This works both ways love

Most of us will be familiar with the “12-week” rule – the longstanding social convention that dictates that women mustn’t tell anyone they’re pregnant before the 12-week mark, “in case something happens”. It’s time to talk about the insidious effect it has on women who suffer a miscarriage early in their pregnancy.

An estimated 650 babies are miscarried every day in the UK, with the vast majority occurring during the first trimester. Most of these losses will be suffered in silence, because it’s considered so socially unacceptable to reveal that you’re pregnant before 12 weeks – let alone that you were pregnant, but now you’re not. It’s baffling that in 2019 we seem so wedded to an anachronistic superstition……

Yes, but we’ve also got rather a lot of people saying that in the early stages it is nothing but some gob of meiotic cells that can – possibly should – be done away with. With no more consideration than a blowing of the nose.

Anti-Cakeism sorta demands that either it’s something to be mourned and not killed or it’s a nothing that can be excised at will but not noted.

Right decision – eventually

The Court of Appeal has blocked a mentally ill woman’s abortion after the Catholic church warned it would infringe her human rights.

Three senior judges overturned a ruling made on Friday that the woman, who is in her 20s and 22 weeks pregnant, should have a termination against her wishes because it was in her best interests.

Very twisted reasoning here

Trans people need to fight to protect abortion, this ban impacts us too


….but we face our own particular set of challenges on top of access to abortion. This includes access to sperm banks and freezing eggs to be able to pro-create, as hormone therapy and especially genital surgery can render people unable to conceive or get pregnant. Making sure trans people have access to this is therefore a reproductive rights issue.

So artificial conception is the same thing and cause as unconception?

America’s abortion war on women

It’s really not quite that simple:

Moreover, as tempting as it is to think of Ivey, the executioner’s friend, as a monster who happens to be female – in which the worst qualities of Agatha Trunchbull, Dolores Umbridge and Margaret Atwood’s Aunt Lydia manifest as a homely-looking 74-year-old – she runs a state in which a majority of both sexes oppose abortion rights.
Nationally, the slight gender differences on abortion choice have been related by one US pollster, Celinda Lake, to religious faith. “Women are more religious than men, and so women are slightly less pro-choice than men.”

Yes, yes, however. Democracy. Isn’t it supposed to be the people who make the law?

Interesting linguistic question – what is an abortion service?

Google has already come under pressure in the past for running advertisements that appear to violate its own policies against misrepresentation in advertising, yet the company continues to publish ads for clinics that seem to offer abortion services but are actually opposed to terminations and try to dissuade women from seeking them out.

Offering abortions, yes, we know what that means. Come over here Honey and lie down while I turn the vacuum cleaner on.


But abortion services? Is this just some modernism for abortions?

Or, well, are we talking about some wider thing. Say, an explanation that sure, there is indeed abortion. There’s also this mother and baby home. Adoption exits and there’s a massive hunger for new borns. So, now we’ve offered the service of explaining your options, what?

Or even, is there some Federal funding restriction here? It’s possible to gain access to a flow of tax cash if you’re offering “abortion services” but not if you’re offering “abortions”?


Of all the abominations against women, forcing them to bear a child against their will is one of the most life-changing cruelties.

It’s certainly life changing. Possibly even life saving or life creating dependent upon your view of the vivacity of the foetus. But cruel? That’s to be argued, isn’t it?

In the UK, one in three women will have an abortion in their lifetime – neither shame nor tragedy, just a common medical procedure.

It’s a tragedy for at least one of the life forms involved Polly.

Legalisation and contraception would

What was it? Reduce the incidence?

A third of pregnancies among women in their early 20s end in abortion for the first time, official data has revealed.

Every woman in their 20s has an absolute right to free, buckshee, and effective, contraception. So, how’d that work out then?

Well, it would appear that lowering the cost of each incidence of shagging has raised the frequency. Not unexpected as a result. But the elasticity seems to be that it raises the incidence of abortion. Not quite the elasticity that was predicted really.

Well, yes, that’s the point

Today, the state of Georgia passed a law banning abortion at the point a heartbeat can be detected – usually by six weeks. The move is, according to Renitta Shannon, Democratic member of the Georgia House of Representatives, “a death sentence for women”; those who undertake the procedure past the ordained point will be liable for criminal proceedings, as will the medical professionals who carry them out.

Previously set at 20 weeks, House Bill 481 – nicknamed the Heart Beat bill – “effectively outlaws abortion in Georgia as most women will tell you by the time they know they are pregnant, a heartbeat can already be detectable,” Rep Shannon explains.

Not that I think it a sensible law to be making but the very point of it is to effectively ban abortion in Georgia. The people who passed the law are quite aware of the implications here.

It may well be honey

Today a coalition of women’s healthcare organisations and Royal Colleges have written to the national broadcaster demanding its ban on providing information about abortion is reviewed.

“Abortion is not a ‘contentious issue’ — it is a routine part of NHS-funded healthcare, provided by doctors, nurses and midwives every day in hospitals and clinics across the country,” they write.

It’s still contentious. To prove that it isn’t you’d have to prove that there were no votes against the most recent changes to abortion law when it went through Parliament….

This is a fair enough question actually

Was it planned? There’s something so gothic about being asked if your baby is wanted. Clearly the only response to this is, “No, so I’ll put it in the recycling bin along with the other unsolicited junk mail.”


As well as my two children, I’ve had the odd abortion and miscarriage, so this is not my first time on the pregnancy rodeo.

Given that one did, voluntarily, get put out for the recycling bin it seems like a fair enough question actually.

Interesting, isn’t it?

An unborn baby was removed from its mother’s womb for life-changing surgery before being put safely back inside, her mother has revealed.

Surgeons performed the pioneering operation at 24 weeks’ gestation after scans revealed the feotus had spina bifida.

The condition can leave sufferers with walking difficulties and even paralysis because the spinal cord does not fully develop during pregnancy.

Surgeons from University College London and Great Ormond Street Hospital, along with Belgian colleagues, managed to repair the spinal cord and it is now hoped the baby will be born healthily in April.

At what point does the ability to correct defects means that abortion of one with defects isn’t morally justified?

Don’t forget, the 24 week limit doesn’t apply in the case of defects.

We are already saying “24 weeks is close enough to human that no abortion. Except in the case of defects.” So, at what point of repairability does the “except” no longer apply?

Amazingly, this isn’t true

Common, in-clinic procedures performed by other specialists have far greater risks than abortions. The death rate associated with colonoscopies is 40 times greater than that associated with abortion, according to the American Public Health Association.

I’m really pretty sure that one person doesn’t die per colonoscopy.

Yes, yes, I know. Person and foetus etc. But still that’s an incorrect statement above.

The logic works

The world’s first ever no-kill eggs are now on sale in Berlin after German scientists found an easy way to determine a chick’s gender before it hatches, in a breakthrough that could put an end to the annual live shredding of billions of male chicks worldwide.

The patented “Seleggt” process can determine the sex of a chick just nine days after an egg has been fertilised. Male eggs are processed into animal feed, leaving only female chicks to hatch at the end of a 21-day incubation period.

“If you can determine the sex of a hatching egg you can entirely dispense with the culling of live male chicks,” said Seleggt managing director Dr Ludger Breloh, who spearheaded the four-year programme by German supermarket Rewe Group to make its own-brand eggs more sustainable.

We rather expect that abortion reduces infanticide in humans…..

To be a little harsh here Honey

“There’s your baby’s heartbeat,” said the sonographer, pointing to the screen as we listened to the thump-thump-thump that was the most magical sound I had ever heard. A week later, the next scan showed that this beautiful twinkling heartbeat had gone, and our baby had died. I couldn’t face having to wait to pass the pregnancy sac, so I opted for surgery: a procedure called an ERPC: “evacuation of retained products of conception”.

I remember thinking that “evacuation” sounded like something you’d have done to your bowels. “Products of conception” might be the correct clinical term,  but to us, as a grieving couple, that was our dead baby: our much longed-for baby, who was already loved and anticipated as a unique human being, not simply an object to be discarded.

From the outset of your antenatal care, the NHS refers to “your baby”,  acknowledging that the stage of gestation doesn’t determine the meaning of the pregnancy to the family. But as soon as the pregnancy is “non-viable”, there’s an immediate and stark switch in the language used. Bethan Raymond lost her daughter Bella at 16 weeks. “I was told over the phone that my – still very much alive – baby girl had a fatal chromosomal abnormality, and would therefore die,” she told me. “I’d barely had time to process this when I was asked how I wanted to dispose of the products of conception.”

Well, what language should we be using then? If you didn’t want the baby and were having an abortion then you’d scream blue bloody murder if we all went around saying you were getting rid of your baby, wouldn’t you? It’s a gob of meiotic cells or summat if you don’t want it.

And the thing is, what it is isn’t dependent upon your view. It is – it is what it is too.

An interesting little test

More than 60 women from far north Queensland have been forced to go interstate to have abortions, often to Sydney, in the first six months of 2018.

Other women from regional parts of Queensland, where abortion remains a criminal offence under the 1899 criminal code, have taken round trips of up to 2,600km to undergo procedures, health professionals and support workers have told Guardian Australia.

Abortion is more difficult in one part of Oz. The general culture is rather similar across all parts of Oz. Thus we’ve a natural experiment.

Given that difficulty of abortion we might assume, say, a higher rate of single mothers, or teenage ones. Or it’s possible to assume the other way, in that the difficulty leads to very much less unprotected sex.

So, which way does the evidence swing? Does legal availability of abortion – easily that is – lead to more or fewer single/teenage mothers?