Should the law on abortion be changed?

If a woman has chosen not to terminate a pregnancy at an early stage, before the child could be viable, then yes Blondiescot she has assumed a duty towards the child to act as it’s incubator, if you like, and bring it safely to term. If she then doesn’t want to keep it there are thousands who would love the chance to adopt.

Wow. And I thought The Handmaid's Tale was just a story...

Nothing like The Handmaid’s Tale. As I said, women have the choice to end a pregnancy early on. After the baby becomes viable should its rights not be considered? I’m pro choice, but there are limits. There’s a big difference between terminating the life of a non-viable foetus and terminating the life of a viable baby to whom you will have to give birth in the normal way if you abort it. I feel very sorry for midwives and other medical staff who have to deal with the consequences of that..

A viable baby has a right to life. If you don't want the baby inside you then have a caesarean don't kill it.

Jackiest

A viable baby has a right to life. If you don't want the baby inside you then have a caesarean don't kill it.

What does having a caesarean have to do with anything? And yes, GSM, I completely agree that in an ideal world, any woman who finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy could have an early abortion, but as I have repeatedly tried to explain on here, there could be any number of reasons why a woman may not discover she is pregnant until later on. No matter what anyone says, I stand by any woman's right to have autonomy over her own body. Others disagree - as is also their right. People are never going to be in complete agreement on such a divisive issue.

So basically you support the woman who aborted her child between 32 and 34 weeks, evidently for ‘social reasons’?

Blondiescot
Your reasoning seems to suggest that you would support using the abortion pill to kill the foetus at 39 and a half weeks. Am I right?

No doubt I will get short shrift but today I was thinking about the father of Lily.And I will call her by her name -not the foetus.I am guessing he played no part in her decision.Possibly had no idea he had fathered a child as she had gone back to her estranged partner.As I said previously I'm pro -abortion as the law stands.But I wonder how he feels if he's worked out it was his child ?

I'm not saying I agree with either of those scenarios. I don't think late abortions are ever a 'good idea', but I do accept that in some situations, they are necessary. However, whether I agree with it or not, I still don't think it's any of my business what someone else chooses to do with their own body. As I have said more than once, I've read the judgement and I fully understand why the judge came to the conclusions he did. It's possible to understand that, yet on a personal level, feel that this woman did not deserve a custodial sentence. I also respect that others on here have very differing views, and that's fine. As adults, we're all surely capable of agreeing to disagree on very emotive subjects like this.

I've read the judgement and I fully understand why the judge came to the conclusions he did. It's possible to understand that, yet on a personal level, feel that this woman did not deserve a custodial sentence. I also respect that others on here have very differing views, and that's fine. As adults, we're all surely capable of agreeing to disagree on very emotive subjects like this.
👏🏻👏🏻

Washerwoman
I was not in any way trying to be disrespectful to the baby or anyone else, but I thought, obviously wrongly, that some might jump on me for calling the baby what it is - a baby. That’s why I used the biological term. I didn’t know she had a name, but I’m glad she has. Strange though, that someone who deliberately kills her baby, then gives her a name.

It’s true Doodle that we all have different views on this emotive subject. And my initial view was that this woman shouldn’t have received a custodial sentence, but I’ve changed my mind, and now feel it was appropriate, although the law used was strangely old.

Blondiescot What does having a caesarean have to do with anything?

At 34 weeks the baby would be born alive and would be able to live the life they are entitled to.

Jackiest

Blondiescot What does having a caesarean have to do with anything?

At 34 weeks the baby would be born alive and would be able to live the life they are entitled to.

So you would ask the law to force a woman to have a caesarean? Am I understanding that right?

Blondiescot

Jackiest

Blondiescot What does having a caesarean have to do with anything?

At 34 weeks the baby would be born alive and would be able to live the life they are entitled to.

So you would ask the law to force a woman to have a caesarean? Am I understanding that right?

If she does not want the baby inside her then it can be removed without killing it. She is not forced to, she has a choice. Maybe possible to do it with induction I don't know.

I emphatically believe that there should be an extension on the current abortion term limits to allow for later anortion.

So much forced-birth nonsense on this thread.

Isn’t 24 weeks enough for you?

Where there is a medical problem there is already the allowance for a later abortion. A member of my family was pregnant with a much wanted baby, but it was discovered during a scan that the baby had multiple problems including having almost no brain. The baby was incompatible with life. The decision was made to induce the birth, in other words, abort the pregnancy. The mother was 26 weeks pregnant. The abortion was entirely legal. The parents were devastated but went on to have a beautiful and healthy baby boy.

An abortion at 32 - 34 weeks would involve inducing the birth, as these abortion pills did. This woman killed her baby. She should not have the right to do that at this stage of pregnancy.

So yet again I will say, the law should not be amended.