This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
B1459 – Abortion Bill 2019, Joep95 MP
A
BILL TO
Remove section 1(1)(a) from the abortion act

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-Amendment
(1) Repeal S.1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act 1967
(2) insert into S.1 of the Abortion Act 1967:
(a) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner ifthat a court rules on the balance of probabilities that the child is a result of rape.


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 Act 2019


Notes
Paracosm “You made the child, own the consequences and step up to the mark.”
JMR2019 “If they didn’t want a child, they should have taken caution beforehand.”
Saunders16 “Have sex, face the consequences of your actions.”

I hide you lot will hold women to the same standards here.
0
DayneD89
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
Not a chance ^.^
0
ns_2
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
Unlikely the House will support this...
0
LeapingLucy
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
(Not that I would have supported this bill anyway, but...)

1) The multiple typos in this bill suggests that its production was extremely rushed. This is clearly reflected in the content.

2) What type of court will be asked to adjudicate whether a pregnancy was the result of rape? Criminal courts? Civil courts? Or a court set up specifically for this purpose?

3) These cases will obviously have to be expedited, in order to allow for an abortion to take place as soon as possible, if ruled permissible. Yet your bill does not seem to allocate any funding to the already overburdened courts for this purpose - does this mean that there will be an even longer waiting time for other cases?
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
I applaud Joe for his persistence but obviously I’ll be voting against this
0
Lord Vitiate
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
Let us analyse this bit by bit.

1) Repeal of section 1, subsection 1, paragraph (a) of the Abortion Act 1967.
Currently, the Act reads "that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family." While I characterise this as an unjust limitation on the right of women to seek an abortion, the repeal of this takes, for want of a better term, the biscuit. Not only would it involve an unjustified revocation of a woman's right to choose but it is also an extremely archaic thing to do.

2) Insertion of the following into section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967: "(a) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner ifthat a court rules on the balance of probabilities that the child is a result of rape."
Now, it will be no surprise to the honourable and right honourable members of this House that I am absolutely and utterly opposed to the insertion of this provision into section 1 of the 1967 Act. Once again, it represents an unjustified revocation of women's rights. The right to choose is an important one because of this one important detail: the woman has to bear and give birth to the child, the male does not. While it is greatly unjust that men do not, in law, have provision to relinquish their parental obligations if the woman does not consent to an abortion, it is not wise nor advisable that we go backwards in terms of abortion and relinquishing of parental obligations.

I am wholeheartedly opposed to this Bill and I encourage both my colleagues in Labour and other honourable and right honourable members of this House to walk through the "No" lobby upon division.
0
Saunders16
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
No, there is a very clear and easy-to-understand difference between a woman being able to control what can live inside her body, and a man being able to move the monetary burden for a child from himself to wider society.
0
username4391786
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by keepholtingon)
an unjustified revocation of a woman's right to choose
Must be day 453 of the bloke's continuous attack on women with his needless proposals on abortion on this forum.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
Absolutely not. This would return to a situation of dangerous back-street abortions costing the lives of women, and would represent a u-turn in women's rights.

Also I am sad to see that Joe's bills are still poor in terms of formatting and SPAG.
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
(Original post by Saunders16)
No, there is a very clear and easy-to-understand difference between a woman being able to control what can live inside her body, and a man being able to move the monetary burden for a child from himself to wider society.
But as you said have sex face the consequences of your actions.
0
Stiff Little Fingers
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
Absolutely not, and I hope the house will reject this continued submission of MRA nonsense.

(Original post by Joep95)
But as you said have sex face the consequences of your actions.
There is a huge difference between a woman asserting control of her reproductive system and a bloke trying to coerce control from her through whining about money.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
Can somebody explain what this bill actually tries to do. I went to the notes but they were full of waffle.
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
Absolutely not, and I hope the house will reject this continued submission of MRA nonsense.



There is a huge difference between a woman asserting control of her reproductive system and a bloke trying to coerce control from her through whining about money.
The first results in ending a life and the second allows men to keep what they own without giving women a weapon to use against them
(Original post by Rakas21)
Can somebody explain what this bill actually tries to do. I went to the notes but they were full of waffle.
It gives the people who say have sex face the consequences what they want, only allows abortion because of rape, a threat to the life of the mother or When that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
(Original post by Concited)
Must be day 453 of the bloke's continuous attack on women with his needless proposals on abortion on this forum.
As much as you dislike the stuff it seems to be the only stuff to consistently get vobots like yourself engaging, maybe do something yourself rather than just attacking me personally?
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#15
(Original post by Joep95)
As much as you dislike the stuff it seems to be the only stuff to consistently get vobots like yourself engaging, maybe do something yourself rather than just attacking me personally?
If you think calling people 'vobots' will help engagement then you'd be wrong.
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#16
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
If you think calling people 'vobots' will help engagement then you'd be wrong.
It’s a fair description of him
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 year ago
#17
(Original post by Concited)
Must be day 453 of the bloke's continuous attack on women with his needless proposals on abortion on this forum.
Well saying it's "needless" is vert subjective, maybe all your Liberal Party stuff on drugs is needless? Maybe all the bills we produce are needless, and our lives?

I must applaud you for counting the days though, dont' think anyone else has.
0
username4391786
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 year ago
#18
(Original post by Joep95)
As much as you dislike the stuff it seems to be the only stuff to consistently get vobots like yourself engaging, maybe do something yourself rather than just attacking me personally?
whether i dislike it or not is not really important, i'm just calling out your campaign against women.
0
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 year ago
#19
Nay, and I could put the effort in to explain that but I’d be putting in more work into a side comment than went into the actual bill so I’m not gonna bother.

Also this game is ****ing toxic if we’re calling people who are actually do post “vobots”. No wonder the game is struggling to recruit new players when on a daily basis we have a small contingent of the community ******** on anyone not willing to commit a full blood sacrifice to a lame internet politics game. Not good enough that these players are posting or even have a rich history of involvement in the game beforehand. One day when all that remains is an echo chamber of 3 or 4 purists it will be seen that this culture is far more damaging than even actual vobots.
0
Joleee
Badges: 19
#20
Report 1 year ago
#20
no. i've already said my peace about policy in the last reading so i won't bother to repeat it all, but the cost of care doesn't go away - the state pays for it. if we don't have individuals taking responsibility for their lives and rely too heavily on the state it leads to social and economic breakdown.

fyi child support is about the child - not about the parent. the child cannot consent to being financially abandoned by his/her parent, so the state steps in to protect persons who lack capacity. suggesting that we won't protect the future generation is a bit ridiculous.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
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

Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (616)
33.72%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (768)
42.04%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (362)
19.81%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (81)
4.43%

Watched Threads

View All
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