MPs vote in favour of measures to decriminalise abortion in move to make biggest law change in more than 50 years - "Women will no longer face prosecution for aborting their own baby for any reason and at any stage up to birth under the proposed legislation, which was backed by 379 votes to 137 on Tuesday night. "

Article / Archive

MPs have voted in favour of measures to decriminalise women terminating their own pregnancies in the biggest change to the law on reproductive rights for half a century.

Women will no longer face prosecution for aborting their own baby for any reason and at any stage up to birth under the proposed legislation, which was backed by 379 votes to 137 on Tuesday night.

Tonia Antoniazzi, the Labour MP who put forward the amendment, said it will remove the threat of 'investigation, arrest, prosecution, or imprisonment' of any woman who acts in relation to her own pregnancy.

She told the Commons the current 'Victorian' abortion law in England and Wales is 'increasingly used against vulnerable women' and said her amendment was a 'once-in-a-generation' opportunity to change the law.

Ms Antoniazzi's amendment will be the biggest change to the law concerning women's reproductive rights since the 1967 Abortion Act.

It will alter the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act - which outlawed abortion - meaning it would no longer apply to women aborting their own babies.

MPs and pro-choice activists welcomed the abortion vote and said it will finally put an end to the prosecution of vulnerable women for ending their own pregnancies.

But anti-abortion campaigners and MPs opposed to the reforms said the move allows women to end the life of their unborn child right up to birth, and for any reason, without facing repercussions.

Under Ms Antoniazzi's amendment women will no longer be prosecuted for an abortion when it relates to their own pregnancy, even if they abort their own baby without medical approval or after the current 24-week legal limit.

However it maintains criminal punishments for doctors who carry out abortions beyond the legal limit and abusive partners who end a woman's pregnancy without her consent.

Ms Antoniazzi listed examples of women who have recently been investigated or prosecuted for having an abortion, adding: 'Just what public interest is this serving? This is not justice. It is cruelty, and it has got to end.'

'Women affected are often acutely vulnerable victims of domestic abuse and violence, human trafficking and sexual exploitation, girls under the age of 18 and women who have suffered miscarriage,' she said.

Six women have appeared in court in the last three years charged with ending or attempting to end their own pregnancy - a crime with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment - while others remain under investigation.

Tory MP Rebecca Paul said she was 'disturbed' by the decriminalisation amendment, which will mean that 'fully developed babies up to term could be aborted by a woman with no consequences'.

'The reason we criminalise late term abortion is not about punishment. It's about protection,' she added. 'By providing a deterrent to such actions, we protect women.

'We protect them from trying to perform an abortion at home that is unsafe for them. We protect them from coercive partners and family members who may push them to end late term pregnancies.'

Conservative MP Rebecca Smith told the Commons she the amendment risks 'creating a series of unintended consequences which could endanger women rather than protect and empower them'.

'If offences that make it illegal for a woman to administer her own abortion at any gestation were repealed, such abortions would de facto become possible up to birth for any reason, including abortions for sex selective purposes.'

Meanwhile Dr Caroline Johnson, a Tory MP and consultant paediatrician, said the proposed legislation creates a 'situation where a woman is able to legally have an abortion up until term if she wants to'.

She tabled a separate amendment that would have made it mandatory for women seeking an abortion through the at-home 'pills by post' scheme introduced during the pandemic to have an in-person consultation with a doctor before they are prescribed the drugs.

However this was rejected last night as 379 MPs voted against it - the same number who backed decriminalising abortion.

Another amendment, put forward by Labour MP Stella Creasy, had also sought to repeal sections of the 1861 Act, decriminalise abortion up to 24 weeks, and ensure that late-term abortions did not result in prison sentences.

Ms Creasy's amendment would have gone go further in making it a human right for women to access abortion so that parliament could not, in future, roll back abortion rights as has happened in other countries.

However, Sir Lindsay only selected Ms Antoniazzi's to be debated by MPs this evening, which had more than 170 backers last night - compared to over 110 for Ms Creasy's.

During a Westminster Hall debate earlier this month, justice minister Alex Davies-Jones said the Government is neutral on decriminalisation and that it is an issue for Parliament to decide upon.

Though the Government took a neutral stance on the vote, several high-profile Cabinet ministers, including Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, were among the MPs who backed the amendment in the free vote.

Abortion in England and Wales currently remains a criminal offence but is legal with an authorised provider up to 24 weeks, with very limited circumstances allowing one after this time, such as when the mother's life is at risk or the child would be born with a severe disability.

It is also legal to take prescribed medication at home if a woman is less than 10 weeks pregnant.

Efforts to change the law to protect women from prosecution follow repeated calls to repeal sections of the 19th-century law the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, after abortion was decriminalised in Northern Ireland in 2019.

The measures to decriminalise abortion, which still need to complete their legislative journey through both the Commons and the Lords before they can become law, were welcomed by leading abortion providers and physicians.

Heidi Stewart, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, BPAS, described it as a 'landmark moment for women's rights in this country'.

She said: 'There will be no more women investigated after enduring a miscarriage, no more women dragged from their hospital beds to the back of a police van, no more women separated from their children because of our archaic abortion law.'

It was welcomed by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, with its president Professor Ranee Thakar describing the vote as a 'victory for women and for their essential reproductive rights'.

And the British Medical Association also welcomed the vote as a 'significant and long overdue step towards reforming antiquated abortion law'.

But Alithea Williams, from the anti-abortion campaign group the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), said she was 'horrified that MPs have voted for this extreme and barbaric proposal'.

She added: 'This change has been made after only a few hours debate, with little notice. It was not in the Government's manifesto, and it certainly doesn't reflect public opinion.

'We call on the Lords to throw this undemocratic, barbaric proposal out when it reaches them. We will never accept a law that puts women in danger and removes all rights from unborn babies.'

How using medicines led to charges under 'outdated and harmful' laws​

Six women have appeared in court charged with ending or attempting to end their own pregnancy in the past three years.

These included Nicola Packer, 45, who was cleared last month by a jury of 'unlawfully administering' herself with abortion pills at home during lockdown in 2020.

Under emergency legislation in the pandemic, which has since been made permanent, the law was changed to allow the tablets to be taken in a system known as 'pills by post'.

This let women access the medicine with no visit to a clinic up to a legal limit of ten weeks, compared to the normal limit of 24 weeks when assessed by two doctors.

Ms Packer had taken prescribed abortion medicine when she was about 26 weeks pregnant. She told a court in London she did not realise she had been pregnant for more than ten weeks.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said Ms Packer's trial demonstrated 'just how outdated and harmful' that existing abortion law was.

Another of these women is Carla Foster, 47, who was found guilty in June 2023 of illegally obtaining abortion tablets when she was between 32 and 34 weeks pregnant.

Ms Foster, from Staffordshire, was given the pills after claiming in a remote lockdown consultation she was only seven weeks pregnant.

A court heard she had lied to a nurse on the phone about how far along she was to obtain the drugs, after searching online: 'I need to have an abortion but I'm past 24 weeks.'

She pleaded guilty to a charge under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act and got a 28-month sentence, with half to be spent in jail.

This was reduced to a 14-month suspended sentence on appeal with a judge saying the case called for 'compassion, not punishment'.

Ms Foster would not have faced prosecution under changes to laws approved last night.
 
I’m a woman. This is not good legislation. The law as was was fine - the UK didn’t have restrictive legislation, women can get abortions on demand up to 20 weeks and pretty much to birth with a genuine threat to their safety or severe foetal abnormality . There are no cases here of women dying due to not having abortions. The law was fine. There were VERY few late abortions, and the couple of percent that are later are almost exclusively wanted babies where something awful has gone wrong or late miscarriage/septic miscarriage that gets terminated medically to stop rhe mother dying.
What this opens the door to is self administered abortion late on, and that absolutely WILL kill women. It creates a condition whereby self administered abortion will be done, mainly via the pills by post stuff, and women will haemorrhage to death or die of sepsis following an incomplete abortion. It’s absolutely terrible legislation even just from a safety standpoint . There’s no moral or clinical reason to do this, it is just going result in death.
You and I both know that if they don't ignore you, they'll just call you a pick me/boymom
 
lmao I'm engaged but I aint having no kids until I buy a house.

Until then, I will continue my monthly abortion regimen to feed my adrenochrome addiction. Unborn pineal glands are particularly tasty, sort of like veal.
I haven't seen a salon poster that didn't deserve a pink triangle yet.
 
Okay I don't usually buy Sigmund Freud, but why does europe have such a death drive? Its like they want to fade away.

They genuinely want to go extinct. What is the cause of this civilizational pathology?

is giving birth to males a fucking sex crime now?
what new level of misandrist nonsense has the "fairer" sex fallen into now?

are they going to kill themselves for having fathers?
A lot of feminists are already deeply uneasy with it yeah-because systematic patriarchy and all, and thus a boy even raised as liberal as possible is still basically bad.

They wouldn't come out and say "abort or trans boys"-but many of them do think it.
 
What this opens the door to is self administered abortion late on, and that absolutely WILL kill women.
is Britain trying to kill its women? how does this create a safe environment for care? all this does is encourage at home or back alley abortions because its still illegal for doctors to do it past 24 weeks. i literally dont understand this beyond "let make as many women septic as possible"
On second thought, maybe this is good.

Govt. throwing the feminists a bone after revealing that they’ve been facilatating a Pakistani Rape industry for over a decade.
Please, feminists don't give a shit about paki rape gangs. They'd be screaming for deportations, and end to migration if they did.

A lot of feminists are already deeply uneasy with it yeah-because systematic patriarchy and all, and thus a boy even raised as liberal as possible is still basically bad.

They wouldn't come out and say "abort or trans boys"-but many of them do think it.
You'd think these "highly intelligent" women would figure out they need men to do all the shit they refuse to do. At least they're killing themselves off. In 50 years the UK won't have feminists.
 
You'd think these "highly intelligent" women would figure out they need men to do all the shit they refuse to do
Women have somehow managed to convince themselves despite not wanting nor being capable of doing all the things men dominate which actually upholds society that they somehow can because...
because they just can okay?
 
Women have somehow managed to convince themselves despite not wanting nor being capable of doing all the things men dominate which actually upholds society that they somehow can because...
because they just can okay?
i think they assume that they'll still have a bunch of push over limp wristed men that follow their every word do it for them, completely ignorant of the fact that those types of men are also incapable of upholding society
 
  • Agree
Reactions: frozen_runner
The sex selection stuff is interesting to me. We weren’t allowed to know the sex of any of our kids (had a decent guess via the ultrasounds which resulted in some serious screeching by the tech..) and the reason you’re always given is that some people ( y which is meant, not British people) will abort girls.
Now that it’s quick and easy and risk free to determine sex via NIPT from ten weeks, will we see a real sex imbalance in rhe Pakistani type communities? If we do it will skew heavily towards males.
And that creates a problem if they don’t have enough of their own women to marry.
And on top of that, all the screeching about sex selection, but what you see in the white communities is a preference away from males. This surprised me no end when o was pregnant with a boy - i had people say things like ‘oh better luck next time’ or ‘oh you’ll get a girl next time.’ And i did but i didn’t care one way or the other whether I had a boy or a girl. It’d never crossed my mind before. Just wanted it to come out OK.
So then I’m on places like mumsnet and I’m seeing ‘gender regret’ threads. You’d think these would be things like ‘I’ve got six of one sex, one of the other would be great’ or ‘family require male’. But nope. Every single one was women not wanting a boy. They either wanted a mini me girl to dress up and have as a best friend or they just didn’t like boys.
This is so contrary to what you’re told that it stuck out to me. And I’m sure it’s different in immigrant communities.
I often wonder how many of those little boys got emasculated, abused and trooned out.
 
This is beyond the pale.

MFW
View attachment 7522601

Maybe Islam is right about women. Maybe universal suffrage was a bad idea. I'm not against some women having rights. But maybe they should be forced to be tested on it. Like getting a license. Hell, that would be a good idea across the board for voting or being involved in politics. But the powers that be want a dumbed down populous who won't noticed when their so-called representatives vote for shit like this. And vote for taking your rights away in the disguise of freedoms. Not saying this abortion thing is that.

PJW commentary.

And maybe Nicolae Ceaușescu was onto something when he enacted Decree 770 to completely ban abortion and birth control in Romania...

The sex selection stuff is interesting to me. We weren’t allowed to know the sex of any of our kids (had a decent guess via the ultrasounds which resulted in some serious screeching by the tech..) and the reason you’re always given is that some people ( y which is meant, not British people) will abort girls.
Now that it’s quick and easy and risk free to determine sex via NIPT from ten weeks, will we see a real sex imbalance in rhe Pakistani type communities? If we do it will skew heavily towards males.
And that creates a problem if they don’t have enough of their own women to marry.
And on top of that, all the screeching about sex selection, but what you see in the white communities is a preference away from males. This surprised me no end when o was pregnant with a boy - i had people say things like ‘oh better luck next time’ or ‘oh you’ll get a girl next time.’ And i did but i didn’t care one way or the other whether I had a boy or a girl. It’d never crossed my mind before. Just wanted it to come out OK.
So then I’m on places like mumsnet and I’m seeing ‘gender regret’ threads. You’d think these would be things like ‘I’ve got six of one sex, one of the other would be great’ or ‘family require male’. But nope. Every single one was women not wanting a boy. They either wanted a mini me girl to dress up and have as a best friend or they just didn’t like boys.
This is so contrary to what you’re told that it stuck out to me. And I’m sure it’s different in immigrant communities.
I often wonder how many of those little boys got emasculated, abused and trooned out.

India and China both have issues with their child limit policies leading to girls getting aborted so they can have boys instead. Trooning out boys seems to be another step towards that.
 
And maybe Nicolae Ceaușescu was onto something when he enacted Decree 770 to completely ban abortion and birth control in Romania...
I wouldn’t support a complete ban on either. There are always terrible cases where it’s going to be the mum or the baby, and doctors have to be able to act without fear or prosecution in those cases. That is rare, but it happens. Banning birth control again doesn’t help - married women also want to space out children. I wouldn’t have wanted one a year for decades, i had a couple close together as it was and felt really depleted after.
The other reason birth control won’t get banned is that it allows casual sex. No birth control would mean the casual hookup culture would stop overnight. That would hardly be a tragedy, but there you go.
I dont think birth control has been a great thing for us as a species either. All those hormones pissed out into the water, and the sexual degeneracy. But I don’t think it’s getting banned
 
What this opens the door to is self administered abortion late on, and that absolutely WILL kill women.
Serious question: how does prosecuting women for self-administered abortions make them safer? If they don't want to be pregnant, they're going to self-administer anyway and then not go to the doctor if they're dying.


(Total moid death btw.)
is giving birth to males a fucking sex crime now?
yes

How is a abortion right before birth not straight up murder? You can't use the 'its just a bunch of cells' argument at all. Its literally just a matter of location.
Yes, it's literally just a matter of location. If you occupy another person's body without that person's consent, you deserve death.
That breaindead black woman, who gave birth to a baby and got taken off life support? She was "human life", too. Killing her was more "evil" than aborting some other woman's unwanted child, because the costs of keeping her alive were monetary costs, paid by society. Theoretically, people who didn't want her dead could all chip in. The burden of carrying and giving birth to an unwanted fetus falls on the woman, and it's a physical burden and a physical violation, there shouldn't be a price tag on it, like there shouldn't be a price tag on organs and babies.

So then I’m on places like mumsnet and I’m seeing ‘gender regret’ threads. You’d think these would be things like ‘I’ve got six of one sex, one of the other would be great’ or ‘family require male’. But nope. Every single one was women not wanting a boy. They either wanted a mini me girl to dress up and have as a best friend or they just didn’t like boys.
They don't want to raise a baby only for him to grow up and become a coombrained A&N scrote.

The "mini me" comment is unfair, most women giving birth are too old to have their daughters as best friends at any point in life. They want girls because girls have a greater chance to be normal, and boys will be degenerate coomer trash.
 
Yes, it's literally just a matter of location. If you occupy another person's body without that person's consent, you deserve death.
That breaindead black woman, who gave birth to a baby and got taken off life support? She was "human life", too. Killing her was more "evil" than aborting some other woman's unwanted child, because the costs of keeping her alive were monetary costs, paid by society. Theoretically, people who didn't want her dead could all chip in. The burden of carrying and giving birth to an unwanted fetus falls on the woman, and it's a physical burden and a physical violation, there shouldn't be a price tag on it, like there shouldn't be a price tag on organs and babies.

On what moral basis does a completely innocent person deserve to lose their life because they were involuntarily transported into another person's body by that person?

So if somebody had a button they could press to teleport you or someone you loved into their body they get completely dominion over you to kill you whenever and for whatever reason they please even if you or the person you could be loved could be rescued? If I developed a way to sew people into living bodies I could kill freely as long as the person who I was sewing the victims into agreed with me?


. The burden of carrying and giving birth to an unwanted fetus falls on the woman, and it's a physical burden and a physical violation, there shouldn't be a price tag on it, like there shouldn't be a price tag on organs and babies.

On what basis are you elevating the difficulty of pregnancy into a class all its own? Transcendentally more difficult than all the other reasons that people kill that we don't excuse? Sure its difficult but Father's have a high burden too in their own way. Once men nut they are given no choice what happens. He's completely at the mercy of the whims of the woman who has a choice even after birth to give up the kid. In countries like France he is not even permitted (without fighting a difficult battlefor permission) to find out whether the woman is trying to cuck him into raising someone else's kid.

Lets get into the mind of a hypothetical person who doesn't want to be burdened with children at all. What burden would you choose? A: You carry a kid physically for 9 months with pain the last couple days but you have the option to get rid of it at any time. Even after birth. Or B: You don't have any choice on whether you're going to get 18+ years of being financially assraped? Shouldn't they be allowed to kill the baby whenever they want? What about the the man who's life is over now that he found his wife was cheating on him? I mean his life seriously could be impaired permanently far beyond what a pregnancy does to a woman. Shouldn't he be allowed to kill too?
 
Last edited:
Lets get into the mind of a hypothetical person who doesn't want to be burdened with children at all. What burden would you choose? A: You carry a kid physically for 9 months with pain the last couple days but you have the option to get rid of it at any time. Even after birth. Or B: You don't have any choice on whether you're going to get 18+ years of being financially assraped? Shouldn't they be allowed to kill the baby whenever they want? What about the the man who's life is over now that he found his wife was cheating on him? I mean his life seriously could be impaired permanently far beyond what a pregnancy does to a woman. Shouldn't he be allowed to kill too?
Why try to argue in good faith with a legbeard? It's not like they're in any danger of ever getting pregnant in the first place.
 
Back