V1444 – Abortion (Amendment) Bill 2019 Watch

Poll: Should this bill be passed into law?
As many are of the opinion, Aye (10)
21.74%
On the contrary, No (28)
60.87%
Abstain (8)
17.39%
This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#1
V1444 – Abortion (Amendment) Bill 2019, Joep95 MP


A
BILL TO
Amend the abortion act based on modern day viability

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1-Amendments
(1) In Section 1(1) of the Abortion Act 1967 replace twenty-fourth with twenty-first

2- Citation and commencement
(1) This Act extends to the United Kingdom.
(2) The provisions of this Act come into force on Royal Assent
(3) This Act may be referred to as the Abortion (Amendment) Act 2019

Notes
The Abortion limit is 24 weeks based on viability however this was set in 1990 and science and technology has advanced since then with children born at 21 weeks surviving http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...e-parents.html
https://www.today.com/health/born-21...g-baby-t118610

This bill moves the limit to the point of viability.

Legislation

0
JMR2019.
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 weeks ago
#2
Aye
0
CatusStarbright
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 weeks ago
#3
I have voted to keep the status quo which I believe is perfectly adequate.
1
Tanqueray91
  • Study Helper
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 weeks ago
#4
I'm No on this, not because of the Bill itself, but because I don't agree with viability > mother's (or father's) choice.
1
Stiff Little Fingers
  • TSR Support Team
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 weeks ago
#5
Absolutely not. One or two miracles don't change that 21 weeks is not really a viable date. This is bad policy making and shouldn't be accepted by the house
1
London090
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 weeks ago
#6
Aye.
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
Absolutely not. One or two miracles don't change that 21 weeks is not really a viable date. This is bad policy making and shouldn't be accepted by the house
Well at what point can a baby survive?
0
Pugglet
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 weeks ago
#8
No definitely not
21 weeks is still too risky and you can’t ensure a survival at that stage.
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by Pugglet)
No definitely not
21 weeks is still too risky and you can’t ensure a survival at that stage.
You can’t ensure survival at any stage
0
Pugglet
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by Joep95)
You can’t ensure survival at any stage
There is a greater chance at 24 weeks than 21
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by Pugglet)
There is a greater chance at 24 weeks than 21
There’s also a greater chance at 33 weeks and like 24 33 is just an arbitrary number.
0
Stiff Little Fingers
  • TSR Support Team
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by Joep95)
Well at what point can a baby survive?
The probability passes 50% (i.e. more likely to survive than die) at 24 weeks, hence why the limit is 24 weeks
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
The probability passes 50% (i.e. more likely to survive than die) at 24 weeks, hence why the limit is 24 weeks
So a baby can’t survive at 21 weeks?
0
Stiff Little Fingers
  • TSR Support Team
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by Joep95)
So a baby can’t survive at 21 weeks?
It can, but it's not likely to. It's not reached the limit of viability (where long term survival probability tops 50%). As I've repeatedly said, gambling on low probability is not good policy
0
saffburst
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 weeks ago
#15
accidentally voted aye, can i change to no pls??
0
CatusStarbright
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by saffburst)
accidentally voted aye, can i change to no pls??
Saracen's Fez
0
Saracen's Fez
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by saffburst)
accidentally voted aye, can i change to no pls??
As I'm now able to do that again, I'll change that for you before I declare the result.
0
Saracen's Fez
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#18
One Aye has been removed due to an ineligible vote by Xanimede.

Two Noes have been removed due to ineligible votes by EmCharles and GetTheLondonLook.

One No has been removed due to a double vote in seat 44 (Aph for Bluestar511).

One No has been removed due to a double vote in seat 48 (mr T 999 for London090).

One Aye has been changed to a No for seat 30 (saffburst).
Last edited by Saracen's Fez; 3 weeks ago
0
Saracen's Fez
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#19
The Ayes to the right: 10
The Noes to the left: 28
Abstentions: 8

The Noes have it! The Noes have it! Unlock!

Turnout: 92%
Last edited by Saracen's Fez; 3 weeks ago
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Is the plastic tax enough to protect the environment?

Yes (4)
4%
No (96)
96%

Watched Threads

View All