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.

Spindleshanks wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

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.

if a doctor pre signs and another approves over the phone, then where is the duty of care??

where are the safeguards against gender specific terminations??

where is the safeguard to ensure the baby is within the legal limit??

abortion is big business, private clinics make big bucks doing it which is why they want to make it no more complicated than getting a filling.

they have no interest in the safety of the mother or the baby its just about getting money.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

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.

if a doctor pre signs and another approves over the phone, then where is the duty of care??

where are the safeguards against gender specific terminations??

where is the safeguard to ensure the baby is within the  legal limit??

abortion is big business, private clinics make big bucks doing it which is why they want to make it no more complicated than getting a filling.

they have no interest in the safety of the mother or the baby its just about getting money.

Safeguards?

So you are now determining why a woman can have a termination?

So where a family has 3 sons and now wants a daughter, you are going to refuse them an abortion if carrying a boy, based on you having some view against what they want?

A signature made beforehand is not valid as the doctor has not spoken to the individual woman. Any doctor signing forms in that manner should be disciplined.

Raggamuffin wrote:A signature made beforehand is not valid as the doctor has not spoken to the individual woman. Any doctor signing forms in that manner should be disciplined.

Or as seen the law scraped, as its pointless and unnecessary.

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.

Unfortunately pregnancy can often happen when it isn't the right time, whether someone has had children or not. It's much better for all concerned to end a pregnancy sooner rather than later so there is little point in putting more obstacles in place than there needs to be really.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

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.

 
Unfortunately pregnancy can often happen when it isn't the right time, whether someone has had children or not.  It's much better for all concerned to end a pregnancy sooner rather than later so there is little point in putting more obstacles in place than there needs to be really.

+1

smelly-bandit wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

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.

if a doctor pre signs and another approves over the phone, then where is the duty of care??

where are the safeguards against gender specific terminations??

where is the safeguard to ensure the baby is within the  legal limit??

abortion is big business, private clinics make big bucks doing it which is why they want to make it no more complicated than getting a filling.

they have no interest in the safety of the mother or the baby its just about getting money.

You do understand don't you that a woman will need to visit the clinic or hospital in order to have an abortion, even to be given the pills for a medical abortion she still needs to attend to take them. They don't send them to her in the post.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

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.

 
Unfortunately pregnancy can often happen when it isn't the right time, whether someone has had children or not.  It's much better for all concerned to end a pregnancy sooner rather than later so there is little point in putting more obstacles in place than there needs to be really.

I don't hold with women having abortions only to have a child a year or two later. Children aren't toys to be disposed of if they're not arriving at the "right time".

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:
 
Unfortunately pregnancy can often happen when it isn't the right time, whether someone has had children or not.  It's much better for all concerned to end a pregnancy sooner rather than later so there is little point in putting more obstacles in place than there needs to be really.

I don't hold with women having abortions only to have a child a year or two later. Children aren't toys to be disposed of if they're not arriving at the "right time".

Would you be saying the same if she had the child and then gave it up for adoption, only to have a child that she kept with her a year or two later?

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't hold with women having abortions only to have a child a year or two later. Children aren't toys to be disposed of if they're not arriving at the "right time".

Would you be saying the same if she had the child and then gave it up for adoption, only to have a child that she kept with her a year or two later?

Yes. I feel sorry for children who have been adopted and then find out they have brothers or sisters who are not much older than them.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Would you be saying the same if she had the child and then gave it up for adoption, only to have a child that she kept with her a year or two later?

Yes. I feel sorry for children who have been adopted and then find out they have brothers or sisters who are not much older than them.

Well I guess at least that view is consistent. It still doesn't alter the fact that ultimately the decision is the womans to make.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes. I feel sorry for children who have been adopted and then find out they have brothers or sisters who are not much older than them.

Well I guess at least that view is consistent.  It still doesn't alter the fact that ultimately the decision is the womans to make.

Not according to the law. People keep on ignoring the law.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Well I guess at least that view is consistent.  It still doesn't alter the fact that ultimately the decision is the womans to make.

Not according to the law. People keep on ignoring the law.

It is because it is the womans decision whether to seek an abortion or not. In reality, in early pregnancy especially you are correct, it's unlikely a woman would be denied an abortion, forcing a woman to have a child she doesn't want would be detrimental to her mental health.

Later on in the pregnancy in most cases abortion tends to be done because there is a problem with the fetus.

Either way, it is ultimately up to the woman to decide if she want's to go through with it, no one will force her.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Not according to the law. People keep on ignoring the law.

It is because it is the womans decision whether to seek an abortion or not.  In reality, in early pregnancy especially you are correct, it's unlikely a woman would be denied an abortion, forcing a woman to have a child she doesn't want would be detrimental to her mental health.

Later on in the pregnancy in most cases abortion tends to be done because there is a problem with the fetus.

Either way, it is ultimately up to the woman to decide if she want's to go through with it, no one will force her.

She can seek an abortion, but whether she gets one or not does depend on certain factors - she doesn't have the right to demand one for no good reason - not according to the law. Therefore, it is not her decision, it's the decision of two doctors.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

It is because it is the womans decision whether to seek an abortion or not.  In reality, in early pregnancy especially you are correct, it's unlikely a woman would be denied an abortion, forcing a woman to have a child she doesn't want would be detrimental to her mental health.

Later on in the pregnancy in most cases abortion tends to be done because there is a problem with the fetus.

Either way, it is ultimately up to the woman to decide if she want's to go through with it, no one will force her.

She can seek an abortion, but whether she gets one or not does depend on certain factors - she doesn't have the right to demand one for no good reason - not according to the law. Therefore, it is not her decision, it's the decision of two doctors.

Ah, so you are just like some men, trying to control women then.

Its her decision what she wishes to carry within her body.

No doctor can even decide that, nor any court of law.

They may punish her through poor criminal laws, but its still her decision.

Now I could use your lame and dumb argument with Cumberbatch, in that are you going to after forcing her to go through with the pregnancy, then raise that child?

But its utterly ridiculous, because you have a right to disagree with abortion.

See how it works Rags?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

It is because it is the womans decision whether to seek an abortion or not.  In reality, in early pregnancy especially you are correct, it's unlikely a woman would be denied an abortion, forcing a woman to have a child she doesn't want would be detrimental to her mental health.

Later on in the pregnancy in most cases abortion tends to be done because there is a problem with the fetus.

Either way, it is ultimately up to the woman to decide if she want's to go through with it, no one will force her.

She can seek an abortion, but whether she gets one or not does depend on certain factors - she doesn't have the right to demand one for no good reason - not according to the law. Therefore, it is not her decision, it's the decision of two doctors.

Yes, whether the continuation of a pregnancy will have a detrimental affect on her physical or mental health or that of her existing children.

That would encompass a vast amount of reasons Raggamuffin.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

She can seek an abortion, but whether she gets one or not does depend on certain factors - she doesn't have the right to demand one for no good reason - not according to the law. Therefore, it is not her decision, it's the decision of two doctors.

Yes, whether the continuation of a pregnancy will have a detrimental affect on her physical or mental health or that of her existing children.

That would encompass a vast amount of reasons Raggamuffin.

You agree that it's not her decision then.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Yes, whether the continuation of a pregnancy will have a detrimental affect on her physical or mental health or that of her existing children.

That would encompass a vast amount of reasons Raggamuffin.

You agree that it's not her decision then.

Its a joint decision, the woman seeks abortion, has a consultation, the abortion is carried out should the woman decide to go through with it.

When it comes down to it Raggamuffin, it is her decision because as I said, no one can force her into it. I've already said that in reality it is very unlikely a woman would be denied an abortion, especially in early pregnancy. There is no reason for a doctor to deny her one and I don't know if you are aware of this but a doctor (her GP for example) who refuses to sign her documents for an abortion (concientious objection clause) does have to refer the woman to another doctor who will sign.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So there are circumstances where you think an abortion should not be performed.

Its illegal in the UK to abort a baby because its the 'wrong' sex.

Doctors are not concerned about a womans morals, I don't think they could make a judgment on whether she can be given an abortion on how she has gotten pregnant, sleeping around etc...they are more concerned in  how the pregnancy can affect her or her baby if it continues.

If the pregnancy is less than 12 weeks all women have the right to an abortion......if her Dr objects to abortion he will refer her to one who doesn't.

Most of this was said days ago pages back./\

I agree with everything Spindleshanks has said since/

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You agree that it's not her decision then.

Its a joint decision, the woman seeks abortion, has a consultation, the abortion is carried out should the woman decide to go through with it.

When it comes down to it Raggamuffin, it is her decision because as I said, no one can force her into it.  I've already said that in reality it is very unlikely a woman would be denied an abortion, especially in early pregnancy.  There is no reason for a doctor to deny her one and I don't know if you are aware of this but a doctor (her GP for example) who refuses to sign her documents for an abortion (concientious objection clause) does have to refer the woman to another doctor who will sign.

No, it's only her decision to seek an abortion, not to procure one. A doctor could refuse on the grounds that she doesn't satisfy the criteria. He could though, according to the law. Even if a doctor has to refer her to another, there's no guarantee that another doctor will agree to the abortion - not in law anyway.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Its a joint decision, the woman seeks abortion, has a consultation, the abortion is carried out should the woman decide to go through with it.

When it comes down to it Raggamuffin, it is her decision because as I said, no one can force her into it.  I've already said that in reality it is very unlikely a woman would be denied an abortion, especially in early pregnancy.  There is no reason for a doctor to deny her one and I don't know if you are aware of this but a doctor (her GP for example) who refuses to sign her documents for an abortion (concientious objection clause) does have to refer the woman to another doctor who will sign.

No, it's only her decision to seek an abortion, not to procure one. A doctor could refuse on the grounds that she doesn't satisfy the criteria. He could though, according to the law. Even if a doctor has to refer her to another, there's no guarantee that another doctor will agree to the abortion - not in law anyway.

You have said repeatedly yourself that the law may as well not exist.
I doubt any woman in this country would not be granted an abortion if she asked her Dr early on in her pregnancy.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No, it's only her decision to seek an abortion, not to procure one. A doctor could refuse on the grounds that she doesn't satisfy the criteria. He could though, according to the law. Even if a doctor has to refer her to another, there's no guarantee that another doctor will agree to the abortion - not in law anyway.

You have said repeatedly yourself that the law may as well not exist.
I doubt any woman in this country would not be granted an abortion if she asked her Dr early on in her pregnancy.

So why have the majority of doctors come out asking for the law to be decriminalized?

Its it based on your emotive views or reason?

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No, it's only her decision to seek an abortion, not to procure one. A doctor could refuse on the grounds that she doesn't satisfy the criteria. He could though, according to the law. Even if a doctor has to refer her to another, there's no guarantee that another doctor will agree to the abortion - not in law anyway.

You have said repeatedly yourself that the law may as well not exist.
I doubt any woman in this country would not be granted an abortion if she asked her Dr early on in her pregnancy.

I've said that it might as well not exist, or that it should be enforced. Nothing anyone says here can alter what the law actually says though, so to claim that it's the right of any woman can get an abortion for any reason is not true, and it's not correct to say it's her decision.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

You have said repeatedly yourself that the law may as well not exist.
I doubt any woman in this country would not be granted an abortion if she asked her Dr early on in her pregnancy.

I've said that it might as well not exist, or that it should be enforced. Nothing anyone says here can alter what the law actually says though, so to claim that it's the right of any woman can get an abortion for any reason is not true, and it's not correct to say it's her decision.

She will talk to two doctors, they will discuss her reasons. If one is against abortion for his own reasons he will refer her to an unbiased Dr.
I doubt any Dr will decide ultimately that she will be refused an abortion as long as the pregnancy is not over the time limit. Legally they can, but I doubt they would.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I've said that it might as well not exist, or that it should be enforced. Nothing anyone says here can alter what the law actually says though, so to claim that it's the right of any woman can get an abortion for any reason is not true, and it's not correct to say it's her decision.

She will talk to two doctors, they will discuss her reasons. If one is against abortion for his own reasons  he will refer her to an unbiased Dr.
I doubt any Dr will decide ultimately that she will be refused an abortion as long as the pregnancy is not over the time limit. Legally they can, but I doubt they would.

Why need a reason when a woman is the one carrying something she does not want to carry?

Unless you think she should be forced to?

When are you both going to learn women should have control over their own bodies?

And as seen the vast majority of doctors disagree with you and there is a valid reason why.

Its not for them to decide, but the woman.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

She will talk to two doctors, they will discuss her reasons. If one is against abortion for his own reasons  he will refer her to an unbiased Dr.
I doubt any Dr will decide ultimately that she will be refused an abortion as long as the pregnancy is not over the time limit. Legally they can, but I doubt they would.

Why need a reason when a woman is the one carrying something she does not want to carry?

Unless you think she should be forced to?

When are you both going to learn women should have control over their own bodies?

And as seen the vast majority of doctors disagree with you and there is a valid reason why.

Its not for them to decide, but the woman.

As the Dr is the one who will performing the op he is involved in the decision.

The vast majority of Doctors agree with me, my concern is only that the time limit of 6 months is too advanced, I'm sure most Dr's prefer to abort earlier rather than later.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Why need a reason when a woman is the one carrying something she does not want to carry?

Unless you think she should be forced to?

When are you both going to learn women should have control over their own bodies?

And as seen the vast majority of doctors disagree with you and there is a valid reason why.

Its not for them to decide, but the woman.

As the Dr is the one who will performing the op he is involved in the decision.

The vast majority of Doctors agree with me, my concern is only that the time limit of 6 months is too advanced, I'm sure most Dr's prefer to abort earlier rather than later.

Does a woman need a doctor these days?

Read back again, the vast majority of doctors disagree with you.

When will you get it into your head, its not for you to decide, but that woman over her own body.

Now i could invoke a strawman as you do and say, next you will be saying a woman has to continue to carry a growing living cell like cancer within her. But unlike you, I do not use stupid arguments

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I've said that it might as well not exist, or that it should be enforced. Nothing anyone says here can alter what the law actually says though, so to claim that it's the right of any woman can get an abortion for any reason is not true, and it's not correct to say it's her decision.

She will talk to two doctors, they will discuss her reasons. If one is against abortion for his own reasons  he will refer her to an unbiased Dr.
I doubt any Dr will decide ultimately that she will be refused an abortion as long as the pregnancy is not over the time limit. Legally they can, but I doubt they would.

Any doctor could be against an abortion for the right reasons - ie, because an abortion would not be within the law as it stands. An unbiased doctor could well come to the same conclusion.

Why would they not refuse one if they can legally do so on the grounds that her reason does not fit with the law?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

She will talk to two doctors, they will discuss her reasons. If one is against abortion for his own reasons  he will refer her to an unbiased Dr.
I doubt any Dr will decide ultimately that she will be refused an abortion as long as the pregnancy is not over the time limit. Legally they can, but I doubt they would.

Any doctor could be against an abortion for the right reasons - ie, because an abortion would not be within the law as it stands. An unbiased doctor could well come to the same conclusion.

Why would they not refuse one if they can legally do so on the grounds that her reason does not fit with the law?

hence why the laws need to be scrapped

Its not their place to decide, but that of the person who is carrying

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

She will talk to two doctors, they will discuss her reasons. If one is against abortion for his own reasons  he will refer her to an unbiased Dr.
I doubt any Dr will decide ultimately that she will be refused an abortion as long as the pregnancy is not over the time limit. Legally they can, but I doubt they would.

Any doctor could be against an abortion for the right reasons - ie, because an abortion would not be within the law as it stands. An unbiased doctor could well come to the same conclusion.

Why would they not refuse one if they can legally do so on the grounds that her reason does not fit with the law?

I meant he may be against abortion for his own religious or moral reasons...in which case the woman would be referred to a Dr with no such objections

A Dr is entitled to refuse an abortion for legal reasons.

Whether one would if the woman wanted an abortion and the pregnancy had not exceeded the time limit is really the question, and I doubt she would be refused.

Definition of a contradiction

People supporting the right for women to abort a life she carries, by then also in the same breath argue against it

If you support abortion, you gave up any right to quibble over when a woman can decide over when she wants to abort.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Any doctor could be against an abortion for the right reasons - ie, because an abortion would not be within the law as it stands. An unbiased doctor could well come to the same conclusion.

Why would they not refuse one if they can legally do so on the grounds that her reason does not fit with the law?

I meant he may be against abortion for his own religious or moral reasons...in which case the woman would be referred to a Dr with no such objections

A Dr is entitled to refuse an abortion for legal reasons.

Whether one would if the woman wanted an abortion and the pregnancy had not exceeded the time limit is really the question, and I doubt she would be refused.

Yes, but the doctor she was referred to could also refuse an abortion on completely different grounds - ie, that the reason didn't come under the definition of a legal abortion.

Why do you doubt she would be refused? You're right of course, but what is the reason that she would be refused? Because doctors agree with abortion on demand?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

She will talk to two doctors, they will discuss her reasons. If one is against abortion for his own reasons  he will refer her to an unbiased Dr.
I doubt any Dr will decide ultimately that she will be refused an abortion as long as the pregnancy is not over the time limit. Legally they can, but I doubt they would.

Any doctor could be against an abortion for the right reasons - ie, because an abortion would not be within the law as it stands. An unbiased doctor could well come to the same conclusion.

Why would they not refuse one if they can legally do so on the grounds that her reason does not fit with the law?

What ground would they have to refuse if she is requesting an abortion at say 10 weeks?

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Any doctor could be against an abortion for the right reasons - ie, because an abortion would not be within the law as it stands. An unbiased doctor could well come to the same conclusion.

Why would they not refuse one if they can legally do so on the grounds that her reason does not fit with the law?

What ground would they have to refuse if she is requesting an abortion at say 10 weeks?

They might feel that it's not going to induce sufficient harm to her physical or mental health to continue with the pregnancy.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

What ground would they have to refuse if she is requesting an abortion at say 10 weeks?

They might feel that it's not going to induce sufficient harm to her physical or mental health to continue with the pregnancy.

Really?

Some how I think you just made that load of crap up

Private abortion clinics want your money. I'm sure you could easily find a doctor who'll give you one no matter your reason.

eddie wrote:Private abortion clinics want your money. I'm sure you could easily find a doctor who'll give you one no matter your reason.

Then they'd be breaking the law and be possibly also risking getting struck off.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

What ground would they have to refuse if she is requesting an abortion at say 10 weeks?

They might feel that it's not going to induce sufficient harm to her physical or mental health to continue with the pregnancy.

She's pregnant and doesn't want a baby, that is enough on mental health grounds to allow an abortion.

It might not sit well with you Raggamuffin, but it's a fact and if her GP won't sign her papers he will be expected to refer her to one who will.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:
I meant he may be against abortion for his own religious or moral reasons...in which case the woman would be referred to a Dr with no such objections

A Dr is entitled to refuse an abortion for legal reasons.

Whether one would if the woman wanted an abortion and the pregnancy had not exceeded the time limit is really the question, and I doubt she would be refused.

Yes, but the doctor she was referred to could also refuse an abortion on completely different grounds - ie, that the reason didn't come under the definition of a legal abortion.

Why do you doubt she would be refused? You're right of course, but what is the reason that she would be refused? Because doctors agree with abortion on demand?

The only grounds i can see where a dr might refuse the woman would be if she chose to abort because the baby was the wrong sex, or if the legal time limit for a straight forward abortion was up.

The alternative would be to force a woman to have a baby she doesnt want, or find an alternative unsafe illegal way to terminate....which is setting women back several decades.

I don't agree with abortion I never have. I do however think if a girl is raped, then the possibility of not wanting the baby will be her choice and termination would probably play a part.

I hate women who have lots of abortions because they never took precautions, its not for that.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They might feel that it's not going to induce sufficient harm to her physical or mental health to continue with the pregnancy.

She's pregnant and doesn't want a baby, that is enough on mental health grounds to allow an abortion.

It might not sit well with you Raggamuffin, but it's a fact and if her GP won't sign her papers he will be expected to refer her to one who will.

A doctor might disagree with you that it's enough to allow an abortion. A doctor is obliged to refer to her to another one who will allow it if he/she objects to abortions on conscientious grounds, but I'm not sure if that applies if an abortion is refused on the grounds that it breaks the law. I also don't think they're obliged to refer the woman to another doctor who will automatically grant an abortion.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, but the doctor she was referred to could also refuse an abortion on completely different grounds - ie, that the reason didn't come under the definition of a legal abortion.

Why do you doubt she would be refused? You're right of course, but what is the reason that she would be refused? Because doctors agree with abortion on demand?

The only grounds i can see where a dr might refuse the woman would be if she chose to abort because the baby was the wrong sex, or if the legal time limit for a straight forward abortion was up.

The alternative would be to force a woman to have a baby she doesnt want, or find an alternative unsafe illegal way to terminate....which is setting women back several decades.

How about a woman who wants an abortion because a pregnancy might spoil her upcoming cruise, or a woman who wants one because her house isn't quite big enough?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

The only grounds i can see where a dr might refuse the woman would be if she chose to abort because the baby was the wrong sex, or if the legal time limit for a straight forward abortion was up.

The alternative would be to force a woman to have a baby she doesnt want, or find an alternative unsafe illegal way to terminate....which is setting women back several decades.

How about a woman who wants an abortion because a pregnancy might spoil her upcoming cruise, or a woman who wants one because her house isn't quite big enough?

But what about if that child is then given up for adoption or suffers parental resentment for the rest of it's life? What if
the backstreet abortion makes a come back?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

The only grounds i can see where a dr might refuse the woman would be if she chose to abort because the baby was the wrong sex, or if the legal time limit for a straight forward abortion was up.

The alternative would be to force a woman to have a baby she doesnt want, or find an alternative unsafe illegal way to terminate....which is setting women back several decades.

How about a woman who wants an abortion because a pregnancy might spoil her upcoming cruise, or a woman who wants one because her house isn't quite big enough?

To you and me those reasons are trivial, to her they are not.
The Dr's opinion would probably be to refer her for a termination.
Doctors don't judge a persons morals.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

How about a woman who wants an abortion because a pregnancy might spoil her upcoming cruise, or a woman who wants one because her house isn't quite big enough?

To you and me those reasons are trivial, to her they are not.
The Dr's opinion would probably be to refer her for a termination.
Doctors don't judge a persons  morals.

can i ask you a question??

do you support the death penalty for criminals??

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

She's pregnant and doesn't want a baby, that is enough on mental health grounds to allow an abortion.

It might not sit well with you Raggamuffin, but it's a fact and if her GP won't sign her papers he will be expected to refer her to one who will.

A doctor might disagree with you that it's enough to allow an abortion. A doctor is obliged to refer to her to another one who will allow it if he/she objects to abortions on conscientious grounds, but I'm not sure if that applies if an abortion is refused on the grounds that it breaks the law. I also don't think they're obliged to refer the woman to another doctor who will automatically grant an abortion.

The first clause of the abortion act is fairly all encompassing Raggamuffin. Not wanting a baby, being too young, not the right time, can't afford another child, contraception failed etc, all of these especially in early pregnancy and certainly pre the 12 to 13 week mark when most abortions are performed would fall under that clause simply because of the effect having an unwanted pregnancy would have on someone's mental health. Therefore refusing to sign at this stage would most likely be on conscientious grounds rather than other grounds and yes, I think they are expected to refer to a doctor who will sign if they object because they don't agree with abortion.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Syl wrote:

To you and me those reasons are trivial, to her they are not.
The Dr's opinion would probably be to refer her for a termination.
Doctors don't judge a persons  morals.

can i ask  you a question??

do you support the death penalty for criminals??

They are two completely different issues.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

She's pregnant and doesn't want a baby, that is enough on mental health grounds to allow an abortion.

It might not sit well with you Raggamuffin, but it's a fact and if her GP won't sign her papers he will be expected to refer her to one who will.

A doctor might disagree with you that it's enough to allow an abortion. A doctor is obliged to refer to her to another one who will allow it if he/she objects to abortions on conscientious grounds, but I'm not sure if that applies if an abortion is refused on the grounds that it breaks the law. I also don't think they're obliged to refer the woman to another doctor who will automatically grant an abortion.

You might like to read this Raggamuffin.

There is already RCOG guidance in The care of women requesting induced abortion. This document highlights that doctors involved in the provision of abortion care are bound by the duties of a doctor as laid out by the GMC’s Good Medical Practice, in particular making sure that their personal beliefs do not prejudice their patients’ care.

It is important for trainees to understand that the conscientious objection clause only covers refusal to participate in terminations. To clarify, the rights of a professional to conscientious objection, as summarised by the BMA and presented in the RCOG guidance, are:

Doctors may refuse to participate in terminations, but are obliged to provide necessary treatment in an emergency, when the woman’s life may be in jeopardy

Doctors with a conscientious objection may not impose their views on others, but may explain their views to a patient if invited to do so

A parliamentary answer in 1991 clarified that the conscientious objection clause was only intended to be applied to participation in treatment; however, subsequently hospital managers have been asked to apply the principle, at their discretion, to ancillary staff involved in handling fetuses and fetal tissue

Refusal to participate in paperwork or administration connected with abortion procedures lies outside the terms of the conscientious objection clause

Practitioners cannot claim exemption from giving advice or performing the preparatory steps to arrange an abortion where the request meets the legal requirements; such steps include referral to another doctor, as appropriate
The conscientious objection clause may be used by medical students to opt out of witnessing terminations

https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/careers-training/resources--support-for-trainees/advice-and-support-for-trainees/advice-for-trainees-on-termination-of-pregnancy/

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

How about a woman who wants an abortion because a pregnancy might spoil her upcoming cruise, or a woman who wants one because her house isn't quite big enough?

To you and me those reasons are trivial, to her they are not.
The Dr's opinion would probably be to refer her for a termination.
Doctors don't judge a persons  morals.

Doctors are supposed to obey the law though, and clearly those reasons would be considered trivial and not in the spirit of the Abortion Act.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

A doctor might disagree with you that it's enough to allow an abortion. A doctor is obliged to refer to her to another one who will allow it if he/she objects to abortions on conscientious grounds, but I'm not sure if that applies if an abortion is refused on the grounds that it breaks the law. I also don't think they're obliged to refer the woman to another doctor who will automatically grant an abortion.

The first clause of the abortion act is fairly all encompassing Raggamuffin.  Not wanting a baby, being too young, not the right time, can't afford another child, contraception failed etc, all of these especially in early pregnancy and certainly pre the 12 to 13 week mark when most abortions are performed would fall under that clause simply because of the effect having an unwanted pregnancy would have on someone's mental health.  Therefore refusing to sign at this stage would most likely be on conscientious grounds rather than other grounds and yes, I think they are expected to refer to a doctor who will sign if they object because they don't agree with abortion.

Who says that the first clause encompasses all those thing? The doctor might not disagree with abortion at all, he/she just doesn't think the reason is good enough or legal. In that case, perhaps it's up to the woman to find another doctor.