Tory MPs line up to disagree with Jacob Rees-Mogg's 'utterly abhorrent' views on abortion

First topic message reminder :

A number of Conservative MPs have criticised Jacob Rees-Mogg's views on abortion, some expressing vehement disagreement while others have gently espoused their more liberal stances.

On Wednesday, Mr Rees-Mogg, who is tipped to one day take over from Theresa May and become Tory leader, said he disagreed with abortion in every circumstance, including in cases of incest and rape. He also said that because he is a Catholic, he disagrees with same-sex marriage.

Margot James MP said: "Agree with @TimesOpinion about Jacob R-M who I like very much; but his views on pregnant women are utterly abhorrent"


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/07/tory-mps-line-disagree-jacob-rees-moggs-utterly-abhorrent-views/


Religious beliefs again, at the forefront of idiocy.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:I don't like her reason, this hypothetical woman who's using abortion as an answer to getting rid of her wrong-sex baby, but it's her right, right?

No, it is not. A doctor can be suspended or struck off for agreeing to a woman having an abortion on the grounds of gender.

But daily countless abortions are carried out anyway.

What makes knowing the gender, make people so emotional here?

They are happy not knowing the gender when the fetus is aborted, but suddenly when known, this some how makes it wrong?

Its emotionally charged bullshit and completely a double standard on supporting abortion itself.

This is what happens when people get something within their head, they believe to be wrong and yet happily have no objection to life being aborted in countless other situations. Over a hundred babies each year are aborted due to disabilities after 24 weeks and some near at 37 weeks. Showing that even this late babies are aborted.

Like I said, the woman is the host and hence why, she decides on whether to continue carrying something within her she does not want to. Otherwise you force her against her will, which it seems many are happy to oblige with on here. If she changes her mind, for what ever reason, none of you have a right to say whether she can or not.

Now what none of you have suggested is that then the state takes responsibility for that unwanted fetus, by then the woman having a cesarean. Thus she is no longer forced to carry something she does not want. If the emotive Police brigade are so intent on contradicting themselves and wanting that fetus to live. Why are they not lining up to adopt all unwanted children born and then care for this premature child through cesarean. If you want to care for this unborn, then you take on that responsibility. Or do you want to see endless more kids in care? Which is what is going to happen to that child born anyway, because the parents do not want that child.

None of you can think past your own tunnel vision and you claim I look at things in black and white. At least I though can think past emotional bullshit which is what only some can present on here.

It's only going to be refused by a doctor if the woman tells them she's aborting due to the 'wrong-sex' and who's gonna tell a doctor that?

Let me be very clear, I intensely dislike the idea of aborting a baby simply because of the sex of the child.

Thorin wrote:

gelico wrote:

wtf?  based on the reasoning that any parent who chooses to terminate a child due to it being the ''wrong sex'' aren't fit to be parents


which part of that do you struggle with?

The fact that its an emotive piss poor argument.

Try using that in a court of law.

hahahaha - this is not a court of law you loon, i dont need to supply evidence for anything.

this is a forum didge where people give opinions based on anything they like

you are not forced to agree

as eddie said, if a woman has the right to abort then the reason to abort is, in a way, irrelevant to her rights

my thoughts are that if a woman chooses to abort because the baby is the wrong sex then she isn't fit to be a parent at all. that does not mean i am denying her any rights. i am just giving an opinion

please do try to learn the difference

gelico wrote:

Thorin wrote:


The fact that its an emotive piss poor argument.

Try using that in a court of law.

hahahaha - this is not a court of law you loon, i dont need to supply evidence for anything.

Thorin wrote:So now you are a qualified psychiatrist as well. You certainly need to reason your view,
as it just remains a poor unfounded belief.

this is a forum didge where people give opinions based on anything they like

Thorin wrote:Yes everyone can, but surely you can back up your opinions with reason?

you are not forced to agree

Thorin wrote:Maybe you can show that I am forcing you to agree?
Never have. What I have asked is that you back up your opinions with reasons

as eddie said, if a woman has the right to abort then the reason to abort is, in a way, irrelevant to her rights

my thoughts are that if a woman chooses to abort because the baby is the wrong sex then she isn't fit to be a parent at all.  that does not mean i am denying her any rights.  i am just giving an opinion

Thorin wrote:She could be an exceptional parent for all you know to other children she may already have or have in the future. Hence why just invoking something without any reason, is basically meaningless

please do try to learn the difference

So yet again you just claimed someone is not fit, because you have judged them so. Not based on any reason or evidence.

So what have I learned here from you?

That you simple cannot reason your view and that you simple hold a poor judgmental belief.

Which is fine, that you point really lacks any meaning.

eddie wrote:It's only going to be refused by a doctor if the woman tells them she's aborting due to the 'wrong-sex' and who's gonna tell a doctor that?

Let me be very clear, I intensely dislike the idea of aborting a baby simply because of the sex of the child.

Then the idea that two doctors are required to approve an abortion needs to be changed if women are going to lie. It's up to the doctors to ask questions to establish the real reason for the woman wanting an abortion. If they feel that the reasons are trivial, they should refuse one.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:It's only going to be refused by a doctor if the woman tells them she's aborting due to the 'wrong-sex' and who's gonna tell a doctor that?

Let me be very clear, I intensely dislike the idea of aborting a baby simply because of the sex of the child.

Then the idea that two doctors are required to approve an abortion needs to be changed if women are going to lie. It's up to the doctors to ask questions to establish the real reason for the woman wanting an abortion. If they feel that the reasons are trivial, they should refuse one.

So why would it need to be changed, if doctors already establish the reasons?

Its not the inquisition Rags.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Then the idea that two doctors are required to approve an abortion needs to be changed if women are going to lie. It's up to the doctors to ask questions to establish the real reason for the woman wanting an abortion. If they feel that the reasons are trivial, they should refuse one.

So why would it need to be changed, if doctors already establish the reasons?

Its not the inquisition Rags.

Try telling yourself that Thor.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So why would it need to be changed, if doctors already establish the reasons?

Its not the inquisition Rags.

Try telling yourself that Thor.

Why do I need to tell myself that Syl?

It seems, I only ask for people to back up what I can only describe as emotive opinions.

And I get a long line of excuses.

If women lie, then clearly doctors are not establishing the real reasons. They need to ask more questions and know when someone is lying.

Raggamuffin wrote:If women lie, then clearly doctors are not establishing the real reasons. They need to ask more questions and know when someone is lying.

So you want pregnant women to take lie detector tests now?

The UK’s largest doctors union has called for the complete decriminalisation of abortion and for women to have access to terminations on demand.

The British Medical Association (BMA) formally agreed on Tuesday to lobby the Government to abandon the current legal framework, which requires an expectant mother to convince two doctors an abortion is necessary to protect her long-term health.

Abortions are an offence in nearly all other circumstances under the 50-year-old law, but the BMA now says the issue should become purely medical rather than criminal. Last night senior medics said the body’s “important and powerful” vote, which was passed by more than two thirds following a two-hour debate, would strengthen the hand of politicians in favour of reform.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/27/abortion-should-decriminalised-say-doctors-back-call-law-change/

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:It's only going to be refused by a doctor if the woman tells them she's aborting due to the 'wrong-sex' and who's gonna tell a doctor that?

Let me be very clear, I intensely dislike the idea of aborting a baby simply because of the sex of the child.

Then the idea that two doctors are required to approve an abortion needs to be changed if women are going to lie. It's up to the doctors to ask questions to establish the real reason for the woman wanting an abortion. If they feel that the reasons are trivial, they should refuse one.

The problem here is the word 'trivial'. What might seem to trivial to you or other people might actually be something of great importance to the woman.

eddie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

It's not a "hypothetical woman"  who chooses  to abort  for the wrong gender, these are actual woman controlled by men who force them to abort for numerous reasons including wrong gender

The choice you give then is taken from them by men. Their body his choice.

Don't be a coward and pretend it doesn't exist because the reality of supporting free-for-all  abortion warts and all doesn't sit well with your fickle morality.

I wasn't aware we were talking about men making women abort. That's an entirely different topic.

we have been talking about abortion, what have you been talking about??

men making women have abortions is ...................funny old thing a part of abortion (not an entirely different topic)

I hope the law isn't changed.
As it stands now the vast majority of abortions are performed early on in a pregnancy...2015 stats show...
92% were under 13 weeks and the figures were showing that earlier abortions were on the increase.
Only 2% of abortions were carried out after 20 weeks.

If the law is changed and women are allowed to opt for abortions because the baby is the 'wrong' sex....and this is what may happen....the number of late abortions will rocket.

Women have to wait till the pregnancy is between 18 and 21 weeks before they can reliably know the babies sex.



"2.2 Gestation period

The majority of abortions (92% in 2015) are performed at or under 13 weeks gestation. In 2015, 80% were at or under 10 weeks and a further 11% at 10-12 weeks. The proportion of abortions at under 10 weeks has increased since 1997, and the proportion at over 13 weeks has reduced.

Abortions where gestation has exceeded its twentieth week account for 2% of the total. There were 2,877 such abortions in 2015"

They can know as early as 11 weeks to know the sex of the fetus.

They say reliable at 21 weeks.

So it seems a mass of credible qualified senior doctors agree with me.

Fancy that.

Thorin wrote:They can know as early as 11 weeks to know the sex of the fetus.

They say reliable at 21 weeks.

So it seems a mass of credible qualified senior doctors agree with me.

Fancy that.

The key word is "reliable"
Would a woman terminate because her baby MAY be the wrong sex?

Actually....if that was her reason for terminating she possibly might.

http://www.parents.com/pregnancy/my-baby/gender-prediction/finding-out-babys-sex/

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:They can know as early as 11 weeks to know the sex of the fetus.

They say reliable at 21 weeks.

So it seems a mass of credible qualified senior doctors agree with me.

Fancy that.

The key word is "reliable"
Would a woman terminate because her baby MAY be the wrong sex?

Actually....if that was her reason for terminating she possibly might.

There maybe a multitude of reasons a woman may have, which would be her business and not mine.

The point as seen and has been pointed out, that we already allow by law abortions.

Thorin wrote:They can know as early as 11 weeks to know the sex of the fetus.

They say reliable at 21 weeks.

So it seems a mass of credible qualified senior doctors agree with me.

Fancy that.

A traditional 2D scan that tells you the sex of the fetus isn't 100% reliable, it's actually only about 80-85% reliable.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Thorin wrote:They can know as early as 11 weeks to know the sex of the fetus.

They say reliable at 21 weeks.

So it seems a mass of credible qualified senior doctors agree with me.

Fancy that.

A traditional 2D scan that tells you the sex of the fetus isn't 100% reliable, it's actually only about 80-85% reliable.

So its at best, a best guess.

I did read the other day, some mother was shocked to see her baby had a penis. Thinking she was having a girl.

Thorin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

A traditional 2D scan that tells you the sex of the fetus isn't 100% reliable, it's actually only about 80-85% reliable.

So its at best, a best guess.

I did read the other day, some mother was shocked to see her baby had a penis.

Not a guess as such. A little bit of the cord making it appear that the fetus has a penis could be one example of a radiographer mistaking what is being seen on the scan.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So its at best, a best guess.

I did read the other day, some mother was shocked to see her baby had a penis.

Not a guess as such.  A little bit of the cord making it appear that the fetus has a penis could be one example of a radiographer mistaking what is being seen on the scan.

But at best, it would be a guess at times, that 20-15% where they sometimes do not know?

I get your point though, and thanks, was not aware on the percentages.

Thorin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Not a guess as such.  A little bit of the cord making it appear that the fetus has a penis could be one example of a radiographer mistaking what is being seen on the scan.

But at best, it would be a guess at times, that 20-15% where they sometimes do not know?

I get your point though, and thanks, was not aware on the percentages.

There are likely to be times when a Sonographer just doesn't know because the sex organs aren't visible enough too, a foot in the way or even the cord obscuring the view.  The only way other than having a 3D or 4D scan (which not everyone can afford) which is 100% reliable in determining the sex of the fetus is a CVS test at 11 weeks or a Amniocentesis test at 16 weeks but these come with risk.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Thorin wrote:

But at best, it would be a guess at times, that 20-15% where they sometimes do not know?

I get your point though, and thanks, was not aware on the percentages.

There are likely to be times when a Sonographer just doesn't know because the sex organs aren't visible enough too, a foot in the way or even the cord obscuring the view.  The only way other than having a 3D or 4D scan (which not everyone can afford) which is 100% reliable in determining the sex of the fetus is a CVS test at 11 weeks or a Amniocentesis test at 16 weeks but these come with risk.

Thanks for the info, was very interesting.
You clearly know the subject here very well.

Thorin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Not a guess as such.  A little bit of the cord making it appear that the fetus has a penis could be one example of a radiographer mistaking what is being seen on the scan.

But at best, it would be a guess at times, that 20-15% where they sometimes do not know?

I get your point though, and thanks, was not aware on the percentages.

do they sometimes get confused because the baby has chosen to be gender fluid??

Spindleshanks wrote:

Thorin wrote:

But at best, it would be a guess at times, that 20-15% where they sometimes do not know?

I get your point though, and thanks, was not aware on the percentages.

There are likely to be times when a Sonographer just doesn't know because the sex organs aren't visible enough too, a foot in the way or even the cord obscuring the view.  The only way other than having a 3D or 4D scan (which not everyone can afford) which is 100% reliable in determining the sex of the fetus is a CVS test at 11 weeks or a Amniocentesis test at 16 weeks but these come with risk.

the harmony test is an alternative which is due to replace those and it 100% safe for both mother and baby and between 90 - 99% accurate in testing for trisomy 21, 18 and 13 and 100% accurate for gender.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Thorin wrote:

But at best, it would be a guess at times, that 20-15% where they sometimes do not know?

I get your point though, and thanks, was not aware on the percentages.

do they sometimes get confused because the baby has chosen to be gender fluid??

How could that confusion arise in this instance?

smelly-bandit wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

There are likely to be times when a Sonographer just doesn't know because the sex organs aren't visible enough too, a foot in the way or even the cord obscuring the view.  The only way other than having a 3D or 4D scan (which not everyone can afford) which is 100% reliable in determining the sex of the fetus is a CVS test at 11 weeks or a Amniocentesis test at 16 weeks but these come with risk.

the harmony test is an alternative which is due to replace those and it 100% safe for both mother and baby and between 90 - 99% accurate in testing for trisomy 21, 18 and 13 and 100% accurate for gender.

Not going to completely replace them as I've just read but it should significantly reduce the number of women who go on to have the invasive tests.

Thorin wrote:They can know as early as 11 weeks to know the sex of the fetus.

They say reliable at 21 weeks.

So it seems a mass of credible qualified senior doctors agree with me.

Fancy that.

I don't know of any woman who's been told the sex of a baby as early as 12 weeks, to be fair Didge.

Mutiny on abortion: Hundreds of doctors revolt over secret plans which would allow 'free for all' terminations 'up until birth'

More than 600 doctors are in revolt over moves by one of the country's top medical colleges to back abortion on demand.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) will today hold a secret vote to relax the laws governing the procedure.

Their president, Professor Lesley Regan, believes terminations should be treated the same as any other medical procedure. But although the RCOG represents 6,000 senior doctors in England specialising in childbirth and women's health, only 33 members of the body's council will take part in the behind-closed-doors ballot.

A group of 650 doctors have now signed a letter to Professor Regan objecting to her 'extreme' views. The practitioners – including those who do not belong to the RCOG – say it is 'completely unacceptable' that the majority of members are being denied the chance to vote.

They also warn that the college risks 'severely damaging its reputation' by adopting such a radical stance. If the council members vote in favour, the RCOG will formally back decriminalising abortions and lobby the Government for a change in the law.

It will join two powerful medical bodies which have already come out in favour –the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Midwives. The Daily Mail has seen extracts from today's letter, which has been sent to Professor Regan at the RCOG. Between 30 and 40 doctors who have signed it are members of the college, the remainder specialise in other fields of medicine.

Last week Professor Regan said that women seeking abortions should only have to obtain consent from one doctor, just as if they were having a bunion removed.

Dr Ronald Jameson, a member of the RCOG from Huddersfield, said a new policy on terminations would 'almost certainly bring abortion much closer to being a free for all'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4908312/Hundreds-doctors-revolt-relaxing-abortion-laws.html

From the same link--

The RCOG said it supports the rights of women to access 'safe, high-quality abortion care services'. A spokesman said: 'The vote will not focus on gestational limits for abortion which should remain in place through the appropriate regulatory and legislative process.

You have completely ignored the fact this is about removing the legal framework for two doctors to agree to the abortion which would bring it in line with all other medical procedures. It is not about opening up abortions to all throughout the entire 9 months of pregnancy or for any reason at all.

I would think the idea would be to have a consultant gynaecologist/obstetrician be the one to sign off the abortion as a solo practitioner rather than have to go through the two practitioners as is the law now but this doesn't mean that the other requirements of the Abortion Act wouldn't still remain in place.

Spindleshanks wrote:From the same link--

The RCOG said it supports the rights of women to access 'safe, high-quality abortion care services'. A spokesman said: 'The vote will not focus on gestational limits for abortion which should remain in place through the appropriate regulatory and legislative process.

You have completely ignored the fact this is about removing the legal framework for two doctors to agree to the abortion which would bring it in line with all other medical procedures.  It is not about opening up abortions to all throughout the entire 9 months of pregnancy or for any reason at all.  

I would think the idea would be to have a consultant gynaecologist/obstetrician be the one to sign off the abortion as a solo practitioner rather than have to go through the two practitioners as is the law now but this doesn't mean that the other requirements of the Abortion Act wouldn't still remain in place.

Britain's 40-year-old abortion law requires two doctors to agree to a termination on 'medical grounds'.

Both must say the abortion is necessary to prevent 'grave, permanent' physical or mental damage.

But campaigners say the law is only being followed 'loosely' by doctors. Women with no risk of physical harm can still have a termination if doctors claim her mental health is at risk.

There is also evidence that doctors have been 'pre-signing' blank abortion forms.

In March, the Mail exposed how doctors at abortion provider Marie Stopes were signing off terminations by phone. Some campaigners say legal restrictions encourage women to buy illegal abortion pills online.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:From the same link--

The RCOG said it supports the rights of women to access 'safe, high-quality abortion care services'. A spokesman said: 'The vote will not focus on gestational limits for abortion which should remain in place through the appropriate regulatory and legislative process.

You have completely ignored the fact this is about removing the legal framework for two doctors to agree to the abortion which would bring it in line with all other medical procedures.  It is not about opening up abortions to all throughout the entire 9 months of pregnancy or for any reason at all.  

I would think the idea would be to have a consultant gynaecologist/obstetrician be the one to sign off the abortion as a solo practitioner rather than have to go through the two practitioners as is the law now but this doesn't mean that the other requirements of the Abortion Act wouldn't still remain in place.

Britain's 40-year-old abortion law requires two doctors to agree to a termination on 'medical grounds'.

Both must say the abortion is necessary to prevent 'grave, permanent' physical or mental damage.

But campaigners say the law is only being followed 'loosely' by doctors. Women with no risk of physical harm can still have a termination if doctors claim her mental health is at risk.

There is also evidence that doctors have been 'pre-signing' blank abortion forms.

In March, the Mail exposed how doctors at abortion provider Marie Stopes were signing off terminations by phone. Some campaigners say legal restrictions encourage women to buy illegal abortion pills online.

Yes, the law is not being followed and doctors don't get prosecuted, so why bother having a law in the first place?

smelly-bandit wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:From the same link--

The RCOG said it supports the rights of women to access 'safe, high-quality abortion care services'. A spokesman said: 'The vote will not focus on gestational limits for abortion which should remain in place through the appropriate regulatory and legislative process.

You have completely ignored the fact this is about removing the legal framework for two doctors to agree to the abortion which would bring it in line with all other medical procedures.  It is not about opening up abortions to all throughout the entire 9 months of pregnancy or for any reason at all.  

I would think the idea would be to have a consultant gynaecologist/obstetrician be the one to sign off the abortion as a solo practitioner rather than have to go through the two practitioners as is the law now but this doesn't mean that the other requirements of the Abortion Act wouldn't still remain in place.

Britain's 40-year-old abortion law requires two doctors to agree to a termination on 'medical grounds'.

Both must say the abortion is necessary to prevent 'grave, permanent' physical or mental damage.

But campaigners say the law is only being followed 'loosely' by doctors. Women with no risk of physical harm can still have a termination if doctors claim her mental health is at risk.

There is also evidence that doctors have been 'pre-signing' blank abortion forms.

In March, the Mail exposed how doctors at abortion provider Marie Stopes were signing off terminations by phone. Some campaigners say legal restrictions encourage women to buy illegal abortion pills online.

Why would campaigners claim this is only loosely being followed by doctors when abortion on the grounds of a risk to a woman's mental health is actually part of the Abortion Act. It looks like they are putting their own scope into it.

The question is though, is there really a need for two doctors to assess that an abortion is necessary on any of the grounds in the act? For example, why would it need two doctors to sign off an abortion for a woman having one for a fetus with something like Triploidy. https://www.healthline.com/health/triploidy#overview1

Does it really need two doctors to sign off an abortion for a woman who is just a few weeks pregnant and doesn't want a baby at that point in her life, perhaps because her contraception failed for example.

Does it really need two doctors to sign off an abortion for a woman who was raped and finds herself pregnant because of it?

I'd also say that if legal restrictions on abortion are leading women to buy abortion pills online then there is clear evidence there of the Abortion Act needing to be reviewed and revised because clearly despite having good access to safe abortion women are still going down the illegal abortion route with the serious implications to health that go along with it.

Spindleshanks wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Britain's 40-year-old abortion law requires two doctors to agree to a termination on 'medical grounds'.

Both must say the abortion is necessary to prevent 'grave, permanent' physical or mental damage.

But campaigners say the law is only being followed 'loosely' by doctors. Women with no risk of physical harm can still have a termination if doctors claim her mental health is at risk.

There is also evidence that doctors have been 'pre-signing' blank abortion forms.

In March, the Mail exposed how doctors at abortion provider Marie Stopes were signing off terminations by phone. Some campaigners say legal restrictions encourage women to buy illegal abortion pills online.

Why would campaigners claim this is only loosely being followed by doctors when abortion on the grounds of a risk to a woman's mental health is actually part of the Abortion Act.  It looks like they are putting their own scope into it.

The question is though, is there really a need for two doctors to assess that an abortion is necessary on any of the grounds in the act?  For example, why would it need two doctors to sign off an abortion for a woman having one for a fetus with something like Triploidy.  https://www.healthline.com/health/triploidy#overview1

Does it really need two doctors to sign off an abortion for a woman who is just a few weeks pregnant and doesn't want a baby at that point in her life, perhaps because her contraception failed for example.

Does it really need two doctors to sign off an abortion for a woman who was raped and finds herself pregnant because of it?

I'd also say that if legal restrictions on abortion are leading women to buy abortion pills online then there is clear evidence there of the Abortion Act needing to be reviewed and revised because clearly despite having good access to safe abortion women are still going down the illegal abortion route with the serious implications to health that go along with it.

Two doctors are needed to make sure that the law is being followed and that it's not a lifestyle abortion.

I daresay that some women find it easier to buy pills online. After all, they don't even have to move from the house to get an abortion.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Why would campaigners claim this is only loosely being followed by doctors when abortion on the grounds of a risk to a woman's mental health is actually part of the Abortion Act.  It looks like they are putting their own scope into it.

The question is though, is there really a need for two doctors to assess that an abortion is necessary on any of the grounds in the act?  For example, why would it need two doctors to sign off an abortion for a woman having one for a fetus with something like Triploidy.  https://www.healthline.com/health/triploidy#overview1

Does it really need two doctors to sign off an abortion for a woman who is just a few weeks pregnant and doesn't want a baby at that point in her life, perhaps because her contraception failed for example.

Does it really need two doctors to sign off an abortion for a woman who was raped and finds herself pregnant because of it?

I'd also say that if legal restrictions on abortion are leading women to buy abortion pills online then there is clear evidence there of the Abortion Act needing to be reviewed and revised because clearly despite having good access to safe abortion women are still going down the illegal abortion route with the serious implications to health that go along with it.

Two doctors are needed to make sure that the law is being followed and that it's not a lifestyle abortion.

I daresay that some women find it easier to buy pills online. After all, they don't even have to move from the house to get an abortion.

It doesn't need two doctors to determine that.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Two doctors are needed to make sure that the law is being followed and that it's not a lifestyle abortion.

I daresay that some women find it easier to buy pills online. After all, they don't even have to move from the house to get an abortion.

It doesn't need two doctors to determine that.

I think it does. You might get one who's too busy to go into the reasons enough, so you need another to agree with the first one.

Of course, it's all a bit pointless anyway as we virtually have abortion on demand here anyway.

Spindleshanks wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Britain's 40-year-old abortion law requires two doctors to agree to a termination on 'medical grounds'.

Both must say the abortion is necessary to prevent 'grave, permanent' physical or mental damage.

But campaigners say the law is only being followed 'loosely' by doctors. Women with no risk of physical harm can still have a termination if doctors claim her mental health is at risk.

There is also evidence that doctors have been 'pre-signing' blank abortion forms.

In March, the Mail exposed how doctors at abortion provider Marie Stopes were signing off terminations by phone. Some campaigners say legal restrictions encourage women to buy illegal abortion pills online.

Why would campaigners claim this is only loosely being followed by doctors when abortion on the grounds of a risk to a woman's mental health is actually part of the Abortion Act.  It looks like they are putting their own scope into it.

The question is though, is there really a need for two doctors to assess that an abortion is necessary on any of the grounds in the act?  For example, why would it need two doctors to sign off an abortion for a woman having one for a fetus with something like Triploidy.  https://www.healthline.com/health/triploidy#overview1

Does it really need two doctors to sign off an abortion for a woman who is just a few weeks pregnant and doesn't want a baby at that point in her life, perhaps because her contraception failed for example.

Does it really need two doctors to sign off an abortion for a woman who was raped and finds herself pregnant because of it?

I'd also say that if legal restrictions on abortion are leading women to buy abortion pills online then there is clear evidence there of the Abortion Act needing to be reviewed and revised because clearly despite having good access to safe abortion women are still going down the illegal abortion route with the serious implications to health that go along with it.

doesn't really seem like there is need for any doctors when apparently they are pre-signing termination forms, and approving terminations over the phone.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

It doesn't need two doctors to determine that.

I think it does. You might get one who's too busy to go into the reasons enough, so you need another to agree with the first one.

Of course, it's all a bit pointless anyway as we virtually have abortion on demand here anyway.

Is there something wrong with abortion on demand?

smelly-bandit wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Why would campaigners claim this is only loosely being followed by doctors when abortion on the grounds of a risk to a woman's mental health is actually part of the Abortion Act.  It looks like they are putting their own scope into it.

The question is though, is there really a need for two doctors to assess that an abortion is necessary on any of the grounds in the act?  For example, why would it need two doctors to sign off an abortion for a woman having one for a fetus with something like Triploidy.  https://www.healthline.com/health/triploidy#overview1

Does it really need two doctors to sign off an abortion for a woman who is just a few weeks pregnant and doesn't want a baby at that point in her life, perhaps because her contraception failed for example.

Does it really need two doctors to sign off an abortion for a woman who was raped and finds herself pregnant because of it?

I'd also say that if legal restrictions on abortion are leading women to buy abortion pills online then there is clear evidence there of the Abortion Act needing to be reviewed and revised because clearly despite having good access to safe abortion women are still going down the illegal abortion route with the serious implications to health that go along with it.

doesn't really seem like there is need for any doctors when apparently they are pre-signing termination forms, and approving terminations over the phone.

If one doctor has pre-signed an abortion form then it still needs another signature on it at the moment doesn't it? Yes, I know it's unethical and probably illegal as the law stands for them to do this but in reality it still doesn't mean the woman would get her abortion without getting the signature of another doctor.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think it does. You might get one who's too busy to go into the reasons enough, so you need another to agree with the first one.

Of course, it's all a bit pointless anyway as we virtually have abortion on demand here anyway.

Is there something wrong with abortion on demand?

I think so, yes, and so does the Government - in theory.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Is there something wrong with abortion on demand?

I think so, yes, and so does the Government - in theory.

It's a bit of an archaic law though to be honest. There have been huge advancements in terms of much earlier diagnosis of pregnancy meaning abortions can be done much earlier on which is probably reflected in the rise of the number of abortions performed in very early pregnancy, pills which can be taken at home to induce an abortion meaning there is no need for surgical intervention. To be honest, having to see two doctors to get forms signed really just delays things unnecessarily.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think so, yes, and so does the Government - in theory.

It's a bit of an archaic law though to be honest.  There have been huge advancements in terms of much earlier diagnosis of pregnancy meaning abortions can be done much earlier on which is probably reflected in the rise of the number of abortions performed in very early pregnancy, pills which can be taken at home to induce an abortion meaning there is no need for surgical intervention.  To be honest, having to see two doctors to get forms signed really just delays things unnecessarily.

I don't think it's archaic, I think it's fair. They need to decide whether to change it or to adhere to it though. The way things are, people are just flouting the law.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

It's a bit of an archaic law though to be honest.  There have been huge advancements in terms of much earlier diagnosis of pregnancy meaning abortions can be done much earlier on which is probably reflected in the rise of the number of abortions performed in very early pregnancy, pills which can be taken at home to induce an abortion meaning there is no need for surgical intervention.  To be honest, having to see two doctors to get forms signed really just delays things unnecessarily.

I don't think it's archaic, I think it's fair. They need to decide whether to change it or to adhere to it though. The way things are, people are just flouting the law.

Which clearly proves even more that the law needs amending. Which as seen many doctors, two thirds have called for it to be changed.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

It's a bit of an archaic law though to be honest.  There have been huge advancements in terms of much earlier diagnosis of pregnancy meaning abortions can be done much earlier on which is probably reflected in the rise of the number of abortions performed in very early pregnancy, pills which can be taken at home to induce an abortion meaning there is no need for surgical intervention.  To be honest, having to see two doctors to get forms signed really just delays things unnecessarily.

I don't think it's archaic, I think it's fair. They need to decide whether to change it or to adhere to it though. The way things are, people are just flouting the law.

Fair on who?

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think it's archaic, I think it's fair. They need to decide whether to change it or to adhere to it though. The way things are, people are just flouting the law.

Fair on who?

Society.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Fair on who?

Society.

What???????

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Fair on who?

Society.

Can you elaborate?

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Society.

Can you elaborate?

To have abortion on demand is encouraging irresponsible behavior, it costs money, and it's just disrespectful of human life. I can understand it for women who don't want children, but many of them already have them, or have one a couple of years later, and I just find that icky.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Can you elaborate?

To have abortion on demand is encouraging irresponsible behavior, it costs money, and it's just disrespectful of human life. I can understand it for women who don't want children, but many of them already have them, or have one a couple of years later, and I just find that icky.

wow.

So where in many cases contraceptives have failed, now you blame the woman and not the fact that contraceptives are not fool proof.

Who are you to even decide what is responsible?

What matters is that a woman has control over he body, not you decide what matters to her.

Also your answer did not even answer your first claim, on society.

It seems your argument is based not on society, but what you think.