UK Divided Voices: UK Abortion Law Faces New Reckoning Amid Rising Activism

[Chomper Higgot]

37 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

If you were from the UK you would know why the law is 24 weeks unless there is a medical reason for termination after that date.  The reason for 24 weeks (although medical advancements may suggest this could be 16 weeks) is that is the time where the child can live outside of the womb.  So the unborn child previously had a right to life 24 weeks after conception, now that right has been taken away.   The previous abortion laws were supported by the vast majority.   Labour had no mandate to change this.   

You are demonstrating your expertise in the use of false statements in furtherance of non corollary arguments.

 

The terms of law being annulled are not within the Abortion Act, they are in the Crime and Policing Bill and the 1861 Offenses Against the Person Act.

 

Labour have not changed the Abortion Act, the proposed change of law being discussed was a free vote.

 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2le12114j9o.amp

 

 

 

[SunnyinBangrak]

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It might be an idea to add trigger warnings to OP’s in the forum.

 

Just about any topics whatsoever triggers  your perpetual off topic nonsense.

Can't help wondering if abortion should be compulsory when a child is conceived by two 1st cousins or siblings? Also I wonder why incest suddenly became so popular/ even the norm in some areas of the UK. 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

Can't imagine any Muslims in favour of abortion.

A few more years and abortion will be banned completely.

Somebody else with  triggered Muslim fixation.

[BritManToo]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Somebody else with  triggered Muslim fixation.

No, I quite like Sharia law.

Nothing wrong with a good stoning or flogging.

They'll soon sort your liberal pals out.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

I hear you, but I think there needs to be a line drawn as to when the fetus is a baby and has legal rights. It is certainly not 1 day after conception - although I do understand that to some people have a moral view that it does.  Given that religious laws are no longer in charge and secular laws are in charge, the majority of people do not want to go back to sharia law type controls. 

 

May I suggest to all people that do not agree with abortion, that any stance stating it should be totally outlawed from conception, because of their own moral/religious views, will never succeed in a secular law based society.  In fact, such an 'all or nothing' approach, will be used by the woke liberals to attack any change to make it illegal.  The only likely successful approach to legally banning abortions, is to draw a line as to when a baby officially gains legal rights. When that line is drawn, then abortions after that time will be illegal unless they meet strict medical reasons. Yes it is not perfect and will be abused, but that is the best likely outcome.

 

In 1999 in Australia there was a referendum held to become a Republic. However, because the terms of the referendum did not spell out exactly how the new head of state would be selected, many people voted no. No matter how many times people like myself tried to tell others that it was a Yes or No decision now, and that how the Head was selected was for next time, people argued that they wanted the Head to be elected and others said they wanted a joint sitting of Parliament to decide.  Those people were 'distracted' and they lost the plot - they both wanted a Republic but they were distracted and the end result was a No vote for a referendum. There has been no mention of another referendum since then over 25 years later. 

 

IMO if those against abortion try to force the issue and make all abortions illegal, they will be targeted by the woke liberals as religious nutters and the majority of people will be 'distracted' and not agree with any change.  However, the majority will probably however agree on a 'time limit' as to when an abortion should be legally allowed - meaning when the baby has legal rights. 

  

 

 

 

“I hear you, but I think there needs to be a line drawn as to when the fetus is a baby and has legal rights. It is certainly not 1 day after conception - although I do understand that to some people have a moral view that it does.”

 

The line is drawn at the moment birth.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

No, I quite like Sharia law.

Nothing wrong with a good stoning or flogging.

They'll soon sort your liberal pals out.

Well there you go again, more off topic trolling.

 

[BritManToo]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

“I hear you, but I think there needs to be a line drawn as to when the fetus is a baby and has legal rights. It is certainly not 1 day after conception - although I do understand that to some people have a moral view that it does.”

 

The line is drawn at the moment birth.

I'd prefer the line drawn at the moment of conception!

As far as I know the current line is still drawn at 24 weeks.

We're just posting our wish lists.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I'd prefer the line drawn at the moment of conception!

There’s a surprise.

 

Closer to the religious extremists than you let yourself admit.

[BritManToo]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

There’s a surprise.

 

Closer to the religious extremists than you let yourself admit.

Are you calling Muslims extremists?

[gargamon]

7 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I'd prefer the line drawn at the moment of conception!

As far as I know the current line is still drawn at 24 weeks.

We're just posting our wish lists.

It should be allowed post partum. For some of the posters here, up to 70 or 80 years post partum.

[Chomper Higgot]

23 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Are you calling Muslims extremists?

There you go, triggered again, I didn’t mention Muslims.

 

It would seem they have taken up residence in your own head.

[animalmagic]

5 hours ago, pimmmm said:

USA prefers to let them be born then shoot them while they're at school. 

That's the reason they overturned Roe v Wade. So many school shootings they were running out of targets!

[bamnutsak]

5 hours ago, James105 said:

If a woman terminates her baby the day before she is due to give birth she will face no consequences

 

I'm under the impression that abortions in the U.K. can only be performed up to 24 weeks, and only later if the mother's health/life is at risk.

 

And in the UK, the average gestation period for abortions is under 10 weeks. In 2022, 88% of abortions were performed at under 10 weeks, according to the UK government. The legal limit for an abortion in the UK is 24 weeks, but most abortions occur much earlier. 

 

Roe v. Wade set limits in the U.S. at 24 - 28 weeks.

 

 

 

 

[James105]

56 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You are demonstrating your expertise in the use of false statements in furtherance of non corollary arguments.

 

The terms of law being annulled are not within the Abortion Act, they are in the Crime and Policing Bill and the 1861 Offenses Against the Person Act.

 

Labour have not changed the Abortion Act, the proposed change of law being discussed was a free vote.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2le12114j9o.amp

 

 

Yes, it was a free vote after about 45 minutes of discussion with no thought or discussion whatsoever given to the potential consequences of making this change in the law.   This is at best a shambolic way to make laws, and at worst it is simply evil.   

[Thingamabob]

Abortion is a tough subject. For myself I could never approve the killing of a little baby which has developed all the necessary organs for a normal life. That is murder in my opinion. 

[James105]

1 minute ago, bamnutsak said:

 

I'm under the impression that abortions in the U.K. can only be performed up to 24 weeks, and only later if the mother's health/life is at risk.

 

And in the UK, the average gestation period for abortions is under 10 weeks. In 2022, 88% of abortions were performed at under 10 weeks, according to the UK government. The legal limit for an abortion in the UK is 24 weeks, but most abortions occur much earlier. 

 

Roe v. Wade set limits in the U.S. at 24 - 28 weeks.

Yes, that is the case and it is still 24 weeks.  It is still illegal for doctors to carry out an abortion after 24 weeks without a good medical reason for doing so.   The reason this case came about was due to an expectant mother who wanted to hide the consequences of an affair she had so she pretended to be 10 weeks pregnant (she was actually 37 weeks) so she could order pills from the internet that would kill the unborn child.   She was prosecuted and jailed for this.   Labour think that taking away that child's right to life so that the mother can cover up an affair she had is acceptable.   

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-65882169

 

The reason these pills could be ordered on the internet is a hangover from Covid days where people could not actually see a doctor.   The correct solution to this would be to revert the rules on obtaining these drugs to how it was pre-covid, but as Labour are absolute morons (or just evil) they changed the law so that people can lie to obtain pills that can kill their unborn child even after 24 weeks and up until birth without consequence.   

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There you go, triggered again, I didn’t mention Muslims.

 

It would seem they have taken up residence in your own head.

I was more concerned about them taking up residence in my country.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I was more concerned about them taking up residence in my country.

So totally off topic then.

[Thingamabob]

2 hours ago, James105 said:

Yes, that is the case and it is still 24 weeks.  It is still illegal for doctors to carry out an abortion after 24 weeks without a good medical reason for doing so.   The reason this case came about was due to an expectant mother who wanted to hide the consequences of an affair she had so she pretended to be 10 weeks pregnant (she was actually 37 weeks) so she could order pills from the internet that would kill the unborn child.   She was prosecuted and jailed for this.   Labour think that taking away that child's right to life so that the mother can cover up an affair she had is acceptable.   

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-65882169

 

The reason these pills could be ordered on the internet is a hangover from Covid days where people could not actually see a doctor.   The correct solution to this would be to revert the rules on obtaining these drugs to how it was pre-covid, but as Labour are absolute morons (or just evil) they changed the law so that people can lie to obtain pills that can kill their unborn child even after 24 weeks and up until birth without consequence.   

I find it incredible that Labour initiated this. What were they thinking ? This could result in the murder of a small baby.

[brewsterbudgen]

35 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

I find it incredible that Labour initiated this. What were they thinking ? This could result in the murder of a small baby.

Labour always has been a party that respects women's rights.  That said, it was a Free vote, so not party political.

[James105]

35 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

I find it incredible that Labour initiated this. What were they thinking ? This could result in the murder of a small baby.

 

Using the term "thinking" with Labour politicians is something of an oxymoron.   They are the worst kind of reactionary student activists, but even that is insulting to student activists.  They continue to amaze with their idiocy.   Just when you think they must have peaked in their stupidity they somehow manage to surpass it.   

[James105]

2 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Labour always has been a party that respects women's rights.  That said, it was a Free vote, so not party political.

 

That is a lie.   How many Labour politicians supported the rights of men to invade women's spaces?  Answer - most of them.   The supreme court is the only entity that can lay claim to supporting women's rights with their decision to clarify that women are in fact women and that men wearing lipstick and a dress are not.   

[brewsterbudgen]

4 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

That is a lie.   How many Labour politicians supported the rights of men to invade women's spaces?  Answer - most of them.   The supreme court is the only entity that can lay claim to supporting women's rights with their decision to clarify that women are in fact women and that men wearing lipstick and a dress are not.   

The thread is about the changes to the abortion laws.  

[newbee2022]

14 hours ago, Social Media said:

 

Divided Voices: UK Abortion Law Faces New Reckoning Amid Rising Activism

 

As Parliament prepares to vote on two pivotal amendments to abortion legislation, the longstanding debate over reproductive rights in the UK has surged back into public consciousness. While polling shows the majority of Britons remain pro-choice, anti-abortion activism has been invigorated by political developments across the Atlantic, especially under the influence of the Trump administration.

 

In Birmingham’s city centre, a small but diverse group of people recently gathered in a quiet vigil. Among them were older community members, students, friends, and families, forming a scene marked by candlelight and rosary beads. Hymns echoed through the square, revealing a protest against abortion, a reflection of a growing, if still minor, movement challenging the status quo.

 

Despite nearly 90% of the UK public identifying as pro-choice, the anti-abortion movement has gained momentum. Activists, both young and old, are finding renewed energy, with some taking cues from the reversal of Roe v Wade in the United States nearly three years ago—a seismic moment that legalized abortion bans across several U.S. states. That political shift has inspired similar ideological battles on UK soil.

 

One flashpoint in this debate has been the UK's introduction of abortion clinic buffer zones—areas around clinics where police can prevent harassment of patients. US Vice President JD Vance recently criticised these zones, citing the case of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, a longtime anti-abortion campaigner. Vaughan-Spruce, who has spent two decades distributing leaflets outside clinics, now returns weekly to silently pray due to the restrictions. In 2022, she was arrested for praying silently near a clinic. Though charges were dropped, she later received £13,000 in a civil claim against West Midlands Police, who did not admit liability.

 

“They actually asked me what I was doing, and I said, well, I'm just physically standing here. I might be praying in my head, but nothing out loud. And on that basis, they made an arrest. I was heavily searched, I was taken to the police station, locked in a police cell for hours before being questioned under caution. And then, eventually, I went to court,” she recalled. “I believe that abortion centres are like the modern-day Calvary. This is where the innocent are being put to death.”

 

But for those like Ailish McEntee, who works at a London abortion clinic, such demonstrations are harmful distractions. She supports a proposed amendment that would decriminalise abortion for women seeking it up to 24 weeks. “The law itself works very well for the majority of people, but for those individuals in those kind of really high-risk domestic abuse situations... they maybe can't make it to a clinic, they might seek abortion care from those kind of unregulated providers,” she said. “So this amendment would take away that decriminalisation of women themselves. And it's a really strange part of the law that we have.”

 

McEntee also believes anti-choice rhetoric has been emboldened. “I think particularly in recent years, with Roe v Wade overturning and Donald Trump winning the election again, I think it's really pushed forward the anti-choice rhetoric that has always been there, but it's absolutely ramping up.”

 

A Sky News and YouGov poll found that 55% of the public support changing the law to prevent women from being criminalised for abortions before 24 weeks. However, 22% believe women should still face investigation or imprisonment for terminating a pregnancy after that period.

 

Labour MP Stella Creasy is among those proposing the amendment to decriminalise abortion. “There's no other health care provision that we see with a criminal foundation in this way and it has a very real practical consequence,” she argued. “We've seen some incredibly vulnerable women and girls who didn't even know that they were pregnant who have late-term miscarriages finding themselves with police officers rather than counsellors at their hospital beds... and I just don't think that's where the British public are at.”

 

Yet others, like Rachel from Rachel’s Vineyard UK, see the proposed changes as misguided. Her organisation, which helps people cope with what it calls the trauma of abortion, takes a moral and faith-based stance. “With all sudden deaths, whether you are 80 years of age or you're 26 weeks born, you know, out of the womb, and you've died, you've sadly died, we need to be able to investigate that. For us to have compassion, we need to have justice.”

 

As the Commons prepares to cast its votes, the country finds itself at a crossroads, balancing public support for reproductive rights against a vocal minority determined to challenge them.

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from Sky News  2025-06-18

 

 

Stupidity is contagious obviously. Spreading faster than COVID.

[James105]

56 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

The thread is about the changes to the abortion laws.  

 

I was literally replying to your misinformation which said: "Labour always has been a party that respects women's rights" and providing evidence to back up why your claim is false.