behalf of their cause. The right of a woman to have control over her own body and the right of a viable at or near-term baby to the chance of being born seem both to be irreconcilable absolutes. The one crumb of comfort is that we’re talking about something pretty rare in reality.
I think it’s regrettable it’s come up suddenly like this. I’m not entirely sure it needed to be legislated, if what’s really at stake is police over-zealously investigating vulnerable women. Could guidance have achieved this? I think the majority of the population feel the current term limits are about right.
But I also know it’s really none of my business. Because I’m a man, and we don’t have to deal with pregnancy or childbirth or being left carrying the baby of an abusive partner. Unless fathers were to be equally liable to prosecution as accessories in these cases, it remains an issue about women that should be settled by women.
Yeah blah centrist dad fucksake. You are a pathetic excuse. You have brains, use them
Take a stand: for once in your dismal little bourgeois life
I’m not about to become an online edgelord just so you can enjoy a fun shouting match on an all male political internet forum.
The reaction on X to this new abortion law is total shock, horror and shame
Wow
Of course, X is not the UK or the world. But, hmm. This could pan out very badly for Labour
As X is full of shock jocks like you that is hardly surprising.
Since when have you been an arbiter of morality?
I would suggest the whole issue is far more complex than the utterances of some old man on the internet trampling through the subject with his boots on.
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.
A woman over 24 weeks would not be turned away. The prior law already allowed abortion beyond 24 weeks in some circumstances. An abortion clinic would seek to determine whether those conditions applied and, if they did not, would still seek to provide care and advice to a woman in that situation.
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.
A woman over 24 weeks would not be turned away. The prior law already allowed abortion beyond 24 weeks in some circumstances. An abortion clinic would seek to determine whether those conditions applied and, if they did not, would still seek to provide care and advice to a woman in that situation.
But they couldn't provide the abortion so she would have to go home for the solo DIY abortion.
Instead of inflating their boats in the dunes along the coast, close to police patrols, the gangs are launching them from better hidden locations, often dozens of kilometres from the main departure beaches.
They then cruise along the coastline, like taxis or buses, picking up their paying customers who now wait in the sea, out of reach of the police.
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.
I think you are confusing him with Bill Clinton, who said “Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare” in 1992, long after the UK had legalised abortion.
This discussion reminds me of the debates/arguments I had in the early days of my relationship with my now wife. She was at the time fiercely Catholic and anti-abortion.
It’s one of the nastiest political topics out there, I think because both sides seem to feel burning righteousness and anger on behalf of their cause. The right of a woman to have control over her own body and the right of a viable at or near-term baby to the chance of being born seem both to be irreconcilable absolutes. The one crumb of comfort is that we’re talking about something pretty rare in reality.
I think it’s regrettable it’s come up suddenly like this. I’m not entirely sure it needed to be legislated, if what’s really at stake is police over-zealously investigating vulnerable women. Could guidance have achieved this? I think the majority of the population feel the current term limits are about right.
But I also know it’s really none of my business. Because I’m a man, and we don’t have to deal with pregnancy or childbirth of being left carrying the baby of an abusive partner. Unless fathers were to be equally liable to prosecution as accessories in these cases, it remains an issue about women that should be settled by women.
I think the point about whether it needed to be legislated in this way is an interesting one, and am curious if that was suggested, attempted, rejected, or whatever, if this was the culmination of something or the initial approach.
I don't really agree with the point it's none of your business through being a man, or mine for that matter, as it is a general societal issue of which we're all a part, we don't separate out segments of society to rule on specific matters - I'd think it more than the views of women in this situation and more generally can reasonably be given far greater weight than my opinion, due to being a great deal more pertinent.
But it would not be impossible for you or I to have a relevant and reasonable take or opinion on the subject which should not be dismissed as having no weight.
Yes, that’s fair. Of course we have a view, but it is right that women’s views get more weight.
Whenever I see American debates on this subject I’m struck with just how easy it is for men. They hook up, enjoy a fun 15 minutes, then regularly disappear and leave women to deal with all the shit. Sometimes they do much worse - as we have been hearing about the [banned topic]. Yet women get routinely blamed, as they were regularly over [redacted].
The reaction on X to this new abortion law is total shock, horror and shame
Wow
Of course, X is not the UK or the world. But, hmm. This could pan out very badly for Labour
If the British Right are to benefit politically from the abortion issue - and I'm not convinced it's particularly fertile ground - then they'll need to work out a way of addressing the Boris factor. Otherwise it will appear to many as so much cant.
To be fair to Boris any abortions his partners or wives had were well before 24 weeks
This discussion reminds me of the debates/arguments I had in the early days of my relationship with my now wife. She was at the time fiercely Catholic and anti-abortion.
It’s one of the nastiest political topics out there, I think because both sides seem to feel burning righteousness and anger on behalf of their cause. The right of a woman to have control over her own body and the right of a viable at or near-term baby to the chance of being born seem both to be irreconcilable absolutes. The one crumb of comfort is that we’re talking about something pretty rare in reality.
I think it’s regrettable it’s come up suddenly like this. I’m not entirely sure it needed to be legislated, if what’s really at stake is police over-zealously investigating vulnerable women. Could guidance have achieved this? I think the majority of the population feel the current term limits are about right.
But I also know it’s really none of my business. Because I’m a man, and we don’t have to deal with pregnancy or childbirth or being left carrying the baby of an abusive partner. Unless fathers were to be equally liable to prosecution as accessories in these cases, it remains an issue about women that should be settled by women.
Absurd to think that as a man you don’t deserve an opinion on week 40 abortions.
Yes. It's like saying only the victims of a murderer can have a say on whether the villain is executed
We got over that 500 years ago, with general principles of law. We can take into account - and we should do so - personal feelings, victim statements, human impact - but the whole point of the law is that it raises each case out of the mire of individuated emotions - at least that is its aim
So we all have a say on the death penalty, as a society, and we all have a say on when a fetus becomes human, and has a right to life of its own, whatever the mother may think. And polls show that 99% of Brits think that moment comes well before "full term" - for the very good reason that a baby in utero at 40 weeks is a fully formed human being. This is disgraceful
Mr Trump is also now considering striking Iran’s nuclear sites, including Iran’s Fordow facility, sources told CBS News. The plans were set to be discussed in the President’s Situation Room meeting on Tuesday night.
Now it’s started, this was always likely to be the result.
This discussion reminds me of the debates/arguments I had in the early days of my relationship with my now wife. She was at the time fiercely Catholic and anti-abortion.
It’s one of the nastiest political topics out there, I think because both sides seem to feel burning righteousness and anger on behalf of their cause. The right of a woman to have control over her own body and the right of a viable at or near-term baby to the chance of being born seem both to be irreconcilable absolutes. The one crumb of comfort is that we’re talking about something pretty rare in reality.
I think it’s regrettable it’s come up suddenly like this. I’m not entirely sure it needed to be legislated, if what’s really at stake is police over-zealously investigating vulnerable women. Could guidance have achieved this? I think the majority of the population feel the current term limits are about right.
But I also know it’s really none of my business. Because I’m a man, and we don’t have to deal with pregnancy or childbirth or being left carrying the baby of an abusive partner. Unless fathers were to be equally liable to prosecution as accessories in these cases, it remains an issue about women that should be settled by women.
Absurd to think that as a man you don’t deserve an opinion on week 40 abortions.
Yes. It's like saying only the victims of a murderer can have a say on whether the villain is executed
We got over that 500 years ago, with general principles of law. We can take into account - and we should do so - personal feelings, victim statements, human impact - but the whole point of the law is that it raises each case out of the mire of individuated emotions - at least that is its aim
I think this is increasingly being lost as we seem to focus on personal feelings more and more.
Maybe it is because I am temperamentally milquetoast and of course if I was personally affected by things I would develop a more personally passionate reaction to things, but it reminds me of prominence given the campaigning or victims groups in news stories about inquiries and the like. I'm sure some have been very useful and informed, but in general, and being cold aboutm tragedy doesn't automatically imbue people with greater insight.
Or on less serious matters, our addiction to consultation and not upsetting people about building a housing estate or prison, as if wider social benefits aren't more important a lot of the time.
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.
A woman over 24 weeks would not be turned away. The prior law already allowed abortion beyond 24 weeks in some circumstances. An abortion clinic would seek to determine whether those conditions applied and, if they did not, would still seek to provide care and advice to a woman in that situation.
But they couldn't provide the abortion so she would have to go home for the solo DIY abortion.
The prior law already allowed abortion beyond 24 weeks in some circumstances. An abortion clinic would seek to determine whether those conditions applied.
The number of women seeking an abortion beyond 24 weeks who are not covered by those cases is very, very, very small. Those (very few) women were already going home and at risk of carrying out a DIY abortion.
This discussion reminds me of the debates/arguments I had in the early days of my relationship with my now wife. She was at the time fiercely Catholic and anti-abortion.
It’s one of the nastiest political topics out there, I think because both sides seem to feel burning righteousness and anger on behalf of their cause. The right of a woman to have control over her own body and the right of a viable at or near-term baby to the chance of being born seem both to be irreconcilable absolutes. The one crumb of comfort is that we’re talking about something pretty rare in reality.
I think it’s regrettable it’s come up suddenly like this. I’m not entirely sure it needed to be legislated, if what’s really at stake is police over-zealously investigating vulnerable women. Could guidance have achieved this? I think the majority of the population feel the current term limits are about right.
But I also know it’s really none of my business. Because I’m a man, and we don’t have to deal with pregnancy or childbirth or being left carrying the baby of an abusive partner. Unless fathers were to be equally liable to prosecution as accessories in these cases, it remains an issue about women that should be settled by women.
Yeah blah centrist dad fucksake. You are a pathetic excuse. You have brains, use them
Take a stand: for once in your dismal little bourgeois life
I’m not about to become an online edgelord just so you can enjoy a fun shouting match on an all male political internet forum.
I plan on becoming an edgelord one day, people seem to have a lot of fun that way.
The reaction on X to this new abortion law is total shock, horror and shame
Wow
Of course, X is not the UK or the world. But, hmm. This could pan out very badly for Labour
If the British Right are to benefit politically from the abortion issue - and I'm not convinced it's particularly fertile ground - then they'll need to work out a way of addressing the Boris factor. Otherwise it will appear to many as so much cant.
To be fair to Boris any abortions his partners or wives had were well before 24 weeks
Boris needs to issue a statement here, basically saying he would have drawn the line at 24 weeks and nothing would have persuaded him otherwise. Either that or the Kemi repudiates him and expels him from the party. Things could get ethically muddy for the Tories very quickly if they want to go down this path but aren't careful.
The reaction on X to this new abortion law is total shock, horror and shame
Wow
Of course, X is not the UK or the world. But, hmm. This could pan out very badly for Labour
If the British Right are to benefit politically from the abortion issue - and I'm not convinced it's particularly fertile ground - then they'll need to work out a way of addressing the Boris factor. Otherwise it will appear to many as so much cant.
To be fair to Boris any abortions his partners or wives had were well before 24 weeks
Boris needs to issue a statement here, basically saying he would have drawn the line at 24 weeks and nothing would have persuaded him otherwise. Either that or the Kemi repudiates him and expels him from the party. Things could get ethically muddy for the Tories very quickly if they want to go down this path but aren't careful.
No, this amendment effectively decriminalises abortion up to birth, this was not a vote on reducing the 24 week abortion time limit
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).
Too bad your mother didn’t do that with you.
Well if she had done I wouldn’t know otherwise
You wouldn’t know about it up until (at least) six months, so why make birth the threshold? Why not allow it for three months after?
We have to draw a line somewhere. Personally I am pretty content with the current limit i.e. the first trimester but I don’t think women should be criminalised for ignoring this (up until birth). To be frank the (new) law aligns pretty much with my moral opinion.
I don’t think it is murder until the baby takes its first breath outside the womb. That’s just my own personal opinion.
Interesting. I thought the law regarded an injury to a pregnant woman that resulted in the death of her unborn baby as murder.
Well, it's not Biblical law. Exodus 21:22–25 is clear that that does not count as murder.
Old Testament condones physical abuse by man of pregnant woman to induce miscarriage? What a surprise...
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).
Too bad your mother didn’t do that with you.
Well if she had done I wouldn’t know otherwise
You wouldn’t know about it up until (at least) six months, so why make birth the threshold? Why not allow it for three months after?
We have to draw a line somewhere. Personally I am pretty content with the current limit i.e. the first trimester but I don’t think women should be criminalised for ignoring this (up until birth). To be frank the (new) law aligns pretty much with my moral opinion.
I don’t think it is murder until the baby takes its first breath outside the womb. That’s just my own personal opinion.
Interesting. I thought the law regarded an injury to a pregnant woman that resulted in the death of her unborn baby as murder.
Well, it's not Biblical law. Exodus 21:22–25 is clear that that does not count as murder.
Old Testament condones physical abuse by man of pregnant woman to induce miscarriage? What a surprise...
No, that's not what it says. It says if there's a fight and a pregnant woman is injured, leading to a miscarriage, then the culprit should be fined, but this is a lower punishment than for a "serious injury" or death of the woman.
This is a catastrophe for Labour. This is going to explode when people realise what's been done
Yep. They are screwed. This country has just woken up and is furious. They cheered. The arseholes actually cheered
I have a few weathervanes on X that I check for this stuff. People whose visceral reactions I trust - they tend to be centrist and unpredictable, and for that reason good indicators on complex issues
They have ALL reacted with astonished horror tonight. Like: where did this come from? Why was it passed so quickly? Why wasn't it in the Manifesto? WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON, THIS SOUNDS EVIL
If they are right, this is calamitous for Labour. It is also deeply shaming for Britain, that we so casually dispense with this stuff, passed by a bunch of mediocre halfwits
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
You're the one politicising it. The government remained neutral and made it a free vote on the grounds of conscience. A fact you aren't prepared to admit as it doesn't fit the conspiracy sewer you like to run through here. Is it so hard to accept that a majority of MPs rightly or wrongly agreed with the question put to them? There's plenty of people on this site who can debate the moral and policy issue without resorting to lies and misinformation. It's you and people like you who are destroying trust in politics, not the MPs who regardless of how they voted today did their job as legislators.
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.
A woman over 24 weeks would not be turned away. The prior law already allowed abortion beyond 24 weeks in some circumstances. An abortion clinic would seek to determine whether those conditions applied and, if they did not, would still seek to provide care and advice to a woman in that situation.
But they couldn't provide the abortion so she would have to go home for the solo DIY abortion.
The prior law already allowed abortion beyond 24 weeks in some circumstances. An abortion clinic would seek to determine whether those conditions applied.
The number of women seeking an abortion beyond 24 weeks who are not covered by those cases is very, very, very small. Those (very few) women were already going home and at risk of carrying out a DIY abortion.
Some circumstances, based on medical grounds.
Not all circumstances.
So unless abortion clinics are now going to perform abortions on all request beyond 24 weeks - and if they are then they need to be honest about it and have the law changed - then there are always going to be cases which are in the solo DIY, not legal but not criminal, unsatisfactory zone.
Which is why it would be both practically better and intellectually honest to properly legalise abortion without time limits.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was transported by ambulance on Tuesday to a hospital in Washington, DC, two sources familiar with the matter told CNN.
Noem has been conscious at the hospital and has spoken with her security detail, one of the sources said.
This is a catastrophe for Labour. This is going to explode when people realise what's been done
Frothers like yourself already irrationally hate Labour
Besides, isn't the general principle that life-or-death moral questions like this are non-partisan free votes?
And that is a good thing, though if such votes did break down generally on party lines despite being free votes, voters probably wouldn't appreciate the distinction, and if they were angry enough (I don't think they will be) from holding it against the party generally.
Worth noting the proportions of abortion by time in pregnancy:
- Up to 8 weeks (so within 4 weeks of the earliest time you find out you're pregnant): 80% - Up to 12 weeks: 93% - Up to 19 weeks: 98.6% - Up to 23 weeks: 99.9%
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).
Too bad your mother didn’t do that with you.
Well if she had done I wouldn’t know otherwise
You wouldn’t know about it up until (at least) six months, so why make birth the threshold? Why not allow it for three months after?
We have to draw a line somewhere. Personally I am pretty content with the current limit i.e. the first trimester but I don’t think women should be criminalised for ignoring this (up until birth). To be frank the (new) law aligns pretty much with my moral opinion.
I don’t think it is murder until the baby takes its first breath outside the womb. That’s just my own personal opinion.
Interesting. I thought the law regarded an injury to a pregnant woman that resulted in the death of her unborn baby as murder.
Well, it's not Biblical law. Exodus 21:22–25 is clear that that does not count as murder.
Old Testament condones physical abuse by man of pregnant woman to induce miscarriage? What a surprise...
The reaction on X to this new abortion law is total shock, horror and shame
Wow
Of course, X is not the UK or the world. But, hmm. This could pan out very badly for Labour
If the British Right are to benefit politically from the abortion issue - and I'm not convinced it's particularly fertile ground - then they'll need to work out a way of addressing the Boris factor. Otherwise it will appear to many as so much cant.
To be fair to Boris any abortions his partners or wives had were well before 24 weeks
Boris needs to issue a statement here, basically saying he would have drawn the line at 24 weeks and nothing would have persuaded him otherwise. Either that or the Kemi repudiates him and expels him from the party. Things could get ethically muddy for the Tories very quickly if they want to go down this path but aren't careful.
No, this amendment effectively decriminalises abortion up to birth, this was not a vote on reducing the 24 week abortion time limit
The man on the street will just hear that the Tories want women prosecuted for having an abortion, while their previous leader paid for his mistress to have one. Unfair perhaps as there's a lot of nuance in all this, but there are risks if the British Right want to use this issue as a stick with which to beat Sir Keir.
This is a catastrophe for Labour. This is going to explode when people realise what's been done
Yep. They are screwed. This country has just woken up and is furious. They cheered. The arseholes actually cheered
I have a few weathervanes on X that I check for this stuff. People whose visceral reactions I trust - they tend to be centrist and unpredictable, and for that reason good indicators on complex issues
They have ALL reacted with astonished horror tonight. Like: where did this come from? Why was it passed so quickly? Why wasn't it in the Manifesto? WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON, THIS SOUNDS EVIL
If they are right, this is calamitous for Labour. It is also deeply shaming for Britain, that we so casually dispense with this stuff, passed by a bunch of mediocre halfwits
Revulsion is close to the instareaction at my end. Revulsion and not a little fury. Its a fuse issue and unfortunately we know theres dynamite stacked up
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
You're the one politicising it. The government remained neutral and made it a free vote on the grounds of conscience. A fact you aren't prepared to admit as it doesn't fit the conspiracy sewer you like to run through here. Is it so hard to accept that a majority of MPs rightly or wrongly agreed with the question put to them? There's plenty of people on this site who can debate the moral and policy issue without resorting to lies and misinformation. It's you and people like you who are destroying trust in politics, not the MPs who regardless of how they voted today did their job as legislators.
This is a catastrophe for Labour. This is going to explode when people realise what's been done
Yep. They are screwed. This country has just woken up and is furious. They cheered. The arseholes actually cheered
I have a few weathervanes on X that I check for this stuff. People whose visceral reactions I trust - they tend to be centrist and unpredictable, and for that reason good indicators on complex issues
They have ALL reacted with astonished horror tonight. Like: where did this come from? Why was it passed so quickly? Why wasn't it in the Manifesto? WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON, THIS SOUNDS EVIL
If they are right, this is calamitous for Labour. It is also deeply shaming for Britain, that we so casually dispense with this stuff, passed by a bunch of mediocre halfwits
There is no such thing as a weathervane on X. Most people wouldn't go anywhere near it.
This is a catastrophe for Labour. This is going to explode when people realise what's been done
Yep. They are screwed. This country has just woken up and is furious. They cheered. The arseholes actually cheered
I have a few weathervanes on X that I check for this stuff. People whose visceral reactions I trust - they tend to be centrist and unpredictable, and for that reason good indicators on complex issues
They have ALL reacted with astonished horror tonight. Like: where did this come from? Why was it passed so quickly? Why wasn't it in the Manifesto? WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON, THIS SOUNDS EVIL
If they are right, this is calamitous for Labour. It is also deeply shaming for Britain, that we so casually dispense with this stuff, passed by a bunch of mediocre halfwits
There is no such thing as a weathervane on X. Most people wouldn't go anywhere near it.
This is a catastrophe for Labour. This is going to explode when people realise what's been done
Yep. They are screwed. This country has just woken up and is furious. They cheered. The arseholes actually cheered
I have a few weathervanes on X that I check for this stuff. People whose visceral reactions I trust - they tend to be centrist and unpredictable, and for that reason good indicators on complex issues
They have ALL reacted with astonished horror tonight. Like: where did this come from? Why was it passed so quickly? Why wasn't it in the Manifesto? WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON, THIS SOUNDS EVIL
If they are right, this is calamitous for Labour. It is also deeply shaming for Britain, that we so casually dispense with this stuff, passed by a bunch of mediocre halfwits
There is no such thing as a weathervane on X. Most people wouldn't go anywhere near it.
It's sometimes hard to tell the difference between a weathervane and an enormous cock.
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.
A woman over 24 weeks would not be turned away. The prior law already allowed abortion beyond 24 weeks in some circumstances. An abortion clinic would seek to determine whether those conditions applied and, if they did not, would still seek to provide care and advice to a woman in that situation.
But they couldn't provide the abortion so she would have to go home for the solo DIY abortion.
The prior law already allowed abortion beyond 24 weeks in some circumstances. An abortion clinic would seek to determine whether those conditions applied.
The number of women seeking an abortion beyond 24 weeks who are not covered by those cases is very, very, very small. Those (very few) women were already going home and at risk of carrying out a DIY abortion.
Some circumstances, based on medical grounds.
Not all circumstances.
So unless abortion clinics are now going to perform abortions on all request beyond 24 weeks - and if they are then they need to be honest about it and have the law changed - then there are always going to be cases which are in the solo DIY, not legal but not criminal, unsatisfactory zone.
Which is why it would be both practically better and intellectually honest to properly legalise abortion without time limits.
Firstly, this is a very rare situation. Secondly, before this law change, these cases were in an unsatisfactory zone of the woman really wanting an abortion and liable to do something that would be illegal. This vote hasn't created that problem.
Here's an example of the shock I am seeing and hearing
This guy is a slightly grunpy middle aged centrist, lives on a houseboat in north London, lefty in some ways, bit crusty in others. Also a pro photographer
"What the actual fuck just happened? I heard no talk of it, nobody demanding it, no debate and then suddenly, boom, you can murder a baby as it’s born. I totally agree with being allowed an abortion as the law was, but killing a full grown baby? Who wanted this? It’s terrifying"
The reaction on X to this new abortion law is total shock, horror and shame
Wow
Of course, X is not the UK or the world. But, hmm. This could pan out very badly for Labour
If the British Right are to benefit politically from the abortion issue - and I'm not convinced it's particularly fertile ground - then they'll need to work out a way of addressing the Boris factor. Otherwise it will appear to many as so much cant.
To be fair to Boris any abortions his partners or wives had were well before 24 weeks
Here's an example of the shock I am seeing and hearing
This guy is a slightly grunpy middle aged centrist, lives on a houseboat in north London, lefty in some ways, bit crusty in others. Also a pro photographer
"What the actual fuck just happened? I heard no talk of it, nobody demanding it, no debate and then suddenly, boom, you can murder a baby as it’s born. I totally agree with being allowed an abortion as the law was, but killing a full grown baby? Who wanted this? It’s terrifying"
Comments
Of course AI is completely useless at this. No sane company will allow it to actually make decisions or take consequential actions (correctly, in my view) so all it can ever do is act as a barrier between customers and people who can actually help them. CS people are probably safe, long-term.
But if I was in a job that involved a lot of data analysis, I'd be worried. Current LLMs are pretty damn good at sifting through data looking for patterns and trends. They're going to be a huge force multiplier in those areas. It'll be like the late 70s and 80s, where one secretary with a computer could suddenly do the work of 20 using typewriters and paper files.
ONE PERCENT
And yet - after less than two hours debate in the Commons- this is now English law
What has happened to us?
You won!
I don’t think it is murder until the baby takes its first breath outside the womb. That’s just my own personal opinion.
"June 2019, Antoniazzi secured a debate in parliament about the health risks of electromagnetic fields, particularly 5G technology, in which she asked the government to commit to ensuring that Public Health England informed the public that all radio frequency signals are a possible human carcinogen."
I confess I had not really heard anything about this matter coming up before today so don't know whether it truly will set the stage for politicisation of the issue in the future as some suggest, but it doesn't seem to be a matter of questioning parliamentary sovereignty at least.
Carla Foster was initially charged with child destruction, but the CPS dropped it. I hope they now prosecute in egregious cases like Foster’s.
Personally I should really be looking a new career as I'm very confident AI could do my job.
The morality questions about abortion, any abortion remains, however you are manipulating reality on here to get a reaction. And you certainly have tonight.
When you have the bit between your teeth over some issue you believe will trigger other posters you diminish this site. It is a shame.
It’s one of the nastiest political topics out there, I think because both sides seem to feel burning righteousness and anger on behalf of their cause. The right of a woman to have control over her own body and the right of a viable at or near-term baby to the chance of being born seem both to be irreconcilable absolutes. The one crumb of comfort is that we’re talking about something pretty rare in reality.
I think it’s regrettable it’s come up suddenly like this. I’m not entirely sure it needed to be legislated, if what’s really at stake is police over-zealously investigating vulnerable women. Could guidance have achieved this? I think the majority of the population feel the current term limits are about right.
But I also know it’s really none of my business. Because I’m a man, and we don’t have to deal with pregnancy or childbirth or being left carrying the baby of an abusive partner. Unless fathers were to be equally liable to prosecution as accessories in these cases, it remains an issue about women that should be settled by women.
Wow
Of course, X is not the UK or the world. But, hmm. This could pan out very badly for Labour
24 weeks is broadly when the foetus can survive without the mother in a hospital. We can argue over percentage chances and a couple of weeks, but it's still mostly correct.
After then, the women's rights should be to have an early induced birth (or C-section) to remove the baby safely and give him or her to the care of doctors.
Women's rights should not extend to what happens to the baby once it leaves her body.
Take a stand: for once in your dismal little bourgeois life
I don't really agree with the point it's none of your business through being a man, or mine for that matter, as it is a general societal issue of which we're all a part, we don't separate out segments of society to rule on specific matters - I'd think it more than the views of women in this situation and more generally can reasonably be given far greater weight than my opinion, due to being a great deal more pertinent.
But it would not be impossible for you or I to have a relevant and reasonable take or opinion on the subject which should not be dismissed as having no weight.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_destruction
I hope there are no complaints when the CPS prosecute a woman for this.
I suspect many priests, Bishops, ministers and Imams will be condemning the Labour government from the church pulpit or mosque this weekend
No-one should be performing an abortion on themselves, just as we wouldn't want anyone to be committing suicide. But we don't prosecute people for attempting suicide anymore, and we shouldn't prosecute people in these sorts of cases either.
Since when have you been an arbiter of morality?
I would suggest the whole issue is far more complex than the utterances of some old man on the internet trampling through the subject with his boots on.
They then cruise along the coastline, like taxis or buses, picking up their paying customers who now wait in the sea, out of reach of the police.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpd1l6p8vw9o
Whenever I see American debates on this subject I’m struck with just how easy it is for men. They hook up, enjoy a fun 15 minutes, then regularly disappear and leave women to deal with all the shit. Sometimes they do much worse - as we have been hearing about the [banned topic]. Yet women get routinely blamed, as they were regularly over [redacted].
We got over that 500 years ago, with general principles of law. We can take into account - and we should do so - personal feelings, victim statements, human impact - but the whole point of the law is that it raises each case out of the mire of individuated emotions - at least that is its aim
So we all have a say on the death penalty, as a society, and we all have a say on when a fetus becomes human, and has a right to life of its own, whatever the mother may think. And polls show that 99% of Brits think that moment comes well before "full term" - for the very good reason that a baby in utero at 40 weeks is a fully formed human being. This is disgraceful
Maybe it is because I am temperamentally milquetoast and of course if I was personally affected by things I would develop a more personally passionate reaction to things, but it reminds me of prominence given the campaigning or victims groups in news stories about inquiries and the like. I'm sure some have been very useful and informed, but in general, and being cold aboutm tragedy doesn't automatically imbue people with greater insight.
Or on less serious matters, our addiction to consultation and not upsetting people about building a housing estate or prison, as if wider social benefits aren't more important a lot of the time.
The number of women seeking an abortion beyond 24 weeks who are not covered by those cases is very, very, very small. Those (very few) women were already going home and at risk of carrying out a DIY abortion.
I'm sure there'll be another along by the weekend.
What a surprise...
They have ALL reacted with astonished horror tonight. Like: where did this come from? Why was it passed so quickly? Why wasn't it in the Manifesto? WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON, THIS SOUNDS EVIL
If they are right, this is calamitous for Labour. It is also deeply shaming for Britain, that we so casually dispense with this stuff, passed by a bunch of mediocre halfwits
Not all circumstances.
So unless abortion clinics are now going to perform abortions on all request beyond 24 weeks - and if they are then they need to be honest about it and have the law changed - then there are always going to be cases which are in the solo DIY, not legal but not criminal, unsatisfactory zone.
Which is why it would be both practically better and intellectually honest to properly legalise abortion without time limits.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was transported by ambulance on Tuesday to a hospital in Washington, DC, two sources familiar with the matter told CNN.
Noem has been conscious at the hospital and has spoken with her security detail, one of the sources said.
- Up to 8 weeks (so within 4 weeks of the earliest time you find out you're pregnant): 80%
- Up to 12 weeks: 93%
- Up to 19 weeks: 98.6%
- Up to 23 weeks: 99.9%
https://davidboris.wordpress.com/2021/12/16/exodus-2122-25-understanding-the-biblical-law-about-the-life-of-the-unborn/#:~:text=Exodus 21:22-25 Revised,pay as the judges determine.
Revulsion and not a little fury.
Its a fuse issue and unfortunately we know theres dynamite stacked up
Most people wouldn't go anywhere near it.
Who is also vane.
This guy is a slightly grunpy middle aged centrist, lives on a houseboat in north London, lefty in some ways, bit crusty in others. Also a pro photographer
"What the actual fuck just happened? I heard no talk of it, nobody demanding it, no debate and then suddenly, boom, you can murder a baby as it’s born. I totally agree with being allowed an abortion as the law was, but killing a full grown baby? Who wanted this? It’s terrifying"
https://x.com/London_W4/status/1935090061793742862
Tomorrow there will be a lot of this