abortion limit to be cut

[tweeni]

i read that they want to cut it to 20 weeks. i personally think that isn't early enough when the youngest gestational age of a baby who has survived with no disability is 19 weeks 6 days.anyone elses thoughts?

[Pruni]

Message withdrawn

[Pruni]

Message withdrawn

[tweeni]

why was was your opinion. i'm not anti-abortionin the slightest i think it depends on the individual what would be best for a child and i know its a decision that needs a lot of thought but i'd have thought it was one that someone could make before say 18 weeks. surely its better to have as little trauma as possible anyway if you do have to go through it, which means if it has to be done it is better to do so in the earliest possible stages rather than the latest.

[pacinofan]

If it is cut to 20 weeks, let's hope that amnios and their results are available sooner. For those of us who would choose termination following the results of an amnio, lowering the abortion limit to 20 weeks is cutting it fine to say the least. At best, it will lead to women making rushed and possibly ill-informed decisions.

[kittyfish]

I would have thought that negative results from an amnio test would have some sort of exemption.

I also think it is high time the abortion limit is cut.

[katyp]

If this is introduced (and I probably agree that it should be) I feel the NHS in all areas should offer better screening at an earlier stage. Scans are not done in this area until 20 weeks as a routine. This is far too late ime to find out if your baby has any problems (and presumably it would take another week or so for an amnio). I think it would be very hard to make a decision about a termination when you can already feel your baby moving around. Why are Nuchal scans not available on the NHS?

[Heathcliffscathy]

this is so depressing. governement by daily mail again.

doctors do not perform late abortions lightly. it should absolutely be left to them (within the current time limits) to decide whether the procedure be carried out or not.

very very angry about this.

[Chandra]

I think abortion should not be allowed once the baby is viable. But, considering that here you get to have your first scan at 20 weeks (in most normal pregnancies) how are you supposed to find out if there's a medical reason to stop the pregnancy before the baby is viable?

[Hallgerda]

katyp, nuchal scans are available on the NHS in South London where I live (or at least they were when I was pg). I think they can sometimes give misleading results though, particularly if your dates are a bit out. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the nuchal scan detects Down's with any real certainty - it just gives a measurement of something or other from which a probability can be estimated. I had thought (perhaps someone with medical expertise can clarify this) that the main ultrasound scan for abnormalities was at 20 weeks because it is hard to tell with sufficient accuracy any earlier.

[Chandra]

Nuchal scans are free if you are over 35 other wise they are elective (and not exactly affordable if you don't have a good household income). I really find it outrageous to have the first scan at 20 weeks, but I believe is cheaper for the government to allow abortion during the last months rather than offering early scanning to all pregnant women.

[waggledancer]

Nuchal, or any other scans aren't diagnostic and can only provide possibilities. Amnio's aren't done before 15 weeks and carry a risk of miscarriage. Terminations for medical reasons are never decided on or carried out lightly and to impose a time limit would put already distressed parents in an unacceptable position for making life changing decisions.

I don't know anyone who would terminate after 12 weeks for anything other than medical reasons and can't believe there are that many people who would or whose doctors would agree to

[Hallgerda]

I was under 35 and offered a free nuchal scan. I declined it as I wouldn't terminate over Down's. But that's my personal view and I wouldn't presume to dictate to anyone else.

[Chandra]

they told us it was for 35+ or people in risk groups (?) I know it was not free because I had to pay for it (I was 31)

[madness]

no free nuchal scan here despite my 40+ years. Advantage though is , as I did with dd, that if it shows high risk , you can proceed to CVS, bit like amnio but can be done much earllier (had it the day after my nuchal scan).
Seems a bit funny, whatever limit you choose. So should we say; 19weeks 5 days is OK, but 19weeks 6 days isn't anymore???
Difficult.

[goldstarlover]

I think that in cases where people are choosing an abortion simply because they do not wish to keep the baby then the limit should be lower. much lower.

however the current law for babies with conditions picked up on scans should stay as it is... ie, up to 9 months. which although sad is understandable. Like Pruni I also learnt a lot on a previous thread that I started and understand a lot more now about the process and reasons why people have late abortions.

[Chandra]

I agree with that (elective abortion rather than based in medical reasons) should be more lower, no more than 12 weeks IMO (Isn't it like that in many countries?)

[katyp]

Nuchal scans were not free when I had my last even though I was 35+. That's why I said NHS should offer better screening in ALL areas. It's not fair if it depends on what area you live in. I know nuchal scans just indicate risks but surely it's better to be having an amnio at 15 weeks rather than 20 weeks (in terms of maybe terminating if the results were bad)

[kittyfish]

I think that the lowering of the limit is just for women who don't actually want to be pregnant. Termination for medical reasons would be unaffected.

I too was offered an amnio and refused - I would rather have had a Downs baby than have a poss miscarraige. I also agree that the limit should be twelve weeks if non-medical.

[expatinscotland]

some trusts do not offer nuchal scans to women over 35. lothians doesn't. you have to pay for them. and they don't come cheap.

[PeachyClair]

Optional terminations should be limited to 18 weeks I think, medical (in which I include teens with concealed pg's, rape induced pg) classed as exemptions.

Have known of women split from partners post 20 weeks and persuade GP to agree to termination, amde me .

One of those things nobody will ever agree on though

[expatinscotland]

That's shocking, Peachy! B/c they split from the partner? Why not just have the kid and give it away? Hell, even leave it in the maternity unit and just walk away.

[PeachyClair]

To punish xp I think.


I know it's hard to give a child for adoption, but it would ahve been my first oprion had I ever fallen pg pre-Dh and been unable to keep it.

[tweeni]

i think we should be offered the first scan at something more like 7 or 8 weeks as opposed to 10-12 and sometimes as late as 14. that would give more accurate dates for a start. i also think the 2nd scan should be earlier although i'm not sure how much earlier it can be to be accurate - i had mine at 18 weeks. i also agree nuchal scans should be free and the triple blood tests which give a probability should be done sooner. but as it stands termination for medical reasons could not be reduced as it would be unfair - too rushed as others have said, but for the reason of an unwanted pregnancy it should definitely be lowered.

[RedZuleika]

But what would you hope to see at 8 weeks? In my last pregnancy, I had scans at 6, 9 and 11 weeks, as well as the 20 week anomaly scan. You can't hope to see organs and the such like at that point. The nine week scan looked like a jumping peanut.

[lanismum]

i had a free nuchal scan with dd, i was 25, and it wasnt offered as such, i was just told to come in for it?