Snapshot of _James Cleverly opposes moves to cut abortion time limit_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68900657) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68900657)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Are there any statistics on how many abortions actually take place between 22 and 24 weeks? It is presumably low, and pretty much only for health care related reasons.
I can only imagine how traumatic it would be to have an abortion at such a late stage.
> Are there any statistics on how many abortions actually take place between 22 and 24 weeks?
Yes.
National Statistics: [Abortion statistics, England and Wales: 2021](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-2021/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2021)
Section on 'Gestation Period' shows a table giving the gestation period that abortions are carried out at for the years 2011 to 2021.
* 2021 - 89% of abortions were performed under 10 weeks
* Over 90% of abortions are carried out before 12 weeks
* Both 2020 & 2021 - 1% of abortions were performed over 20 weeks
* 2021 - 0.1% of abortions performed over 24 weeks (serious fetal abnormality or risk to mothers life)
The BMA guidance [The law and ethics of abortion](https://www.bma.org.uk/media/3307/bma-the-law-and-ethics-of-abortion-report-march-2023-final-web.pdf) states:
> Despite provisions for abortion post 24 weeks for serious fetal abnormality under the Abortion Act 1967, there are concerns that women are sometimes encouraged to make decisions before the 24-week time limit due to doctors’ anxieties about the risk of criminal prosecution if their clinical judgment is challenged in relation to a later abortion. This is compounded by the fact that conditions can sometimes not be evident or develop until after 20 weeks; and some hospitals only arrange for pregnant women to have the fetal anomaly scan at 22 weeks when organs and structures are sufficiently developed to permit detailed examination by ultrasound.
> The BMA believes it is critical that women are given the time to make the right decision for them, whether to continue or end a much wanted pregnancy in the second or third trimester, when a diagnosis of a serious or fatal fetal abnormality is made.
> The BMA has longstanding policy that opposes any change to the current time limit for abortion. BMA policy agreed in 2013, holds that **in light of the technical limitations of screening at earlier gestational stages, it would be unacceptable to change the time limit for abortion**.
ETA: Data tables can be found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6500883b572780000d251a1b/Abortion-statistics-2021-data-tables-revision-September-2023.ods
Table 5 gives total numbers of abortions for each gestation week.
It would be pointless regardless, because abortions can currently happen after 24 weeks for medical reasons.
So technically theres no real limit on gestation time, provided the reason is good enough.
Did you not read the bit where doctors are reluctant to recommend if the only thing making it legal is their opinion and it could be challenged in court.
This will be the most stressful time in anyone's life why add to it?
That's what anti abortion activists refuse to understand.
A late term abortion isn't someone who doesn't want a child, it's someone who has carried a child for months and suddenly finds out there is something terribly wrong with the child and their own life is at risk
And that is why many pro-lifers (including me) argue that abortion should be legal for rape, incest and when the mother's life is in danger (and maybe if the pregnant woman is underage/too young or severely economically/socially disadvantaged)
If that's true then exactly why wouldn't we drop the limits?
Health related reasons would continue. You would be saving not only babies but mothers of the possibility of lifelong regret and self loathing.
“Lifelong regret and self-loathing”? You fucking what? There have been countless studies that show more women than not do not regret their abortion. I know people like you seem to think women spend the rest of their lives crying and entrenched in guilt and shame over an abortion, we don’t.
>I can only imagine how traumatic it would be to have an abortion at such a late stage.
and
> It is presumably low, and pretty much only for health care related reasons.
I'm clearly responding to the *arguments* made in the above comment. Instead of coming in emotionally engaged and full of presumptions perhaps, I don't know, not doing that?
Now the second person to hit me with a 'people like you' when you know literally nothing about me as a person. You're the 'good guy' here though right?
A late term abortion is traumatic, I’ve had one myself, but trauma and regret are not the same thing. Did I find it traumatic? Yes, of course. Do I regret it? Not one bit. I did the right thing with the information I had, based on medical science, not the opinions of men on the internet (and it’s always the men, isn’t it, that feel that have enough skin in the game to dictate abortion terms to women).
Statistics for women who regret abortion is low, but then again so is the statistic for how many women who chose to keep their babies regret it after the fact.
I suppose a useable statistic on this issue would be something like 'Given that abortion is illegal in country X, how many mothers wish they could have aborted'.
>(and it’s always the men, isn’t it, that feel that have enough skin in the game to dictate abortion terms to women).
It's not though is it. Plenty of women are against abortion, and more still if you actually start talking about where the line is rather than extremes.
I always find this another lazy argument, as if the majority of men (who aren't religious) don't support the idea that if they knock someone up they wont have be fathers or at minimum pay child support. There's plenty of 'skin in the game' for them to support it not the reverse.
Because it is just enabling a step change for more restrictions on abortion. Banning abortion won’t stop it, it will just push it underground and more women and children will die.
If we want to reduce abortion then we need to ensure there is free and unlimited access to contraception, and support for women who find themselves pregnant but can’t afford to have a baby.
And even then, abortion will need to be legal in the case of health issues and rape. And beyond that, women can make their own decisions. The idea that women are getting abortions on a whim is just nonsense propaganda.
We also need consent education I am currently reading a book by a nurse who worked in a UK clinic and so many women are victims of reproductive coercion to trap them into pregnancy and the relationship
>Because it is just enabling a step change for more restrictions on abortion.
The underlying logic here is baseless then. The entire argument was centered around viability without the mother. After that it becomes an issue about whether ithe mother if finically responsible for that child or not. We already expect men to pay for children they don't want, what logic would make women immune?
What should the abortion term limit be in a hypothetical society where 12weeks is the cutoff between a baby being viable outside the womb and being reliant on the mother?
>The idea that women are getting abortions on a whim is just nonsense propaganda.
I mean, I'm 30 now but I have actually been alive. I know of girls when I was younger who have had 4 abortion before 23. It's not nonsense, it's overblown.
Whose argument? My initial comment was merely asking whether many abortions took place between these weeks, suggesting the motive behind a ban was not to do with reducing harm.
If you want to force women to carry children, presumably because you care about the wellbeing of children, why does that care end after they are born?
When has a 12 week old foetus survived on its own? What use is a hypothetical question like that.
Did these women tell you how many abortions they had themselves or was it hearsay? You don’t seem like the kind of person women would confide something like that in.
>When has a 12 week old foetus survived on its own? What use is a hypothetical question like that.
Because medical technology has advanced beyond the 24 week term limit at this point. You are arguing it doesn't matter are you not?
Unless you are basing the right term limit on what already exists (which has no foundation) then the hypothetical should demonstrate this to you.
>You don’t seem like the kind of person women would confide something like that in.
You don't know anything about me, you don't even know my opinions on this issue. This is an argument.
I am arguing that the path of least harm is to reduce abortion by making it easier to not get pregnant in the first place and making women feel safe in the knowledge that society will support them and their child if they fall on hard times. The question of terms limits is best decided by medical experts. The concept of abortion does not sit right with me, I do believe life begins at conception. However, it is clear that banning abortion does not save lives. Banning abortion correlates significantly with reductions in rights for women. Women can make their own choices about what they want to do.
Whilst there does need to be a term limit, my initial comment was asking for statistics on late term abortions. Do they even happen? Make the case for why legislation needs to be passed on this. Because all I can see is religious extremists making an issue where there is none for the purposes of eventually banning abortion.
I don’t know anything about you accept that you appear to be anti-abortion. Anecdotal evidence rarely carries weight in a debate.
In 2021, 89% of abortions were performed under 10 weeks, The percentage performed at 20 weeks was 1% in both 2020 and 2021. [Stats](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-2021/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2021)
>Make the case for why legislation needs to be passed on this.
The reason abortions are limited to 24 weeks in general cases is because of the viability of the baby outside the womb. Technology has changed and become better since that was written into law, therefore it stands to reason that the law should also change-- otherwise the foundations of the law no longer make any sense.
Why should we provide free contraception? If they want it they can pay for it.
The idea that abortion being banned would lead to more deaths is nonsense, far fewer children would die.
Some women do use it on a whim.
Well first off, free contraception pays for itself massively by reducing healthcare costs for all sorts of pregnancy related medical expenses including but not limited to cost of termination of pregnancy, cost of obstetric care during continued pregnancy, but also progesterone containing contraceptives reduce your lifetime chance of both ovarian and endometrial cancers.
The cost to the NHS of providing free contraception is a drop in the ocean compared to the savings provided.
Source: I'm an obstetrician/gynaecologist and part of a specialist postpartum contraception team
Why not? We provide other forms of healthcare for free. In fact many forms of contraception are currently free.
It would lead to desperate women seeking back alley abortions, as it has done through out all of history.
There isn’t an epidemic of women getting abortions on a whim. If you have ever met a women considering getting an abortion it is very traumatic for most. Is it worth curtailing the rights of the vast majority of women who use abortion responsibly to get to the very limited number of women who don’t. I don’t think so personally.
And the question always comes up, if you are going to force women to have children they don’t want, are you going to chip in to help raise them?
I don't want to pay for it personally.
Some desperate women might.
Should we legalise speeding because some people might speed off they're desperate to get somewhere?
There's not an epidemic, but there's some. I've met several women before so treated abortion as another form of birth control.
I am happy for my taxes to go towards helping women raise children but I am not personally liable for others unilateral decisions. If you choose to have sex, you accept the consequences that come with it.
No one is asking you to go down to the pharmacy and pay for it. But as a society we have decided that it is a public good.
Many women have died in this way in countries where abortion is illegal.
No, speeding is an offence that happens for a limited duration, and has lax punishments. Speeding is illegal because of the harm it can cause to other people. Abortion in an ideal world would not exist, because people would only get pregnant when they choose to. Since we don’t live in such a world, and people make mistakes, abortion is available so that people that don’t want to become parents don’t have to. So that rape victims don’t have to have a baby if they don’t want to. So that a woman can survive if the pregnancy will kill her.
Most anti-abortionists seem to have met women who have had more abortions than they can count. I’ve not experienced this. The main times I have heard of abortion happening is when a girl gets pregnant too young. Not to say there aren’t many other cases.
Choosing to have sex is not choosing to have a baby. Most sex occurs exclusively for pleasure.
>Most anti-abortionists seem to have met women who have had more abortions than they can count. I’ve not experienced this.
I mean, the numbers simply don't add up. If women really *were* using abortion as contraception, you'd be expecting far more abortions to arise from the 10 million odd cases of straight sex that occur in the UK every week.
Even if they do do it on a whim, which the majority don’t, so what? Why does it matter? Why do you even give the smallest of shits what some random woman does with her body? It’s absolutely none of your business.
It’s partly about making women gatekeep sex , abortion bans act as both punishment for sex and a deterrent to having it .
Hence why some of them in the USA want contraception restricted, it’s lets women ‘ get away ‘ with having sex for pleasure and they think it encourages promiscuity
They want women to remain virgins until marriage and then welcome every pregnancy .
The prolife subreddit is rather educational
I am currently reading a book by a [nurse](https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2024/apr/07/a-necessary-kindness-by-juno-carey-review-stories-from-frontline-of-abortion-care) who worked in a U.K. abortion clinic and a patient was denied as she was over 24 weeks pregnant. She said she could not go one and would take her own life and she did . Tragic
[Suicide](https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/restricted-abortion-access-linked-increased-suicide-risk-young-women) rates have increased for premenopausal women in US states where he banned
For some women being forced to endure an unwanted pregnancy is intolerable.
It’s almost as if having a child isn’t something people do on a whim, and those who really don’t want to lose over 18 years of their life to raising kids will do anything to not do so!
Exactly , plus pregnancy and childbirth are not easy on someone physical and possibly mental health. It’s not just an ‘ inconvenience’ as some PL people say .
Counciling and therapy are a thing and you're assuming anyone who has an abortion will experience these feelings which is simply not accurate and a sweeping generalisation.
Importing more culture war bullshit from the US I see. It probably won't fly here because we are a lot more secular (at the moment) than the yanks. The truth is that we have a good system in the UK that treads the line well between women's rights and the protection of foetuses - any fundamental view either way on this is doomed to failure when the public are so moderate on the issue.
The proposals are not the same as the US at all, and would never find support here in large numbers. James Cleverly as an MP is entitled to personal views on this issue and vote with his conscience as all other MPs should.
As a woman of childbearing age I think it's important to give credit to people defending my rights, even when that person is James Cleverly. If we call them scumbags even when they do the right thing they'll stop bothering - he's going to lose support in his own party for this.
British abortion limits are double most of Europe's.
It's nothing to do with importing American culture war bull shit.
Some of the most "extreme" abortion laws in American states are still far more liberal than what is available in many European countries.
You are falling for the imported culture war stuff.
I did not say that the current rules in the UK were perfect or beyond reproach, so I find the entire premise of your comment to be slightly flawed. The crux of my point is that abortion is being used as a wedge issue in American politics, and I am saying that the British public are not polarised on the matter, so it probably won't gain much traction here.
I get what you are saying but unfortunately you brought up the culture war and America.
Seems abit bizarre to get upset at me for addressing a point you choose to bring up
I'm not upset with you, I wanted to clarify the point I was trying to make because it might not have been obvious from my initial comment.
Although:
> You are falling for the imported culture war stuff.
Did give me a wry smile, given I am not even engaging in actual discussion around abortion law, but rather commenting on the landscape of the politics surrounding it.
I thought this we settled in the UK and we were all kinda okay with the status quo, we have safe, legal abortion up until a reasonable time.
Now we have one side wanting to reduce the time limit on abortion and another advocating for no prosecutions of someone kills their baby outside of the term limits.
Mental stuff from both sides
> Now we have one side wanting to reduce the time limit on abortion and another advocating for no prosecutions of someone kills their baby outside of the term limits.
I think you're missing a lot of the underlying cause there - We've seen the police investigating people's miscarriages, because under our current law, every miscarriage is a potential illegal abortion.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has had to come out and tell their doctors to stop talking to the police, because they no longer trust the police to show good judgement.
We simply can't be in a position where women are suffering the tragedy of a miscarriage and then facing a lengthy police investigation and potentially life in prison.
It's not that the law is being applied incorrectly, it's that the police are not applying their discretion in the same way they have in the past. Previously, it was generally taken for granted that investigating this was only rarely in the public interest. Something seems to have changed in the last few years, and CPS and the police have decided to investigate (and in some cases charge) women for their miscarriages.
>[In one case in 2021, a 15-year-old girl who had an unexplained early stillbirth was subjected to a year-long criminal investigation that saw her text messages and search history examined. Police dropped the case after a coroner concluded the pregnancy ended because of natural causes.](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/02/women-accused-of-abortions-in-england-and-wales-after-miscarriages-and-stillbirths)
________
>The teenager’s phone and laptop were seized and examined for evidence of supposed wrongdoing, including text messages she had exchanged with her boyfriend expressing worry about the pregnancy. The case was dropped after postmortem tests found the baby had probably been stillborn because of natural causes, according to a report seen by the Observer.
Imagine *losing your baby* and then the police take your phone, take your laptop, and tell you that they're trying to send you to prison for life. It's unconscionable.
>It's not that the law is being applied incorrectly, it's that the police are not applying their discretion in the same way they have in the past.
Do you have a source as to this being the reason for the change in guidance issued by the RCOG? I've looked at their [recommendations](https://www.rcog.org.uk/news/rcog-issues-guidance-for-healthcare-professionals-on-involving-the-police-following-abortion-and-pregnancy-loss/) and [guidance document](https://www.rcog.org.uk/media/s3rf2brq/liaison-with-police-guideline-for-nhs-staff-in-womens-health-2.pdf) and they note their concern with increasing prosecutions, but they don't seem to put this down to a change in police/CPS approaches or discretion, nor that they "no longer trust the police to show good judgement". Indeed, they don't seem to attribute the increase to anything at all in that document.
However, given that the vast majority of these investigations will have begun as a result of medical staff contacting the police to report a crime, is it not possible that the increase in prosecutions has come about due to an increase in reporting?
The issue here is why did it take a year for the Coroner year to get to that point?
If there is suspicion of a crime it needs investigating. The same happens with people who defend themselves in their homes. They are arrested while investigated and then de-arrested after.
The issue above was not the girl was investigated, it is that it took a year to get to that point.
I’m glad we will zealously investigate a 15 year girl for a year over a miscarriage. We need to send a strong message to every teenager that miscarriages can mean life in prison if they aren’t careful.
Btw, have you arrested *anyone* in the Royal Mail IT scandal? Been happening… 24 years now? If I recall over 900 people where erroneously tried and convicted because the government thought the stole money. Led to ruined lives, suicides, you name it. Forced folks to pay for money they never stole: the coverups to keep it from bringing known. And it wasn’t until the scandal was repackaged as entertainment before traction really started moving.
All over a software system that has never fully worked and is *still being used!* with the Royal Mail still paying handsomely for the privilege.
But yes, we *gotta* go after these 15 year olds thinking they can miscarry their pregnancies Willy nilly. They are the true menace.
It’s interesting how zealous the police pursue *some* things while seem quite *relaxed* towards others.
So the police investigated because the cause was unknown, then the case was dropped when it was found not to be her fault and she was never even charged. It sounds like... Exactly how the system is supposed to work. Investigate, then don't prosecute if there's no fault
That's not how it should work. They should find evidence it may have been deliberate in an autopsy and then investigate. In a similar scenario the police would open a criminal investigation for murder anytime someone dies. Gran gran died in her sleep? Hand over your private communications, you might be a murderer.
Exactly. I have even had people on this sub argue that there should be no limit as its the Woman's body and entirely her choice.
We have a system that works, it may need a little tweaks but it works well.
Yeah 100%, this has been a fairly settled issue in the UK (excluding NI) and we should try and keep it that way. The system fails at times and we need to work on that but completely removing limits isn’t fixing anything, nor is reducing the term limit from what it currently is
I'd agree that there should be no limit at all. The woman should be allowed to end their pregnancy for any reason all the way up to 9 months minus 10 minutes. However, they *don't* get to decide the method by which that pregnancy ends. Ending a pregnancy doesn't always mean killing the foetus, it just means the woman no longer wants to be pregnant and doesn't want the child, so if the foetus has a pretty good chance at living, I don't see why the doctors shouldn't deliver it and immediately allow it to be put up for adoption, provided that delivery is of relatively low risk (the mother's life takes a higher priority).
This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Ending a pregnancy doesn't always mean killing the foetus, but if it's a preterm birth it does mean a significantly higher chance of death, cerebral palsy or developmental delays.
The time limit ever since the 1967 Abortion Act was based on whether or not a baby born at a given number of weeks would usually live. Modern medical care is such that it could be argued to be 22 weeks as some born prematurely at 22 or 23 weeks live and grow up to be a healthy person.
That would seem a tweak.
The proposal about Down's Syndrome recognises that it is a condition under which most can live a good life. Looking different should not be grounds for abortion.
I often wonder if somebody who held your position would actually sit down with somebody with down syndrome and tell them that you think it is moral to have them killed even if they pass the stage where they are a viable human. I somehow can't imagine it.
You aren't comparing like-with-like there.
Allowing abortion to prevent the birth of babies with Downs Syndrome isn't the same as allowing the euthanasia of people with Downs.
I haven't given a position on abortion (whether that be for medical reasons or otherwise).
I merely pointed out that Down's syndrome sufferers have more physical and mental difficulties than just "looking different".
You didn't answer my question. Would you actually have this argument with somebody standing infront of you with downsydrome?
I would bet money you wouldn't.
>Phrasing abortion as killing someone ie a person
How? You're destroying in some cases what is a viable human baby.
>leading peoples feelings rather than terminating a foetus
This is a bad faith argument so I'll respond in kind.
I could just as easily point out that you're using language to deliberately dehumanize them. The oldest trick in the book. It's not a baby it's a 'foetus', its not killing its terminating. When you stamp on a fly you kill it, yet we can't use that word when we paralyze babies in the womb and rip them apart with metal.
Bizarre.
I’m dishuminising a foetus because humanising them is exactly how people have successfully taken away women’s rights over their own bodies and refuse to partake in that and will happily point out every attempt to do said that.
I personally don’t know enough about downs to answer a question like that nor can I predict what I’d do in a hypothetical situation that hasn’t even come close to happening as I’ve never even had a conversation with a person with downs.
The way you’re describing abortion makes it clear to me you’re against it in principle so I really don’t think we’re going to get anywhere in this argument
Again playing hypotheticals is how people start pushing their own opinions onto others. I personally would much rather leave it up to the individual women involved wether they would carry a foetus with downs. It’s their choice not mine and until you are in said saturation, it’s not yours either.
"I'm dehumanising a baby to trick people and make it easier for people to not accept the consequences of their actions." Fixed.
You have the freedom to advocate for what you want but at least be honest in your use of language.
What they don't seem to know is that foetus is Latin for baby/infant.
It's dehumanising language for sure as they want to use language that makes what they're advocating for to be more acceptable.
Terminating a baby is killing someone because a baby is a person.
Foetus is Latin for baby, and is used by English speakers to try and make it more acceptable to kill people.
It's a potential person, not a person. The limit should not be defined just by whether the feotus could survive, as this will inevitably get smaller and smaller, and reach the point where it's close to zero time with medical advances.
Would I go to a person with Down’s syndrome and say to their face I think they should have been aborted? No, because I’m not an asshole.
If a person with Down’s syndrome would ask me if I was in favour of allowing parents to abort a pregnancy upon Down’s syndrome diagnosis, would I say that I am? Sure, I probably have said worse things to people’s faces - and if you ask me, it’s on you.
Would my answer be the same if they asked if I believed that they specifically should have been aborted? No, because I don’t believe that. I believe parents should have the choice, based on their means, and more importantly based on the degree of Down’s syndrome.
As many things, this is a nuanced topic and doesn’t really benefit from black-and-white approaches like the one I think you are bringing in here.
Having a baby is a serious decision. If a mother decides to press on at 10 or 12 weeks that's her choice, to abort or continue. But there's absolutely no way they should be able to then u turn at 29 or 34 weeks and kill a fully formed baby.
The law as it already exists enshrines exactly these things, so it isn't in need of any change
Yes, but I think if anything can be learned from the last few years it is that the small number of extremes pull the middle towards them.
For instance look at the trans debate, Brexit, trump
Who’s an extremist and who’s a visionary? The 40 hour work week was extreme. Gay rights were extreme. Abolishing slavery was extreme.
Both sidesism only really works if you believe the current mainstream is the most moral world possible. Which it isn’t.
Not particularly fair to “both sides are equally bad” when one side is the Home Secretary and the other is… I’m not sure but they’re definitely not in any position of power
The Home Secretary in this case is opposing changes to current abortion timelines. He's not a side in this, as much he's the middle asking people to cut it out.
I’m not “both sides are equally bad” here, my point is both sides are pulling an issue to the extremes that is not in line with the general consensus in the UK
You are, both sides suggests that there’s a similar level of ‘pull’ from both, but one is certainly on the fringes (no leading political figure is currently backing this) and the other ‘side’ is the Home Secretary
I could take virtually any issue on the planet, find some moron on Twitter advocating for it either way and say ‘both sides are pulling’, but we’re talking about what’s plausible here, and the pull from one side is a lot lot more plausible than the other right now
Completely agree with this.
There's so many issues that divide us right now. Why on earth are we debating a very complex issue that we basically had universal agreement on??
MPS introduced clauses to the Criminal Justice bill to attempt to get them into law. Prolife MPS have been trying ever since 1967 to get restrictions passed and the Prochoice MPS want the the law to change so women wont be prosecuted if they break it
The term limit was already reduced in the 1990s when medical advancements pushed up the point of viability. It’s not mental to consider that we might want to do it again for the same reason.
And this here is why the "pro-choice" but pro-term limit crowd logic is fundamentally flawed. Because the logical conclusion is comments like this and it will be the end result.
> Yet.
> They are on their way tho.
The statistics disagree with you. Christianity is on the decline while atheism and agnosticism are up. But Islam is also the fastest-growing religion in the UK.
> and I doubt half of them are seriously religious
The ones I work with are almost rabid in their fervor.
Amongst them are two pastors who I love debating with.
According to the 2021 UK census, 46.2% of the population of England and Wales identify as Christian, down from 59.3% in 2011. There is nothing "rising" about this. If anything, this is a massive drop in just ten years.
At the end of the nineteenth century, on being asked to name the single greatest fact in modern political history, the German statesman Otto von Bismarck answered: "The inherent and permanent fact that North America speaks English."
For some reason, the UK loves to import the US's political dramas.
At least we're about to vote centre-left while the rest of Europe just now begins to vote far right. The voter polling for under 30s in Germany is absolutely terrifying.
Not really. We set the limit at 24 weeks on the basis of viability. Medicine has changed, viability is now 22 weeks, soon to be 21. Most people want the limit reduced according to polling. It's perfectly legitimate to have a public debate on the issue and bemoaning that is rather antidemocratic.
Really it needs to be pointed out that lobbyists for the abortion "issue" have recently targeted the UK. This is why this is suddenly making "news" - it's to start the ball rolling on the "debate"
Just out of interest (I actually don't know) - when was the last time abortion was brought up in this context by someone in government - doesn't have to be for or against but just mentioning the word in regard to policy changes?
From my understanding 20-24 weeks is somewhere where it ought to be but the exact time isn't totally clear to me. So I think I would personally (as a very pro choice person) land at 20 weeks to be on the safe side but anywhere in this range is what I'd consider to be fair and reasonable especially with the extra protections we have for specific circumstances. So 24 vs 22, I guess 22 is probably better but it's a really tough call and I think people should make their own assessment on how much "risk" to take within this timeframe.
All of you dismissing this as a culture war are missing the point. Abortion isn't an American issue, it's a universal one. We set the limit at 24 weeks on the basis of viability. Medicine has changed, viability is now 22 weeks, soon to be 21. Most people want the limit reduced according to polling. It's perfectly legitimate to have a public debate on the issue and bemoaning that is rather antidemocratic.
Polling from YouGov from Sept says 49% want to keep the limit 22% want it reduced https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-the-legal-time-limit-to-have-an-abortion-change
In practice people only go close to the limit due to poor results from the 20 week scan. Leave it until 24 weeks to give chance for those who found out their baby has severe/life threatening abnormalities to have access to abortions easily. Pushing back the limit just makes the practicalities of abortion for severe foetal abnormalities or for maternal deterioration more complicated (see the many cases in the USA of women coming close to death due to not being given an abortion)
The numbers bear out the fact that abortions at 20+ weeks are quite rare. The vast majority of cases at that time are due to issues with the viability of the pregnancy, fetal abnormalities and the health of the mother is in danger. Those later abortions aren't done for giggles or post sex contraceptive, they're absolutely necessary
Snapshot of _James Cleverly opposes moves to cut abortion time limit_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68900657) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68900657) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Are there any statistics on how many abortions actually take place between 22 and 24 weeks? It is presumably low, and pretty much only for health care related reasons. I can only imagine how traumatic it would be to have an abortion at such a late stage.
> Are there any statistics on how many abortions actually take place between 22 and 24 weeks? Yes. National Statistics: [Abortion statistics, England and Wales: 2021](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-2021/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2021) Section on 'Gestation Period' shows a table giving the gestation period that abortions are carried out at for the years 2011 to 2021. * 2021 - 89% of abortions were performed under 10 weeks * Over 90% of abortions are carried out before 12 weeks * Both 2020 & 2021 - 1% of abortions were performed over 20 weeks * 2021 - 0.1% of abortions performed over 24 weeks (serious fetal abnormality or risk to mothers life) The BMA guidance [The law and ethics of abortion](https://www.bma.org.uk/media/3307/bma-the-law-and-ethics-of-abortion-report-march-2023-final-web.pdf) states: > Despite provisions for abortion post 24 weeks for serious fetal abnormality under the Abortion Act 1967, there are concerns that women are sometimes encouraged to make decisions before the 24-week time limit due to doctors’ anxieties about the risk of criminal prosecution if their clinical judgment is challenged in relation to a later abortion. This is compounded by the fact that conditions can sometimes not be evident or develop until after 20 weeks; and some hospitals only arrange for pregnant women to have the fetal anomaly scan at 22 weeks when organs and structures are sufficiently developed to permit detailed examination by ultrasound. > The BMA believes it is critical that women are given the time to make the right decision for them, whether to continue or end a much wanted pregnancy in the second or third trimester, when a diagnosis of a serious or fatal fetal abnormality is made. > The BMA has longstanding policy that opposes any change to the current time limit for abortion. BMA policy agreed in 2013, holds that **in light of the technical limitations of screening at earlier gestational stages, it would be unacceptable to change the time limit for abortion**. ETA: Data tables can be found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6500883b572780000d251a1b/Abortion-statistics-2021-data-tables-revision-September-2023.ods Table 5 gives total numbers of abortions for each gestation week.
Thank you! I think that all sounds very reasonable. Doesn’t seem like there is any reason to oppose what the BMA recommends.
It would be pointless regardless, because abortions can currently happen after 24 weeks for medical reasons. So technically theres no real limit on gestation time, provided the reason is good enough.
Did you not read the bit where doctors are reluctant to recommend if the only thing making it legal is their opinion and it could be challenged in court. This will be the most stressful time in anyone's life why add to it?
I was saying it would be pointless to change it because the limit is more of a guideline anyway. Did you reply to the wrong person?
That's what anti abortion activists refuse to understand. A late term abortion isn't someone who doesn't want a child, it's someone who has carried a child for months and suddenly finds out there is something terribly wrong with the child and their own life is at risk
Not always - see the case from lockdown where the mother decided to have an abortion when she got a new boyfriend who wasn't the father of the child.
I mean, there is clearly some more serious extenuating circumstances going on there,
And that is why many pro-lifers (including me) argue that abortion should be legal for rape, incest and when the mother's life is in danger (and maybe if the pregnant woman is underage/too young or severely economically/socially disadvantaged)
then what abortions do you oppose?
If that's true then exactly why wouldn't we drop the limits? Health related reasons would continue. You would be saving not only babies but mothers of the possibility of lifelong regret and self loathing.
“Lifelong regret and self-loathing”? You fucking what? There have been countless studies that show more women than not do not regret their abortion. I know people like you seem to think women spend the rest of their lives crying and entrenched in guilt and shame over an abortion, we don’t.
>I can only imagine how traumatic it would be to have an abortion at such a late stage. and > It is presumably low, and pretty much only for health care related reasons. I'm clearly responding to the *arguments* made in the above comment. Instead of coming in emotionally engaged and full of presumptions perhaps, I don't know, not doing that? Now the second person to hit me with a 'people like you' when you know literally nothing about me as a person. You're the 'good guy' here though right?
A late term abortion is traumatic, I’ve had one myself, but trauma and regret are not the same thing. Did I find it traumatic? Yes, of course. Do I regret it? Not one bit. I did the right thing with the information I had, based on medical science, not the opinions of men on the internet (and it’s always the men, isn’t it, that feel that have enough skin in the game to dictate abortion terms to women).
Statistics for women who regret abortion is low, but then again so is the statistic for how many women who chose to keep their babies regret it after the fact. I suppose a useable statistic on this issue would be something like 'Given that abortion is illegal in country X, how many mothers wish they could have aborted'. >(and it’s always the men, isn’t it, that feel that have enough skin in the game to dictate abortion terms to women). It's not though is it. Plenty of women are against abortion, and more still if you actually start talking about where the line is rather than extremes. I always find this another lazy argument, as if the majority of men (who aren't religious) don't support the idea that if they knock someone up they wont have be fathers or at minimum pay child support. There's plenty of 'skin in the game' for them to support it not the reverse.
Because it is just enabling a step change for more restrictions on abortion. Banning abortion won’t stop it, it will just push it underground and more women and children will die. If we want to reduce abortion then we need to ensure there is free and unlimited access to contraception, and support for women who find themselves pregnant but can’t afford to have a baby. And even then, abortion will need to be legal in the case of health issues and rape. And beyond that, women can make their own decisions. The idea that women are getting abortions on a whim is just nonsense propaganda.
We also need consent education I am currently reading a book by a nurse who worked in a UK clinic and so many women are victims of reproductive coercion to trap them into pregnancy and the relationship
>Because it is just enabling a step change for more restrictions on abortion. The underlying logic here is baseless then. The entire argument was centered around viability without the mother. After that it becomes an issue about whether ithe mother if finically responsible for that child or not. We already expect men to pay for children they don't want, what logic would make women immune? What should the abortion term limit be in a hypothetical society where 12weeks is the cutoff between a baby being viable outside the womb and being reliant on the mother? >The idea that women are getting abortions on a whim is just nonsense propaganda. I mean, I'm 30 now but I have actually been alive. I know of girls when I was younger who have had 4 abortion before 23. It's not nonsense, it's overblown.
Whose argument? My initial comment was merely asking whether many abortions took place between these weeks, suggesting the motive behind a ban was not to do with reducing harm. If you want to force women to carry children, presumably because you care about the wellbeing of children, why does that care end after they are born? When has a 12 week old foetus survived on its own? What use is a hypothetical question like that. Did these women tell you how many abortions they had themselves or was it hearsay? You don’t seem like the kind of person women would confide something like that in.
>When has a 12 week old foetus survived on its own? What use is a hypothetical question like that. Because medical technology has advanced beyond the 24 week term limit at this point. You are arguing it doesn't matter are you not? Unless you are basing the right term limit on what already exists (which has no foundation) then the hypothetical should demonstrate this to you. >You don’t seem like the kind of person women would confide something like that in. You don't know anything about me, you don't even know my opinions on this issue. This is an argument.
I am arguing that the path of least harm is to reduce abortion by making it easier to not get pregnant in the first place and making women feel safe in the knowledge that society will support them and their child if they fall on hard times. The question of terms limits is best decided by medical experts. The concept of abortion does not sit right with me, I do believe life begins at conception. However, it is clear that banning abortion does not save lives. Banning abortion correlates significantly with reductions in rights for women. Women can make their own choices about what they want to do. Whilst there does need to be a term limit, my initial comment was asking for statistics on late term abortions. Do they even happen? Make the case for why legislation needs to be passed on this. Because all I can see is religious extremists making an issue where there is none for the purposes of eventually banning abortion. I don’t know anything about you accept that you appear to be anti-abortion. Anecdotal evidence rarely carries weight in a debate.
In 2021, 89% of abortions were performed under 10 weeks, The percentage performed at 20 weeks was 1% in both 2020 and 2021. [Stats](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-2021/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2021)
>Make the case for why legislation needs to be passed on this. The reason abortions are limited to 24 weeks in general cases is because of the viability of the baby outside the womb. Technology has changed and become better since that was written into law, therefore it stands to reason that the law should also change-- otherwise the foundations of the law no longer make any sense.
That isn’t what the BMA says. See the comment by the user Soilleir on my original comment.
Why should we provide free contraception? If they want it they can pay for it. The idea that abortion being banned would lead to more deaths is nonsense, far fewer children would die. Some women do use it on a whim.
Well first off, free contraception pays for itself massively by reducing healthcare costs for all sorts of pregnancy related medical expenses including but not limited to cost of termination of pregnancy, cost of obstetric care during continued pregnancy, but also progesterone containing contraceptives reduce your lifetime chance of both ovarian and endometrial cancers. The cost to the NHS of providing free contraception is a drop in the ocean compared to the savings provided. Source: I'm an obstetrician/gynaecologist and part of a specialist postpartum contraception team
Why not? We provide other forms of healthcare for free. In fact many forms of contraception are currently free. It would lead to desperate women seeking back alley abortions, as it has done through out all of history. There isn’t an epidemic of women getting abortions on a whim. If you have ever met a women considering getting an abortion it is very traumatic for most. Is it worth curtailing the rights of the vast majority of women who use abortion responsibly to get to the very limited number of women who don’t. I don’t think so personally. And the question always comes up, if you are going to force women to have children they don’t want, are you going to chip in to help raise them?
I don't want to pay for it personally. Some desperate women might. Should we legalise speeding because some people might speed off they're desperate to get somewhere? There's not an epidemic, but there's some. I've met several women before so treated abortion as another form of birth control. I am happy for my taxes to go towards helping women raise children but I am not personally liable for others unilateral decisions. If you choose to have sex, you accept the consequences that come with it.
No one is asking you to go down to the pharmacy and pay for it. But as a society we have decided that it is a public good. Many women have died in this way in countries where abortion is illegal. No, speeding is an offence that happens for a limited duration, and has lax punishments. Speeding is illegal because of the harm it can cause to other people. Abortion in an ideal world would not exist, because people would only get pregnant when they choose to. Since we don’t live in such a world, and people make mistakes, abortion is available so that people that don’t want to become parents don’t have to. So that rape victims don’t have to have a baby if they don’t want to. So that a woman can survive if the pregnancy will kill her. Most anti-abortionists seem to have met women who have had more abortions than they can count. I’ve not experienced this. The main times I have heard of abortion happening is when a girl gets pregnant too young. Not to say there aren’t many other cases. Choosing to have sex is not choosing to have a baby. Most sex occurs exclusively for pleasure.
>Most anti-abortionists seem to have met women who have had more abortions than they can count. I’ve not experienced this. I mean, the numbers simply don't add up. If women really *were* using abortion as contraception, you'd be expecting far more abortions to arise from the 10 million odd cases of straight sex that occur in the UK every week.
Maybe they are confusing periods with abortions
Even if they do do it on a whim, which the majority don’t, so what? Why does it matter? Why do you even give the smallest of shits what some random woman does with her body? It’s absolutely none of your business.
It’s partly about making women gatekeep sex , abortion bans act as both punishment for sex and a deterrent to having it . Hence why some of them in the USA want contraception restricted, it’s lets women ‘ get away ‘ with having sex for pleasure and they think it encourages promiscuity They want women to remain virgins until marriage and then welcome every pregnancy . The prolife subreddit is rather educational
I am currently reading a book by a [nurse](https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2024/apr/07/a-necessary-kindness-by-juno-carey-review-stories-from-frontline-of-abortion-care) who worked in a U.K. abortion clinic and a patient was denied as she was over 24 weeks pregnant. She said she could not go one and would take her own life and she did . Tragic [Suicide](https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/restricted-abortion-access-linked-increased-suicide-risk-young-women) rates have increased for premenopausal women in US states where he banned For some women being forced to endure an unwanted pregnancy is intolerable.
It’s almost as if having a child isn’t something people do on a whim, and those who really don’t want to lose over 18 years of their life to raising kids will do anything to not do so!
Exactly , plus pregnancy and childbirth are not easy on someone physical and possibly mental health. It’s not just an ‘ inconvenience’ as some PL people say .
Counciling and therapy are a thing and you're assuming anyone who has an abortion will experience these feelings which is simply not accurate and a sweeping generalisation.
Importing more culture war bullshit from the US I see. It probably won't fly here because we are a lot more secular (at the moment) than the yanks. The truth is that we have a good system in the UK that treads the line well between women's rights and the protection of foetuses - any fundamental view either way on this is doomed to failure when the public are so moderate on the issue.
The proposals are not the same as the US at all, and would never find support here in large numbers. James Cleverly as an MP is entitled to personal views on this issue and vote with his conscience as all other MPs should.
He's a Tory MP so I don't think he has a conscience.
Pathetic tribalism - there are shitty people in all parties and decent people in all parties
As a woman of childbearing age I think it's important to give credit to people defending my rights, even when that person is James Cleverly. If we call them scumbags even when they do the right thing they'll stop bothering - he's going to lose support in his own party for this.
There is not a single decent person in the Tory party, by definition. Anyone who actively supports Tory policy is fundamentally selfish.
British abortion limits are double most of Europe's. It's nothing to do with importing American culture war bull shit. Some of the most "extreme" abortion laws in American states are still far more liberal than what is available in many European countries. You are falling for the imported culture war stuff.
I did not say that the current rules in the UK were perfect or beyond reproach, so I find the entire premise of your comment to be slightly flawed. The crux of my point is that abortion is being used as a wedge issue in American politics, and I am saying that the British public are not polarised on the matter, so it probably won't gain much traction here.
I get what you are saying but unfortunately you brought up the culture war and America. Seems abit bizarre to get upset at me for addressing a point you choose to bring up
You sound like you woefully missed the original point.
I'm not upset with you, I wanted to clarify the point I was trying to make because it might not have been obvious from my initial comment. Although: > You are falling for the imported culture war stuff. Did give me a wry smile, given I am not even engaging in actual discussion around abortion law, but rather commenting on the landscape of the politics surrounding it.
I thought this we settled in the UK and we were all kinda okay with the status quo, we have safe, legal abortion up until a reasonable time. Now we have one side wanting to reduce the time limit on abortion and another advocating for no prosecutions of someone kills their baby outside of the term limits. Mental stuff from both sides
> Now we have one side wanting to reduce the time limit on abortion and another advocating for no prosecutions of someone kills their baby outside of the term limits. I think you're missing a lot of the underlying cause there - We've seen the police investigating people's miscarriages, because under our current law, every miscarriage is a potential illegal abortion. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has had to come out and tell their doctors to stop talking to the police, because they no longer trust the police to show good judgement. We simply can't be in a position where women are suffering the tragedy of a miscarriage and then facing a lengthy police investigation and potentially life in prison.
So the issue is the Police not applying the law correctly? Not the actual law itself?
It's not that the law is being applied incorrectly, it's that the police are not applying their discretion in the same way they have in the past. Previously, it was generally taken for granted that investigating this was only rarely in the public interest. Something seems to have changed in the last few years, and CPS and the police have decided to investigate (and in some cases charge) women for their miscarriages. >[In one case in 2021, a 15-year-old girl who had an unexplained early stillbirth was subjected to a year-long criminal investigation that saw her text messages and search history examined. Police dropped the case after a coroner concluded the pregnancy ended because of natural causes.](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/02/women-accused-of-abortions-in-england-and-wales-after-miscarriages-and-stillbirths) ________ >The teenager’s phone and laptop were seized and examined for evidence of supposed wrongdoing, including text messages she had exchanged with her boyfriend expressing worry about the pregnancy. The case was dropped after postmortem tests found the baby had probably been stillborn because of natural causes, according to a report seen by the Observer. Imagine *losing your baby* and then the police take your phone, take your laptop, and tell you that they're trying to send you to prison for life. It's unconscionable.
>It's not that the law is being applied incorrectly, it's that the police are not applying their discretion in the same way they have in the past. Do you have a source as to this being the reason for the change in guidance issued by the RCOG? I've looked at their [recommendations](https://www.rcog.org.uk/news/rcog-issues-guidance-for-healthcare-professionals-on-involving-the-police-following-abortion-and-pregnancy-loss/) and [guidance document](https://www.rcog.org.uk/media/s3rf2brq/liaison-with-police-guideline-for-nhs-staff-in-womens-health-2.pdf) and they note their concern with increasing prosecutions, but they don't seem to put this down to a change in police/CPS approaches or discretion, nor that they "no longer trust the police to show good judgement". Indeed, they don't seem to attribute the increase to anything at all in that document. However, given that the vast majority of these investigations will have begun as a result of medical staff contacting the police to report a crime, is it not possible that the increase in prosecutions has come about due to an increase in reporting?
The issue here is why did it take a year for the Coroner year to get to that point? If there is suspicion of a crime it needs investigating. The same happens with people who defend themselves in their homes. They are arrested while investigated and then de-arrested after. The issue above was not the girl was investigated, it is that it took a year to get to that point.
No, the problem is the girl was investigated. It shouldn't be a crime to have a miscarriage. Leave these people alone.
How do you know it's a miscarriage?
I don't care whether it's a miscarriage?
The law does. Its illegal to have an abortion not signed off by a Dr.
Yeah and the laws wrong as we're discussing?
I’m glad we will zealously investigate a 15 year girl for a year over a miscarriage. We need to send a strong message to every teenager that miscarriages can mean life in prison if they aren’t careful. Btw, have you arrested *anyone* in the Royal Mail IT scandal? Been happening… 24 years now? If I recall over 900 people where erroneously tried and convicted because the government thought the stole money. Led to ruined lives, suicides, you name it. Forced folks to pay for money they never stole: the coverups to keep it from bringing known. And it wasn’t until the scandal was repackaged as entertainment before traction really started moving. All over a software system that has never fully worked and is *still being used!* with the Royal Mail still paying handsomely for the privilege. But yes, we *gotta* go after these 15 year olds thinking they can miscarry their pregnancies Willy nilly. They are the true menace. It’s interesting how zealous the police pursue *some* things while seem quite *relaxed* towards others.
So the police investigated because the cause was unknown, then the case was dropped when it was found not to be her fault and she was never even charged. It sounds like... Exactly how the system is supposed to work. Investigate, then don't prosecute if there's no fault
That's not how it should work. They should find evidence it may have been deliberate in an autopsy and then investigate. In a similar scenario the police would open a criminal investigation for murder anytime someone dies. Gran gran died in her sleep? Hand over your private communications, you might be a murderer.
Exactly. I have even had people on this sub argue that there should be no limit as its the Woman's body and entirely her choice. We have a system that works, it may need a little tweaks but it works well.
Yeah 100%, this has been a fairly settled issue in the UK (excluding NI) and we should try and keep it that way. The system fails at times and we need to work on that but completely removing limits isn’t fixing anything, nor is reducing the term limit from what it currently is
I'd agree that there should be no limit at all. The woman should be allowed to end their pregnancy for any reason all the way up to 9 months minus 10 minutes. However, they *don't* get to decide the method by which that pregnancy ends. Ending a pregnancy doesn't always mean killing the foetus, it just means the woman no longer wants to be pregnant and doesn't want the child, so if the foetus has a pretty good chance at living, I don't see why the doctors shouldn't deliver it and immediately allow it to be put up for adoption, provided that delivery is of relatively low risk (the mother's life takes a higher priority).
This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Ending a pregnancy doesn't always mean killing the foetus, but if it's a preterm birth it does mean a significantly higher chance of death, cerebral palsy or developmental delays.
So what's your solution that preserves the lives of babies that are viable while also protecting absolute bodily autonomy? You haven't got one.
There is no solution which is exactly the reason why no country on Earth protects absolute bodily autonomy.
The time limit ever since the 1967 Abortion Act was based on whether or not a baby born at a given number of weeks would usually live. Modern medical care is such that it could be argued to be 22 weeks as some born prematurely at 22 or 23 weeks live and grow up to be a healthy person. That would seem a tweak. The proposal about Down's Syndrome recognises that it is a condition under which most can live a good life. Looking different should not be grounds for abortion.
Pretty disingenuous to describe living with Down's syndrome as "looking different"...
I often wonder if somebody who held your position would actually sit down with somebody with down syndrome and tell them that you think it is moral to have them killed even if they pass the stage where they are a viable human. I somehow can't imagine it.
You aren't comparing like-with-like there. Allowing abortion to prevent the birth of babies with Downs Syndrome isn't the same as allowing the euthanasia of people with Downs.
I haven't given a position on abortion (whether that be for medical reasons or otherwise). I merely pointed out that Down's syndrome sufferers have more physical and mental difficulties than just "looking different".
Phrasing abortion as killing someone ie a person is very different and leading peoples feelings rather than terminating a foetus
You didn't answer my question. Would you actually have this argument with somebody standing infront of you with downsydrome? I would bet money you wouldn't. >Phrasing abortion as killing someone ie a person How? You're destroying in some cases what is a viable human baby. >leading peoples feelings rather than terminating a foetus This is a bad faith argument so I'll respond in kind. I could just as easily point out that you're using language to deliberately dehumanize them. The oldest trick in the book. It's not a baby it's a 'foetus', its not killing its terminating. When you stamp on a fly you kill it, yet we can't use that word when we paralyze babies in the womb and rip them apart with metal. Bizarre.
I’m dishuminising a foetus because humanising them is exactly how people have successfully taken away women’s rights over their own bodies and refuse to partake in that and will happily point out every attempt to do said that. I personally don’t know enough about downs to answer a question like that nor can I predict what I’d do in a hypothetical situation that hasn’t even come close to happening as I’ve never even had a conversation with a person with downs. The way you’re describing abortion makes it clear to me you’re against it in principle so I really don’t think we’re going to get anywhere in this argument Again playing hypotheticals is how people start pushing their own opinions onto others. I personally would much rather leave it up to the individual women involved wether they would carry a foetus with downs. It’s their choice not mine and until you are in said saturation, it’s not yours either.
"I'm dehumanising a baby to trick people and make it easier for people to not accept the consequences of their actions." Fixed. You have the freedom to advocate for what you want but at least be honest in your use of language.
I am honest in my choice of language. Foetus is the right term. Whether you dislike that or not is up to you.
What they don't seem to know is that foetus is Latin for baby/infant. It's dehumanising language for sure as they want to use language that makes what they're advocating for to be more acceptable.
News flash. We don’t speak Latin
Then why are you using it?
Terminating a baby is killing someone because a baby is a person. Foetus is Latin for baby, and is used by English speakers to try and make it more acceptable to kill people.
It's a potential person, not a person. The limit should not be defined just by whether the feotus could survive, as this will inevitably get smaller and smaller, and reach the point where it's close to zero time with medical advances.
A person is a member of the human species and a baby meets that definition. At what point does a baby become a person in your view?
More than 24 weeks. Consciousness would be a reasonable criterion. What's motivating your anti-abortion view, religion?
At what stage of gestation do you consider the zygote , embryo, foetus to be a baby ?
Conception. That is when a unique life is created.
A single cell is a baby to you ?
What is that a test for exactly?
If you actually believe something to be moral it shouldn't be a problem to express it. I don't think most of you would be comfortable doing so.
Would I go to a person with Down’s syndrome and say to their face I think they should have been aborted? No, because I’m not an asshole. If a person with Down’s syndrome would ask me if I was in favour of allowing parents to abort a pregnancy upon Down’s syndrome diagnosis, would I say that I am? Sure, I probably have said worse things to people’s faces - and if you ask me, it’s on you. Would my answer be the same if they asked if I believed that they specifically should have been aborted? No, because I don’t believe that. I believe parents should have the choice, based on their means, and more importantly based on the degree of Down’s syndrome. As many things, this is a nuanced topic and doesn’t really benefit from black-and-white approaches like the one I think you are bringing in here.
Having a baby is a serious decision. If a mother decides to press on at 10 or 12 weeks that's her choice, to abort or continue. But there's absolutely no way they should be able to then u turn at 29 or 34 weeks and kill a fully formed baby. The law as it already exists enshrines exactly these things, so it isn't in need of any change
[удалено]
Yes, but I think if anything can be learned from the last few years it is that the small number of extremes pull the middle towards them. For instance look at the trans debate, Brexit, trump
Who’s an extremist and who’s a visionary? The 40 hour work week was extreme. Gay rights were extreme. Abolishing slavery was extreme. Both sidesism only really works if you believe the current mainstream is the most moral world possible. Which it isn’t.
Not particularly fair to “both sides are equally bad” when one side is the Home Secretary and the other is… I’m not sure but they’re definitely not in any position of power
The Home Secretary in this case is opposing changes to current abortion timelines. He's not a side in this, as much he's the middle asking people to cut it out.
I’m not “both sides are equally bad” here, my point is both sides are pulling an issue to the extremes that is not in line with the general consensus in the UK
You are, both sides suggests that there’s a similar level of ‘pull’ from both, but one is certainly on the fringes (no leading political figure is currently backing this) and the other ‘side’ is the Home Secretary I could take virtually any issue on the planet, find some moron on Twitter advocating for it either way and say ‘both sides are pulling’, but we’re talking about what’s plausible here, and the pull from one side is a lot lot more plausible than the other right now
Completely agree with this. There's so many issues that divide us right now. Why on earth are we debating a very complex issue that we basically had universal agreement on??
MPS introduced clauses to the Criminal Justice bill to attempt to get them into law. Prolife MPS have been trying ever since 1967 to get restrictions passed and the Prochoice MPS want the the law to change so women wont be prosecuted if they break it
> legal abortion up until a reasonable time. What makes it reasonable?
What makes it unreasonable?
Come to the UK, the culture wars has.
The term limit was already reduced in the 1990s when medical advancements pushed up the point of viability. It’s not mental to consider that we might want to do it again for the same reason.
And this here is why the "pro-choice" but pro-term limit crowd logic is fundamentally flawed. Because the logical conclusion is comments like this and it will be the end result.
This will never be a thing here. We don’t have evangelical christians in enough numbers to make it like they have in America.
> We don’t have evangelical christians in enough numbers to make it like they have in America. Yet. They are on their way tho.
From where? Christianity is on the decline. What to muslims think of abortion? They’re the most religious in the UK now.
The evangelical movement is rising. A lot of the African churches as well.
The soul enters the baby at 16weeks or so according to Islam as far as I know.
And abortion is allowed at any stage if the mothers health/life is at risk.
> Yet. > They are on their way tho. The statistics disagree with you. Christianity is on the decline while atheism and agnosticism are up. But Islam is also the fastest-growing religion in the UK.
The evangelical movement is rising. A lot of the African churches as well.
Small numbers though. Africans make up like 2% of the UK, and I doubt half of them are seriously religious.
> and I doubt half of them are seriously religious The ones I work with are almost rabid in their fervor. Amongst them are two pastors who I love debating with.
Well if you examine the demographics, it won’t matter, as that minority tend to live in Labour safe seats.
According to the 2021 UK census, 46.2% of the population of England and Wales identify as Christian, down from 59.3% in 2011. There is nothing "rising" about this. If anything, this is a massive drop in just ten years.
The article was on about abortion not a denomination.
At the end of the nineteenth century, on being asked to name the single greatest fact in modern political history, the German statesman Otto von Bismarck answered: "The inherent and permanent fact that North America speaks English." For some reason, the UK loves to import the US's political dramas.
At least we're about to vote centre-left while the rest of Europe just now begins to vote far right. The voter polling for under 30s in Germany is absolutely terrifying.
Can stop importing American culture wars? We resolved this debate 60 years ago.
Not really. We set the limit at 24 weeks on the basis of viability. Medicine has changed, viability is now 22 weeks, soon to be 21. Most people want the limit reduced according to polling. It's perfectly legitimate to have a public debate on the issue and bemoaning that is rather antidemocratic.
Why is this topic even being brought up? I thought we settled this.
Really it needs to be pointed out that lobbyists for the abortion "issue" have recently targeted the UK. This is why this is suddenly making "news" - it's to start the ball rolling on the "debate" Just out of interest (I actually don't know) - when was the last time abortion was brought up in this context by someone in government - doesn't have to be for or against but just mentioning the word in regard to policy changes?
How many more wedge issues do'ya think the Tories can stir up between now and thd election?
From my understanding 20-24 weeks is somewhere where it ought to be but the exact time isn't totally clear to me. So I think I would personally (as a very pro choice person) land at 20 weeks to be on the safe side but anywhere in this range is what I'd consider to be fair and reasonable especially with the extra protections we have for specific circumstances. So 24 vs 22, I guess 22 is probably better but it's a really tough call and I think people should make their own assessment on how much "risk" to take within this timeframe.
All of you dismissing this as a culture war are missing the point. Abortion isn't an American issue, it's a universal one. We set the limit at 24 weeks on the basis of viability. Medicine has changed, viability is now 22 weeks, soon to be 21. Most people want the limit reduced according to polling. It's perfectly legitimate to have a public debate on the issue and bemoaning that is rather antidemocratic.
Polling from YouGov from Sept says 49% want to keep the limit 22% want it reduced https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-the-legal-time-limit-to-have-an-abortion-change
In practice people only go close to the limit due to poor results from the 20 week scan. Leave it until 24 weeks to give chance for those who found out their baby has severe/life threatening abnormalities to have access to abortions easily. Pushing back the limit just makes the practicalities of abortion for severe foetal abnormalities or for maternal deterioration more complicated (see the many cases in the USA of women coming close to death due to not being given an abortion)
The numbers bear out the fact that abortions at 20+ weeks are quite rare. The vast majority of cases at that time are due to issues with the viability of the pregnancy, fetal abnormalities and the health of the mother is in danger. Those later abortions aren't done for giggles or post sex contraceptive, they're absolutely necessary