Should abortion have been decriminalised?
While women will no longer be prosecuted for aborting their pregnancies at any point up to birth, an exclusive Telegraph poll reveals that 95 per cent of more than 11,000 respondents are against this decision.
MPs voted with a majority of 242 to decriminalise seeking an abortion at any stage of gestation for any reason, removing the threat of women being investigated or arrested for seeking termination.
Telegraph readers' reasons against the amendment ranged from a belief that life begins at conception to concerns over late-term abortions and the contrast with ongoing restrictions on assisted dying.
'This law has legalised murder'
In a world in which access to birth control is readily available and many who want to be parents are unable to have children, some readers feel strongly that abortion should not be a legal option at all.
Giles Darling argues: 'Imagine how many people alive today could have been legally terminated if this abortion-up-until-birth policy had been the law in the past? A child with a congenital condition or an unwanted genetic trait could miss their chance to be an impactful future scientist or entrepreneur.'
Rosemary Wells writes: 'A baby at full term or even six weeks before birth is capable of living outside the womb and is completely sentient. They're conscious and able to feel pain. This law has legalised murder. This is legalising the destruction of anyone who is inconvenient and unwanted.'
Linda Richards, who says she never thought the amendment would be voted through, comments: 'If these women don't want the child, give it up for adoption.'
Bernie Carolan, who wrote to his MP about the matter, says: 'I asked her to vote no, as medical professionals have publicly raised grave concerns about the procedures involved in late-term abortions. These are not abstract debates – it's a matter of life and human dignity.'
' After 22 weeks, it is absolutely not on'
Though many readers do not oppose the concept of abortion, and the law does not change restrictions on when doctors can administer abortions, there is a shared sense that allowing mothers to terminate pregnancies up until full term is a step too far.
Judith Gordon-Nichols says: 'Abortion can be appropriate if, for instance, a woman or girl is pregnant as a result of rape or if the baby would be very disabled, but otherwise, no. After 22 weeks, it is absolutely not on.'
Sharing a similar sentiment, Nicola Bradley comments: 'I think this is disgraceful. I am pro-choice and think that every woman should have the right to a termination on demand, but only up to 16 weeks maximum. After that, it should only be available for medical or health reasons with proper controls and penalties.'
Sheridan Cooper writes: 'There is no need for this. I'm pro-choice, but the cut-off point is there for a reason. Unless the mother's life is at risk, there should be no termination beyond 24 weeks.'
'It's a slippery slope to legal death at any age'
The decision to decriminalise abortion has been made at a time when Parliament is also in an ongoing debate on the topic of assisted dying.
Readers speculate that the change will set a precedent for any future ruling over assisted dying.
Louis Degas points out: 'We allow mothers to kill their potentially very healthy unborn child, but we are still debating the right for terminally ill, sane adults to end their own lives. Something seems wrong.'
On the other hand, Denise Crowe is concerned about the ease with which Parliament is allowing laws on lives to pass. 'Another totally wrong decision by members of Parliament,' she argues. 'Next, the assisted dying Bill will be passed, and then it will be a slippery slope to legal death at any age.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
16 minutes ago
- BBC News
Be ready to be shocked and offended at university, students told
Students should be ready to be shocked and offended at university, according to the man in charge of ensuring free speech on Ahmed, from the Office for Students (OfS), which regulates universities, told the BBC that exposure to views which students might find offensive was "part of the process of education".It comes as the OfS published guidance for universities in England on how a new law, designed to protect free speech, will work when it comes into force from had requested clarity from the OfS on how to best uphold freedom of speech, after the University of Sussex was fined £585,000 for failing to do so in March. The university was issued with the fine earlier this year under existing powers, after the OfS said its policy on trans and non-binary equality had a "chilling effect" on freedom of Stock had previously resigned from her post as philosophy professor at the university, following protests by students against her gender-critical university has begun a legal challenge against the fine, arguing that the investigation was flawed. Universities UK, which represents 141 institutions, said at the time of the fine that it would write to the OfS to clarify what would represent a breach of freedom of speech now say they are "pleased" the OfS has taken on feedback, and would "make sure universities are appropriately supported to comply" with the new this summer, the new law will place a stronger responsibility on universities in England to uphold freedom of speech and academic OfS can sanction universities, with the potential for fines to run into millions of pounds, if they are found to have failed to do every aspect of university life - from protests to debates, training and teaching - is covered by the new guidelines on how the law will be returning students, or those starting university this year, there may be not be a noticeable immediate change, but Dr Ahmed says the law is about the freedom for anything to be discussed or directly to students, the director for free speech said: "You should expect to face views you might find shocking or offensive, and you should be aware that's part of the process of education."He added that students should be able to express any view, no matter how offensive it is to others, as long as it is not outside what is generally allowed by law, such as harassment or unlawful discrimination. 'Be respectful of everyone's opinions' Paris and Marie-Louise, who both study mental health nursing at the University of Salford, said they felt that being respectful of others' opinions is key. Paris said she thought it was important to be able to "express your emotions and feelings without being disrespectful", and allow others to do so too."I think it's important to be able to allow other people to express themselves, because at the end of the day everyone's gone through different situations that may lead to them having different opinions," she Marie-Louise said freedom of speech "doesn't mean you have to be nasty" or "act out of manner", but rather "just stay true to yourself".In the OfS guidelines, 54 detailed scenarios are used to explore how the new law might be interpreted, with some likely to provoke debate and even looks at "simulated military checkpoints" as part of student protests about Palestine - something that has happened in the United States, but not on campuses in the right for peaceful student protests is balanced with universities being able to limit the time and place they happen, in order to ensure no students are intimidated or prevented from attending guidelines also make it clear that any agreements with foreign states that enable censorship on campus must be changed or scrapped. 'Offensive, shocking, controversial or disturbing' But not everyone accepts there are serious issues around freedom of expression at challenged on the scale of the issue, Dr Ahmed pointed to polling carried out for the OfS, which he said suggests a fifth of academics do not feel free to discuss controversial topics in their issues most frequently highlighted by those expressing concern were race and racism, as well as sex and gender, with women more likely to feel unable to speak out. The guidelines also make clear that the OfS expects universities to support and protect academics whose views might provoke protest from students, and not to delay speaking up in their Ahmed told the BBC universities could not sack a lecturer "simply because that person expresses views students find offensive, shocking, controversial or disturbing - and that's essential to academic freedom."What is less clear is what happens when an academic leaves a job because they feel the situation is Jo Phoenix won a case for constructive dismissal with the Open University, and a tribunal found she had faced harassment for her gender-critical employment tribunal, due to take place next year, will look at an allegation by a different academic that he was constructively dismissed after students boycotted his teaching over his opinion that racial diversity programmes had gone too the meantime, the law will come into effect, with a complaints system to follow. Students will be able to complain to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator if they feel free speech or academic freedom is not upheld, while academics or visiting speakers will go direct to the OfS. Universities have expressed unease about the new system, pointing out they already have a legal obligation to uphold free speech. A Universities UK spokesperson said: "We strongly agree that universities must be places where free speech is protected and promoted."It added that issues were complex, and said it was pleased the regulator had taken on board feedback on its previous draft guidelines.
Daily Mail
34 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Labour climate envoy 'living like a travel writer' after racking up 75,000 air miles in just nine months
Labour's climate envoy has been accused of living like a 'travel writer' after it emerged she has effectively circled the globe three times in her new role. Rachel Kyte has clocked up more than 75,000 air miles since her appointment in September – costing taxpayers almost £40,000. The majority of her flights were in business class, according to details released to The Telegraph via a Freedom of Information request. Ms Kyte, an academic and fan of environmental group Extinction Rebellion, was recruited by Ed Miliband in September as the UK's new 'special representative for climate'. She has previously admitted her carbon footprint was 'a source of deep discomfort', but she visited a foreign country every month between October and May. Her personal carbon footprint for the flights alone could be as high as 15 metric tonnes of CO2. The average carbon footprint per person in the UK is around 12.7 metric tonnes of CO2, for a whole year. Ms Kyte racked up the miles – costing a total of £38,769 – on trips to Dar es Salaam, Cape Town, Washington DC and Riyadh, among other far-flung destinations. According to the Government's website, her objectives are to 'build the UK's profile as a progressive climate leader' and 'drive for results in the clean energy transition and green and inclusive growth'. She told the New Statesman in 2021, while working at a university in Massachusetts: 'Having worked internationally for years, and with family on the other side of the Atlantic and friends spread across the world, the carbon footprint wrapped up in my social and professional identity is a source of deep discomfort.' The Foreign Office said all Ms Kyte's travel complied with internal travel policies, and her 'international diplomacy has supported efforts to unlock more private finance to tackle the climate crisis and taken forward our mission to be a clean energy superpower'. Richard Tice, deputy leader of Reform UK, said: 'The climate envoy is more like a travel writer travelling around the world to exotic locations.' Earlier this year, the Mail revealed that Ms Kyte was among a string of Extinction Rebellion cheerleaders recruited by Mr Miliband to government roles. She is one of a trio of advisers who have expressed public admiration for the radical direct action group that has repeatedly brought chaos to Britain's streets. Ms Kyte previously sported an Extinction Rebellion badge at an international climate summit and praised an eco-activist who glued herself to the pavement outside Shell's headquarters in London. The Mail also revealed this year that civil servants at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) spent more than £700,000 of taxpayer cash on luxury air travel last year, with staff flying business and premium economy 237 times in 12 months.
Daily Mail
34 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
ROBERT HARDMAN: Gleaming George is back in Trafalgar Square... and still standing on U.S. soil
Standing alongside the British and American flags, as the Band of the Grenadier Guards played a faultless Star-Spangled Banner, a US President received the warmest of welcomes back to a sweltering London yesterday afternoon – with not a single protester to be seen or heard. A few months short of the expected state visit of President Donald Trump, VIPs from both sides of the Atlantic had assembled in Trafalgar Square for the first warm-up event – the return of President George Washington to the plinth where he was originally erected in 1921. He is now back again, opposite Lord Nelson's column and looking spotless, too, after extensive restoration work. Unchanged, however, are the foundations beneath the statue. Since Washington had allegedly vowed never to set foot on British soil (and never did), his plinth was originally planted on a bed of imported soil from his native Virginia – and that is how he remains. Even during recent repair work, he rested on a pallet to keep him off British ground. While the rededication of the statue was certainly timely, given Mr Trump's impending arrival, the catalyst for the restoration had actually been next year's 250th anniversary of American independence. As Governor of Virginia Glenn Youngkin reflected at a National Gallery ceremony ahead of yesterday's unveiling, this moment was a tribute to 'the birth of our nation and the foundation of our friendship'. The phrase 'special relationship' was liberally peppered across speeches from speakers including former prime minister Baroness May and Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy. The new US ambassador to Britain, Warren Stephens, explained: 'As George Washington reminds us, the special relationship was birthed in conflict but quickly became a beacon of light and peace.' His counterpart, Lord Mandelson, warned American visitors not to be offended if they find that their national hero does not stay looking spotless for long: 'Just remember, the pigeons only drop on the very best.' George Washington has now stood in Trafalgar Square for more than a century following the gift of the statue in 1914 – though it could not be properly erected until after the First World War. George V decided on a prime spot in Trafalgar Square, in front of the National Gallery. Back then, a huge crowd heard the welcome speech by the foreign secretary, Lord Curzon, who embraced Washington as an ancestral Brit – 'one of the greatest Englishmen who ever lived because though he fought us and vanquished us, he was fighting for ideals and principles which were as sacred to us as they were to the American people.' A century on, a number of concerned Americans, led by Virginian businessman John Gerber, had noticed that Washington was looking rather forlorn. The mundane words on his Portland Stone plinth – 'Presented To The People Of Great Britain And Ireland By The Commonwealth Of Virginia 1921' – were barely legible. Passers-by had no idea who he was. Moved by Curzon's words, the Friends of the Washington Statue set to work and, yesterday, the great man reappeared from beneath a huge velvet drape, complete with new inscriptions around the base: 'Rededicated In Honour Of Enduring Friendship 2025'; 'To Our Common Ideals And Principles'; and 'To Our Common Sacrifices'. As for Washington's alleged allergy to British soil, Mr Gerber acknowledged that 'it was probably never said, but it's a good story'. Nonetheless, Governor Youngkin and his wife, Suzanne, had flown in with some unusual luggage – a cannister of fresh Virginian soil to sprinkle around the base.
