Abortion Act not Working

[FightingFat]

Tell us something we don’t know!

The intentions of the 1967 Act (last amended in 1990) were to allow abortion in cases where it would prevent serious injury (which included severe mental suffering) in mother or child. It did not create legalised abortion or enshrine a woman’s right to choose, as supporters of abortion on demand have often since complained. Two doctors were required to certify that serious harm would result if an abortion were not carried out.
Although in practice we seem to have abortion on demand - there have been some 6.7 million abortions conducted under the Act, and the figures are rising, to the point where they are running at 200,000 abortions a year and, according to The Lancet, almost one in three pregnancies in Europe ending in abortion - pro-abortion campaigners are clear that it is not a right.
For those opposed to abortion altogether, or who are prepared to tolerate it only in what can be regarded as exception circumstances, those figures are a horrifying indication that the Act is not only not working as intended, but is subject to widespread, almost universal, abuse.

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/andrewmckie/oct07/abortionact.htm

 

[Agnes_Ainsworth]

Tell us something we don’t know!

The intentions of the 1967 Act (last amended in 1990) were to allow abortion in cases where it would prevent serious injury (which included severe mental suffering) in mother or child. It did not create legalised abortion or enshrine a woman’s right to choose, as supporters of abortion on demand have often since complained. Two doctors were required to certify that serious harm would result if an abortion were not carried out.
Although in practice we seem to have abortion on demand - there have been some 6.7 million abortions conducted under the Act, and the figures are rising, to the point where they are running at 200,000 abortions a year and, according to The Lancet, almost one in three pregnancies in Europe ending in abortion - pro-abortion campaigners are clear that it is not a right.
For those opposed to abortion altogether, or who are prepared to tolerate it only in what can be regarded as exception circumstances, those figures are a horrifying indication that the Act is not only not working as intended, but is subject to widespread, almost universal, abuse.

An added clarification!.. In England about 95% of abortions are performed under the clause; “risk to physical or mental health of the patient”. Considering that there is a general consensus in the medical world that abortion is more likely to result in physical or mental problems, makes a nonsense of the law.
blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/andrewmckie/oct07/abortionact.htm

 

[gam197]

Good article written by obituaries editor…

The health minister, Dawn Primarolo, seems to be living up to her civil servants’ nickname for her: “Dim Prawnorolo”

The intention of the 1967 Act was not to create abortion of demand. With 200,000 abortions yearly, this “Act” is clearly not working.

 

[Kaninchen]

For those opposed to abortion altogether, or who are prepared to tolerate it only in what can be regarded as exception circumstances, those figures are a horrifying indication that the Act is not only not working as intended, but is subject to widespread, almost universal, abuse.

The thing is that there doesn’t exist any group, or potential coalition of groups, to make abortion illegal in the UK - it’s pretty much an ‘avoid like the plague’ issue politically - or even, I’d suggest, for anything beyond possibly reducing the number of weeks available for terminations as science progresses.

Since the European Court of Human Rights decided (in the case ‘Vo v’s France’) that they weren’t going to go near abortion as an issue - leaving it entirely up to the individual States - there’s no external source of pressure either.