ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.

Abortion to be reduced to 20 weeks

(506 Posts)
avenueone Tue 02-Oct-12 22:51:00

There is a story on the front page of the Telegraph tomorrow (paper review) saying that in brief due to babies? being able to survive from a younger age it should be reduced.
I personally don't think this is an argument as I doubt they could survive without medical intervention. I feel it is just another attempt to undermine a woman's right to choose what we do with out bodies. Sorry no link but there should be one around tomorrow and I will try and post it.

Yes, and there are quite long waiting lists in some areas, too. It's not as if you can do a test in week 8-9 then snap your fingers and have it done.

Orchidskeepdying Wed 03-Oct-12 07:27:16

Yes women should vote and own property. I'm not arguing against women's rights I just think it gets trotted out to stop debate in stopping legal murder. I don't see the difference in a baby in the womb or out of it.... yet its illegal to kill a new born. That doest make sense to me.

whatinthewhatnow Wed 03-Oct-12 07:28:08

everyone's getting confused, surely. If there are problems at the anomaly scan then a termination can be carried out an any stage up to term, so the 'allowing some time after anomaly scan' is irrelevant. This is only about terminations not due to medical complications, so why would the anomaly scan matter? It's a question of viability only, and even though some units are resuscitating babies before 24 weeks the legal definition of viability is 24 weeks, so until this is changed I can't see how the time limits for termination can be changed. A baby born at 23 weeks is still classed as a miscarriage under law if it shows no signs of life, not a stillbirth. That's the issue.

twoGoldfingerstoGideon Wed 03-Oct-12 07:30:32

You have consentual sex Sara then you should be fully aware of the consequences. If you don't want to risk getting pregnant so much you will have an abortion... Don't have sex! Its not that hard...
Women's rights crap is a smoke screen hiding what's going on. *Please understand I am not including rape or insest...*

Why wouldn't you include rape or incest? Are babies born from rape or incest different in some way? People who take an anti-abortion stance while being happy to have exceptions in certain cases really are illogical.

And as for the 'women's rights crap' comment - where to begin?

For the avoidance of doubt I am completely pro-choice.

SaraBellumHertz Wed 03-Oct-12 07:30:53

The current period is nothing to do with the anomaly scan.

You can terminate a pregnancy due to an anomaly at any stage in a pregnancy.

twoGoldfingerstoGideon Wed 03-Oct-12 07:31:49

Legal murder - bingo (already!)

orchid - a foetus in the womb is dependent on the mother's body, that's the difference.

SaraBellumHertz Wed 03-Oct-12 07:33:57

Why die an unwanted child have to be a consequence of consensual sex? Suggesting that any woman who wouldn't continue a pregnancy should have sex is absurd: talk about shackles hmm

InfinityWelcomesCarefulDrivers Wed 03-Oct-12 07:35:18

Yes, that's true.

Marcheline Wed 03-Oct-12 07:36:26

Legal murder? I don't think using sensationalist terms like 'legal murder' is particularly helpful in this argument.

I agree with LRD, I think it will disproportionately affect young women / girls who might not find out that they are pregnant until quite late, and need some time to process the information.

I also agree that we need MUCH better sex ed and provision for teens.

whatisleonathinking Wed 03-Oct-12 07:37:03

Why do people think it is ok to kill a baby? It's sickening. Legal murder? Totally.

InfinityWelcomesCarefulDrivers Wed 03-Oct-12 07:42:07

It is not ok to "kill a baby". It is ok to end a pregnancy when the alternative is unviable. Why do the rights of the foetus come before the rights of the mother, in your opinion?

AThingInYourLife Wed 03-Oct-12 07:42:16

Oh Christ, not this shit again.

All these lies about earlier and earlier survival rates FFS.

A women's minister who wants to reduce women's rights - I guess it makes sense in a government with a philistine for an education minister and a health minister who doesn't want to be responsible for making sure the population has access to healthcare.

Fuckers to a man or woman.

Just to repeat, this is not government policy. Maria Miller previously voted for a reduction to 20 weeks and was asked if she had changed her mind, she said she hadn't. The reason it's now newsworthy is she's now women's minister.

A reduction in the legal limit for abortion would almost certainly be the subject of a free vote in the House of Commons as it's an issue of conscience. If it were given government time. Which I think is unlikely. It would use up a lot of government time, and they have a lot they want to get through before the next election.

So if you're worried this will actually happen, I really wouldn't be.

She mentions the "science" in the Telegraph interview, I think she's misinformed on that, the BMA were very clear little has changed pre-23 weeks.

I do worry it might happen. I saw the OP said it's a telegraph headline, not policy, but I still worry, especially as she's women's minister.

NewNames Wed 03-Oct-12 07:53:30

Only two per cent of all abortions happen after 20 weeks.

Those having later abortions are often young, and vulnerable, disabled. They may have been in denial, their circumstances may have changed, they may have just gathered the strength to leave a violent partner, they may not have known they were pregnant or their may have been medical reasons for delaying or the waiting list may have been too long.

A massive 87 per cent are carried out under 13 weeks.

Why on earth would you want to make things more difficult for women who are already in a horrible situation?

What we should actually be doing is making it easier for women to have early abortions. At the moment, women who want to abortion pill get one and then have to go buy for another. Not everyone has a clinic around the corner. It seems ridiculous that a woman can't take both with her.

NewNames Wed 03-Oct-12 07:56:26

Maria Miller, equalities minister. Brilliant.

PeggyCarter Wed 03-Oct-12 08:05:27

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Pumpster Wed 03-Oct-12 08:11:25

I think the current limit is right.

porcamiseria Wed 03-Oct-12 08:18:53

I dont see this is feminist issue at all

Its a human issue, and for a long time I have felt very uncomfotable around late abortions

and I am pro choice, and I have personally had an abortion

But I think using the argument of "womens rights" to justify killing a baby that might have survived is sick to be honest

IceBergJam Wed 03-Oct-12 08:21:32

You mention its s bad argument because of medical intervention. Dont we use medical intervention to keep people alive? Thats what it is for.

SkaterGrrrrl Wed 03-Oct-12 08:28:16

My body, my choice.

msrisotto Wed 03-Oct-12 08:29:02

Hypocrite much porcamisieria? Your aborted baby might have survived too you know.

And of course this is a feminist fucking issue, to suggest otherwise is completely outrageous. Not only do women carry babies but the vast majority of the time, they look after them (often solely) too.

limitedperiodonly Wed 03-Oct-12 08:33:12

I agree with sassh. I believe the present laws are correct.

I can find a kind of respect for people who say abortion is wrong in all circumstances even though I strongly disagree with them. They are being honest.

I can't respect people who weasel with exceptions - 'it's okay up to a number of weeks', 'it's okay in cases of incest or rape', 'it's okay if the woman's life is in grave danger'.

What they mean is that they oppose all abortion but want to chip away at the right so as not to frighten the rest of us. They are working towards the day when abortion is illegal.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now