Roe v Wade

Glorianny, my patience with your uninformed comments is at an end. You don’t even understand the judicial comment you quoted. Good evening.

Thank you GSM and Elegran. I think I have finally seen the light. Glorianny sees our constitution as some sort of conspiracy against ordinary people like all of us on GN. This is a bit of a guess but Glorianna seems to think something along the lines of:

"I do not like this, I think it should be different because it doesn't suit me, it is designed so it can not be used directly by all only those who are educated in constitutional law, therefore I deny it's existance. The UK constitution cannot exist in this format because I do not trust this format and I will not recognise it until it is similar to the format the USA use."

Obviously, I could be wrong, but this makes a whole lot more sense than anything so far.

An excellent summation DaisyAnne.

Funny isn't it how some poster try to misrepresent the views of others because they disagree with them.
So here are my real views on a constitution.
A constitution is a set of principles and rules which govern a society and enable a country's people to live lives which are reasonably peaceful and free. It should therefore be understandable and reasonably accessible to the ordinary citizen. It should hold within it the basic rights every citizen is entitled to and should clearly state the roles of all involved in the government of the country.
I don't believe relying on a set of statutes, laws and principles which are only uncovered when they are misused, or used to influence or interfere with the process of government for an individual's or organisation's benefit, is something which should be considered as a constitution. (although I understand why vested interests might find this desirable) or that these should have any place in a democracy's constitution.

I beg to differ with most of the posters on here. These days we have reliable contraception and the “morning after” pill. There’s much less excuse for a woman to require an abortion. Also, society has changed since the 1970s when my friend had a late abortion because her boyfriend wouldn’t marry her and she didn’t want her child to be born a “bastard”. Anyway it’s not “my body my choice”. A child is a genetically distinct individual from its mother.

Sorry, not sorry. While I appreciate that most abortions are probably carried out by taking pills I don’t feel at all comfortable about babies being dismembered as happens in late abortions, in fact it’s abhorrent.

Re: Glorianny Sat 07-May-22 20:31:13
1.A constitution is a set of principles and rules which govern a society
This is not an unreasonable description.

2.and enable a country's people to live lives which are reasonably peaceful and free.
3.It should therefore be understandable and reasonably accessible to the ordinary citizen.
4.It should hold within it the basic rights every citizen is entitled to and should clearly state the roles of all involved in the government of the country.
You don't get to decide this, nor does any other single person. It has been decided by elected governments, over centuries, and before that by Kings. If you want to change it you need to find a way to get the government to agree with you and put it into law.

5.I don't believe relying on a set of statutes, laws and principles which are only uncovered when they are misused, or used to influence or interfere with the process of government for an individual's or organisation's benefit, is something which should be considered as a constitution. (although I understand why vested interests might find this desirable) or that these should have any place in a democracy's constitution.
Once again, this is not in your gift - I'm not sure why you think it would be. The electorate has the opportunity to vote for a government that they trust will carry out their wishes. That is all the electorate, not just you.

So I go back to your theory that because the UK Constitution is not one you approve of you are denying it is a constitution although the law of the land says it is.

I'll leave others to make up their minds about whether they want you as a dictator or not. What you are saying is you should be able to deny the Constitution that has been built for 12 Centuries is our Constitution. That just because you don't like it it cannot be a Constitution.

Back to abortion watch Three Families on BBC4for the moving stories of three women in Northern Ireland. But be warned you will probably weep. The most awful thing though is that although the law has been changed the NI health authority still makes no provision for women requiring abortions so they still travel to England.

PunkWomble Late abortions are only done for the most urgent of reasons, and usually because the foetus has developed serious defects which are life-threatening.

And I believe they are done where possible by inducing early labour, not by dismemberment.

That’s correct Elegran. I knew two women who went through this, one to give birth to a dead foetus and one to give birth to a devastatingly malformed one. It was a traumatic experience for each of them at an advanced stage of pregnancy.

Yes I wonder if the people who profess to care about women and children understand how difficult it is to hear those words bandied about with no thoughts to their accuracy. I had to give birth to a baby that died. It was traumatic and would be traumatic for any women whatever the reason.

Glorianny Sat 07-May-22 20:31:13

So here are my real views on a constitution.

So are these your real views on the possible change in Wade v Roe? How can we can we know? You have kept people trying to explain our constitution which you seemed to want to know. Suddenly, when your real aim is uncovered, you want to get back to the topic.

Interesting. I wonder when will we hear your "real" views on the thread topic?

Elegran

For the benefit of posters in the US, (some of whom believe that in the UK a woman just has to say "Book me in for an abortion, please" for it to happen automatically) here are the grounds for abortion and their definitions. From www.gov.uk.

Grounds for abortion

Ground A That the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated.
Ground B That the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.
Ground That the pregnancy has NOT exceeded its 24th week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.
Ground D That the pregnancy has NOT exceeded its 24th week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of any existing child(ren) of the family of the pregnant woman.
Ground E That there is substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.
Ground F To save the life of the pregnant woman.
Ground G To prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.

The legal limit for a woman having an abortion is 24 weeks gestation. This is the point at which the fetus is viable outside the mother's body. Abortions may be performed after 24 weeks in certain circumstances, for example, if the mother's life is at risk or the child would be born severely disabled. Abortions where gestation is 24 weeks or over account for a very small number of abortions (0.1% of the total).
From www.gov.uk

I am quoting my own post of Thu 05-May-22 10:24:16 to show again the grounds for getting an abortion in the UK. I don't think that PunkWomble's friend from 1972 would qualify with her decidedly "social" reason unless her mental health was genuinely at risk from continuing the pregnancy.

I will add that spreading the false information that late abortions are performed by dismembering the foetus are not helpful; to the mental health of ANY pregnant woman. In normal circumstances, the womb, once stimulated into action, would expel the foetus, alive or dead, naturally. If there is a problem accomplishing that, then how much more of a problem would there be if the pregnancy went to full term, and a full-size baby had to be removed? My grandmother had a child die in the womb a century ago which she could not deliver, and had to have a full-term dead foetus removed in pieces. We have progressed since then!

Another thing, rather off the point but true - I had no problem whatsoever in finding the information in my previous post. It was there on the gov.uk site, in plain English, for anyone to find, read and understand. Not just lawuers.

I think we have just seen an example, on here, of the Trumpian world we live in. Sadly, it is even more so in the USA. We see the extremes to which those who think they should inflict their views on others will go. It comes down to lying and general distortion of the truth.

They show the saddest of pictures - how often are they real? They talk about dismemberment when this doesn't happen. They close down clinics and inflict their view of reality on others.

If a woman doesn't have a right to decide about her own body, just who and how are others going to decide for her? What will they take away from women next? Will men be able to go back to seeing women as chattels; will rape be seen as impossible within marriage or, for that matter any other relationship? Once we have taken this right away, what will be imposed on women because they are women, next?

It is a simple argument. Women own their own bodies. After that comes the funding to improve the chances of abortion not having to be considered. To save money the far-right will always sacrifice people. In this case it is women, but it will not always be just them.

This will be such a huge backward step for women, especially poor women where they will find themselves criminalised for trying to terminate their pregnancy against the law.
As Margaret Atwood said in an article in the Guardian, Women who cannot make their own decisions about whether or not to have babies are enslaved because the state claims ownership of their bodies and the right to dictate the use to which their bodies must be put.
What kind of country do you want to live in……….one in which half the population is free and the other half is enslaved?
Women are lucky to have the right to choose in the U.K. but I don’t think we can be too complacent. There are often noises about reducing the time limit for abortion, which can sound reasonable, but in my experience there are very good reasons for the women I’ve known and worked with, to have a “late” abortion.

DaisyAnne as regards your criticisms of me I would never assume that I had any influence or say at all in any legislative matters. That is the prerogative of the elected government. Imagining otherwise in a democracy is a bit weird. And the statutes I think should be removed from our so called constitution are things like the Queen's assent which was used to personally enrich a single family and which remains as part of the constitution you think exists and is admirable

The situation in N Ireland is is interesting because a law was passed but it seems none of the relevant bodies choose to implement that law so abortions are still difficult to obtain in NI and women still travel. Much like what will happen between states in the US when this legislation is enforced.

PunkWomble

I beg to differ with most of the posters on here. These days we have reliable contraception and the “morning after” pill. There’s much less excuse for a woman to require an abortion. Also, society has changed since the 1970s when my friend had a late abortion because her boyfriend wouldn’t marry her and she didn’t want her child to be born a “bastard”. Anyway it’s not “my body my choice”. A child is a genetically distinct individual from its mother.

Sorry, not sorry. While I appreciate that most abortions are probably carried out by taking pills I don’t feel at all comfortable about babies being dismembered as happens in late abortions, in fact it’s abhorrent.

I don't understand the "my body, my choice" arguement either. Modern science has demonstrated that a baby in the womb is an independant living human being. Legally we are defined by our DNA so the unborn child has their own unique body presumably from the point the egg is fertilized! My daughters have told me about more recent findings from science from their experiences when pregnant. The baby in the womb can be active and twins play! Babiies in the womb sleep and dream (i.e. their brains are working). They feel pain. They are very much alive!
Appreciate there clearly are medical grounds for some terminations but perhaps let's put this in perspective. Dial 999 and they ask 'Is the patient breathing?'. What would people think if they say 'well there's no point coming if they're not breathing.' I think the Bible defines life from first to final breath (is that what our law is based on?) so Biblically abortion isn't murder (although it is deemed a crime in Mosaic Law). Yet it seems it is mostly Christians fighting to protect the unborn child. It should be the scientists and the humanists amongst us.

Modern science has demonstrated that a baby in the womb is an independant living human being.

No it hasn't.

So Holy Sox do you believe a women should be forced to go through pregnancy and Labour totally against her will, and have to pay (in the US) for her maternity services, and then bring up a child which she did not want or cannot afford, perhaps with severe disabilities, and often in difficult circumstances or poverty, or give the unwanted child away for adoption to a someone in better circumstances?
Seems enforced slavery to me.

Glorianny

DaisyAnne as regards your criticisms of me I would never assume that I had any influence or say at all in any legislative matters. That is the prerogative of the elected government. Imagining otherwise in a democracy is a bit weird. And the statutes I think should be removed from our so called constitution are things like the Queen's assent which was used to personally enrich a single family and which remains as part of the constitution you think exists and is admirable

The situation in N Ireland is is interesting because a law was passed but it seems none of the relevant bodies choose to implement that law so abortions are still difficult to obtain in NI and women still travel. Much like what will happen between states in the US when this legislation is enforced.

Glorianny, the requirement for the monarch’s assent to a Bill before it becomes law does not derive from statute. It is a constitutional convention.

And may I add that you are confusing the Royal Assent with the Royal Consent.

HolySox

PunkWomble

I beg to differ with most of the posters on here. These days we have reliable contraception and the “morning after” pill. There’s much less excuse for a woman to require an abortion. Also, society has changed since the 1970s when my friend had a late abortion because her boyfriend wouldn’t marry her and she didn’t want her child to be born a “bastard”. Anyway it’s not “my body my choice”. A child is a genetically distinct individual from its mother.

Sorry, not sorry. While I appreciate that most abortions are probably carried out by taking pills I don’t feel at all comfortable about babies being dismembered as happens in late abortions, in fact it’s abhorrent.

I don't understand the "my body, my choice" arguement either. Modern science has demonstrated that a baby in the womb is an independant living human being. Legally we are defined by our DNA so the unborn child has their own unique body presumably from the point the egg is fertilized! My daughters have told me about more recent findings from science from their experiences when pregnant. The baby in the womb can be active and twins play! Babiies in the womb sleep and dream (i.e. their brains are working). They feel pain. They are very much alive!
Appreciate there clearly are medical grounds for some terminations but perhaps let's put this in perspective. Dial 999 and they ask 'Is the patient breathing?'. What would people think if they say 'well there's no point coming if they're not breathing.' I think the Bible defines life from first to final breath (is that what our law is based on?) so Biblically abortion isn't murder (although it is deemed a crime in Mosaic Law). Yet it seems it is mostly Christians fighting to protect the unborn child. It should be the scientists and the humanists amongst us.

One of the questions raised in the N Ireland drama was that expressed by a mother who knew the baby she was carrying would either be born dead or die soon after birth. She was asked by medical staff if she would want the baby to be resuscitated. She asked why was it acceptable that her opinion was sought after the baby's birth but ignored before it?

The power of life and death is an onerous one but it is one all women accept when they are pregnant and no one has the right to dictate how they use that power

Well said Holysox. Once you have felt a baby growing inside you, and delivered this beautiful tiny life, I can’t see how anyone....Christian or not, can reduce this to just a clump of cells which have no ‘life’.

It is, and always will be....murder.

I think most of us on GN have had babies DiscoDancer1975 that doesn't mean we think other women have to be forced to give birth. A woman has the right to decide for herself.