Vive La France!

[Odds]

Meanwhile; a feminist point of view...

This blatant war on women’s reproductive rights and bodily anatomy in the US should concern not only Americans but also feminists in Europe, and especially those of us in the UK. This is not only because we should expose and challenge threats to women’s rights wherever they appear, but also because the cultural norms and political perspectives gaining traction in the US will have a significant effect on British politics, and consequently rights and wellbeing of British women and girls. Indeed, in the past few decades, as the anti-abortion movement started to make legal and political gains in the US, we have started to witness a similar trend in the UK.

Since 2015, the Pro-life All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) has been working to dial back abortion rights across the UK. For the past four years, the country’s leading anti-abortion charity, Right To Life UK, has served as the Secretariat of this cross-party group. In 2021, as feminists were campaigning to fully decriminalise abortion, this same charity ran adverts calling on supporters to prevent Parliament from introducing “extreme” laws that would “introduce abortion, for any reason, up to birth”.

Since October 2022, Maria Caulfield, the Conservative MP for Lewes, has been serving as the Parliamentary undersecretary of state for women, as well as for mental health and women’s health strategy. Caulfield supports cutting the abortion time limit and voted against buffer zones outside abortion clinics. She is vice chair of the Pro-Life APPG, and has voted against legalising abortion in Northern Ireland.

Julie Bindel@Al Jazeera

 

[noseall]

Quite the opposite. Aborting a foetus disgnosed with Down Syndrome on account of his/her condition is contrary to Christian values whereby the life of a child is sacrosanct. They can have fulfillng lives given care and support in a loving family.

He's saying let's remove abortion access to women and stand by and watch 68'000 of them die. On the plus side - we get an acting trophy. Yippee.

Perhaps you thought vinty meant just force that one woman to have her child, dunno? I'm pretty sure he's anti abortion/hates women, full stop.

 

[noseall]

They can have fulfillng lives given care and support in a loving family.

Meanwhile many mothers, will die, be utterly miserable/clinically depressed, endure horrible lives. The numbers don't lie.

Forcing women to have a child she does not want, is barbaric...

An abortion is always safer than carrying a pregnancy to term...
2.2 Analysis conducted in America into the safety of medical abortion found that the estimated case-fatality rate for medical abortion was 0.8 deaths per 100,000 procedures. This risk was statistically indistinguishable from the risk of death from miscarriage, which was 0.7 per 100,000 miscarriages. Both of these figures were much lower than that associated with childbirth. In 1997, the pregnancy related mortality ratio in America was 12.9 deaths per 100,000 live births.[50]#
------------------------------------------------------

3.1 Restricting access to abortion has a significant detrimental impact on women's health. It is estimated that 68,000 women worldwide die each year due to complications of unsafe abortion.[70]

3.2 In Romania, policies restricting access to abortion led to a significant increase in maternal mortality from 20 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 1966 to over 100 per 100,000 in 1974 and to 150 per 100,000 in 1983.[71] After the restrictive laws were revoked, the rate of maternal deaths fell rapidly to 40 per 100,000 live births in 1989. It is estimated that around 200,000 Romanian women died between 1966 and 1988 as a result of unsafe abortion.[72]

3.3 The CEMACH Report in 2004 included a commentary on previous reports of deaths caused by illegal abortion. The Report for 1952-54 included 153 deaths due to "abortion", at least 108 of which were illegal. Reports of around 30 deaths per year from illegal abortion continued throughout the 1950s and 1960s. During 1969, the first full year that the 1967 Abortion Act was in force, the number of deaths "clearly due to illegal abortion" fell to 17. The number of deaths due to illegal abortion could have been underestimated because the number of deaths attributed to spontaneous miscarriage also decreased from 1970, in parallel with those attributed to illegal abortion.[73]

3.4 More recently, access to legal abortion in Nepal appears to have helped to reduce the maternal death rate. In 2001, the official maternal mortality rate for Nepal was 539 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. Access to abortion was legalised in 2002 and a programme introduced to make safe abortion more widely available. In 2006, the maternal mortality rate in Nepal was 281 per 100,000 live births, a reduction of 48 per cent.[74]

 

[noseall]

I’m glad we all agree now.

So far you have tried to say these people are wrong and you are right:

Nurses and midwives are wrong to call it authorisation/approval.

Doctors are wrong to call it authorisation/approval.

Solicitors are wrong to call it authorisation/approval.

Professors and academics are wrong to call it authorisation/approval.

Here are another couple,

Dr Vincent Argent first...
4.3 Recent public opinion polls suggest that the public would like to see improved and easier access for early abortion but that the upper limit should be reduced or that later abortions should be subject to greater counselling and stricter approval criteria. The BMA, the RCOG the Nuffield Council on Bioethics have addressed the problems surrounding later abortion.

4.4 The debate on the upper limit is often polarised between pro-choice campaigners who would keep the limit as it is and the anti-abortion activists who would like a drastic reduction in the upper limit. 10 A pragmatic middle of the road view, as demonstrated by public opinion polls, does not have a very strong voice.

4.5 In practice, it would seem reasonable to reduce the 24 week upper limit for section 1(1)a C and D abortions to 16 weeks. Abortions could still be approved over 16 weeks under section 1(1)a Ground B where the termination is necessary top prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the women. Agreement to such abortions would follow improved in-depth counselling and a concerted effort to confirm that there is a risk of grave injury. (No limits would be placed on abortions sanctioned under Grounds A and E).

Are you seriously suggesting all these people are wrong or lying and a driving instructor/dingy captain is right?

Lol.


And Dr Tony Calland (MBE)....

2.1 Currently, the requirement for two doctors to certify that a woman meets the legal grounds for abortion has the potential to delay treatment. It may be difficult for a woman who is concerned about confidentiality to find two doctors to approve her abortion request. There is no central monitoring of delays to treatment of this type, but recently, Tony Calland, the Medical Ethics Committee Chair of the British Medical Association (BMA) said that "some women waited up to 13 weeks [gestation] to have their abortion approved by two doctors and removing this requirement would reduce such a wait and the associated risks".

 

[Notch7]

Quite the opposite. Aborting a foetus disgnosed with Down Syndrome on account of his/her condition is contrary to Christian values whereby the life of a child is sacrosanct. They can have fulfillng lives given care and support in a loving family.

Or they could terminate which could result in a baby without Downs Syndrome.

In that case, ‘Christian values’ are preventing the life of that child.


It’s a really stressful and emotionally traumatic time for a woman / couple to make a decision on having a disabled child. They should be supported not have moral arguments thrown at them.

 

[ajohn]

So far you have tried to say these people are wrong and you are right:

All those opinions. Part of the problem. Change change change and don't both to look at the actual data. Run a poll on the public etc with no info other than the time to an abortion. Collect information on why women had an abortion and the public reaction would be far more mixed. Include the weeks to the abortion as well. Lacking that info it's all just talk and totally ignores practicalities also the real effects of the current rules.

Then comes another factor - several pressure groups with different reasons for their ideas.

 

[space junkie]

Making abortion illegal kills women

"Abortion-related deaths are more frequent in countries with more restrictive abortion laws (34 deaths per 100,000 childbirths) than in countries with less restrictive laws (1 or fewer per 100,000 childbirths"

Vinty likes killing women

Hello.
I haven't read all the pages of the discussion, just the first few and the last few.
And don't take me worng, I consider myself even more liberal on the subject of aborton than the liberal views expressed in this discussion.

i just want clarification on one small aspect of your comment. I'm not looking for any parallel discussion or anything, and a source of your reference might be sufficient.

But the crux of my questions is :
How can a measure of deaths related to abortions be a coefficient of registered childbirths?
There are several issues for me that raise questions:
1. Assuming that the measure of childbirths are full term pregnancy, (irrespective of live/stillbirths, natural birth/caesarean, induced births, etc, and any variant of those mentioned), the abortion occurs outside of any possible variety of full term pregnancy. So it is difficult to understand the correlation.
2. Any comparison of such factors must take into account the differences in other issues such as available medical practice, knowledge, facilities, political and religious beliefs, time periods, etc.

Therefore, IMO, any reporting of abortion related deaths as a comparison to childbirths is purely superficial.
In fact, it could be argued that measuring abortion related deaths to the weather could be equally justified.

 

[ajohn]

Or they could terminate which could result in a baby without Downs Syndrome.

My wife was a rather experienced special school teacher. She decided she would give birth to a child with downs before she had even had the tests. Reason - it generally means a happy child with a shortened life. For some reason these children are often happy. The main problem is trying to fit them into a "normal life" similar to what normal children can have. Me - pass. The decision as it turned out wasn't needed. If it had been I would have mentioned the point I just have which in terms of handicapped children is an issue all types have. Something she is all to well aware of.

Cut the time to 12 weeks and the decision can't be made. Why did she have the test - age. Women's age at the point of giving birth has increased. Should people be able to make this decision? Afraid I would say yes. They can always try again as well.

 

[space junkie]

Women's age at the point of giving birth has increased.

Sorry ajohn, I think I must be OCD or something, I think I know what you meant to say, but I need your confirmation.
Do you mean that women get older during childbirth?
If you don't, I suggest you review your comment and adjust as necessary.

If you meant that the average age of women giving birth has increased over time, that is entirely different to what you actually wrote.
But that would be open to discussion, The average age of women having their first child has undoubtedly increased. But that is very different to the average age of women giving birth of all their children.

 

[Odds]

He's saying let's remove abortion access to women and stand by and watch 68'000 of them die. On the plus side - we get an acting trophy. Yippee.

Perhaps you thought vinty meant just force that one woman to have her child, dunno? I'm pretty sure he's anti abortion/hates women, full stop.

Again, no. You're twisting things out of context.

 

[space junkie]

Referring to the several distinct meanings of 'approval' mentioned in this discussion.
May I suggest that the simple additon of the word 'of' added after the word 'approval' makes all the difference, and obvious?
Consider the following two sentences:
1. The planning comittee aproved my proposal.
2. The planning comittee aproved of my proposal.

I'll leave it to the various participants to consider the differences in the two sentences.

 

[space junkie]

I'm pretty sure he's anti abortion/hates women, full stop.

Hmm, I am sure one can hold an ideological objection to abortion without hating women.
One is a concientious objection, the orher is just misogyny. They aren't necessarily connected, although they are not mutually exclusive.

He's saying let's remove abortion access to women and stand by and watch 68'000 of them die.

Likewise, objecting to abortion does not mean standing by and watching women die.
Again there is a distinct difference.

 

[space junkie]

Quite the opposite. Aborting a foetus disgnosed with Down Syndrome on account of his/her condition is contrary to Christian values whereby the life of a child is sacrosanct. They can have fulfillng lives given care and support in a loving family.

No-one is denying them their choice. They are free to allow the pregnancy to go to full term.

 

[Notch7]

Hello.
I haven't read all the pages of the discussion, just the first few and the last few.
And don't take me worng, I consider myself even more liberal on the subject of aborton than the liberal views expressed in this discussion.

i just want clarification on one small aspect of your comment. I'm not looking for any parallel discussion or anything, and a source of your reference might be sufficient.

But the crux of my questions is :
How can a measure of deaths related to abortions be a coefficient of registered childbirths?
There are several issues for me that raise questions:
1. Assuming that the measure of childbirths are full term pregnancy, (irrespective of live/stillbirths, natural birth/caesarean, induced births, etc, and any variant of those mentioned), the abortion occurs outside of any possible variety of full term pregnancy. So it is difficult to understand the correlation.
2. Any comparison of such factors must take into account the differences in other issues such as available medical practice, knowledge, facilities, political and religious beliefs, time periods, etc.

Therefore, IMO, any reporting of abortion related deaths as a comparison to childbirths is purely superficial.
In fact, it could be argued that measuring abortion related deaths to the weather could be equally justified.

Hi, thank you for your post.

The source link is here:

Unsafe Abortion: Unnecessary Maternal Mortality

Every year, worldwide, about 42 million women with unintended pregnancies choose abortion, and nearly half of these procedures, 20 million, are unsafe. Some 68,000 women die of unsafe abortion annually, making it one of the leading causes of maternal ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

“Every year, worldwide, about 42 million women with unintended pregnancies choose abortion, and nearly half of these procedures, 20 million, are unsafe. Some 68,000 women die of unsafe abortion annually, making it one of the leading causes of maternal mortality (13%). Of the women who survive unsafe abortion, 5 million will suffer long-term health complications. Unsafe abortion is thus a pressing issue. Both of the primary methods for preventing unsafe abortion—less restrictive abortion laws and greater contraceptive use—face social, religious, and political obstacles, particularly in developing nations, where most unsafe abortions (97%) occur.”


I agree you could argue countries with illegal abortion may have worse healthcare, but your argument doesn’t make the data worthless.

 

[Notch7]

No-one is denying them their choice. They are free to allow the pregnancy to go to full term.

They are also free to terminate and try for another baby later on.