Advanced search

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.

Trills Wed 03-Oct-12 08:36:06

YOur title reads as if this is going to happen, rather than just "someone wrote in a newspaper that they think this should happen".

AuntPepita Wed 03-Oct-12 08:36:54

As early as possible, as late as necessary.

LST Wed 03-Oct-12 08:37:32

It should be lowered. IMO.

Trills Wed 03-Oct-12 08:40:26

I am strongly against reducing the time.

Very few abortions happen after 12 weeks as it is, and the number that take place after 20 weeks is tiny. But the people who have those abortions are often more vulnerable - they are likely to be people who did not realise they were pregnant (perhaps because they are very young, or have other health issues), or who are in abusive or controlling relationships and couldn't access advice earlier. In terms of "consequences if forced to continue the pregnancy" the women seeking late abortions could be judged to be more in need of an abortion, not less.

I would rather 100 abortions happened for "frivolous" reasons than one woman was denied an abortion that she needed.

Trills Wed 03-Oct-12 08:41:13

NewNames said a lot of what I said already - sorry.

InfinityWelcomesCarefulDrivers Wed 03-Oct-12 08:41:40

Agree with limitedperiid

PeggyCarter Wed 03-Oct-12 08:42:21

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

EatsBrainsAndLeaves Wed 03-Oct-12 08:44:38

I thought most abortions happened under 12 weeks anyway? The later ones i thought tended to be either very young girls who are too scared to admit they are pregnant or women where disabilities can not be detected until a later stage in development.

To force 14, 15 year olds to give birth rather tahn having an abortion would be barbaric. And to force women to give birth to severely disabled children, because w dont have the tests for earlier detection, also seems barbaric.

So I would be strongly against this.

Annabel7 Wed 03-Oct-12 09:11:01

Someone mentioned earlier that those whose anomaly scan showed severed disabilities can abort up to term. i don think this is true. I know a woman who discovered severe disabilities at 25 weeks and decided to go overseas for a termination. Lowering the limit to 20 weeks would be terrible for those who discover severe disability later on. I also agree that it will impact vulnerable women.

Most terminations are undertaken much earlier anyhow.

CremeEggThief Wed 03-Oct-12 09:20:13

I would like to see it lowered further to 16 weeks .

EatsBrainsAndLeaves Wed 03-Oct-12 09:25:45

cremeegg - so women should be forced to give birth to children with sebere disabilities? Because that is what you are talking about.

MrsHardigan Wed 03-Oct-12 09:26:15

I am against reducing it, it is nothing more than chipping away at women's rights. No woman wakes up at 23 weeks and suddenly decides she wants an abortion, the people making this choice at this stage of pregnancy are likely to be vulnerable women and quite possibly girls. There was a case not long ago of a woman who aborted an almost full term fetus with drugs she bought on the internet and a case in America of a young girl who gave birth in secret and choked the infant to death. You mark my words, we'll see an increase in cases like this if this ban goes ahead.

OptimisticPessimist Wed 03-Oct-12 09:28:04

A tiny proportion of terminations happen beyond 20 weeks, and I would hazard a guess that those terminations occur for good reason. Even fewer happen beyond the 24 week mark - this is for foetuses with severe abnormalities or women whose lives are in danger. Women are already self-moderating (if that's the right word?), a change in the law is not required.

My opinion is the same as an earlier poster - termination should be available on demand until term. I find it quite horrifying that the Minister for Women and Equalities of all people thinks we should further limit women's right to abortion.

limitedperiodonly Wed 03-Oct-12 09:28:45

What you call 'necessities' are just your choices joyful.

Why do you seek to limit the choices of others?

PropertyNightmare Wed 03-Oct-12 09:29:25

I am pro choice but yes, to reduce it to 20 weeks is right i think. By 20 weeks you could see my babies moving from looking at the outside of my stomach. You could also feel movement by placing a hand on my tummy. It made me think very carefully about the act of killing a fetus at that stage of development. I think ideally I would prefer to see the abortion limit reduced to 12 weeks.

MrsHardigan Wed 03-Oct-12 09:30:44

Also in response to orchid 'I'm not arguing against women's rights I just think it gets trotted out to stop debate in stopping legal murder.'

There's no such thing as 'legal murder' and abortion is not murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of a person with malice aforethought. You can't have a legal, illegal killing. Stop banding around terms you clearly don't understand.

SarryB Wed 03-Oct-12 09:30:58

What happens if you don't find out about your unwanted pregnancy until 22 weeks?

MrsHardigan Wed 03-Oct-12 09:32:15

PropertyNightmare how can you can you call yourself pro-choice but wish to see abortion reduced to 12 weeks? You're no better than a pro-lifer.

PropertyNightmare Wed 03-Oct-12 09:32:31

Just to clarify, although I would prefer a 12 week limit I would accept that it should not apply in cases of severe abnormalities given that severe defects might not be discoverable by that point (CVS, Amnio, detailed scans can't happen at that stage).

PropertyNightmare Wed 03-Oct-12 09:36:21

I see it as a balancing of rights. Additionally i also think when a baby is killed in utero as a result of a violent attack on/murder of their mother the attacker should be tried for murder of the baby too.

drjohnsonscat Wed 03-Oct-12 09:40:44

Until a baby can be removed from me at any point in the pg and kept healthily alive until term, my rights trump the baby's. I think this insidious and we should fight it wholeheartedly.

Abortion on demand is critical. I will change my mind when the unwanted child can be painlessly and easily removed from my body and placed into the body of the minister for equalities for him/her to carry to term.

MrsHardigan Wed 03-Oct-12 09:43:05

A balancing of rights? No, you're giving a fetus the right to use a woman's body against her will - a right the woman actually doesn't have. Fetuses don't have rights for good reason, and even if they did their rights shouldn't supersede that of an actual born woman. How about you go see what person-hood laws are doing to women in America, who are forced to undergo unnecessary C-sections against their will? Absolutely ridiculous.

How about if a woman doesn't find out she's pregnant until after 12 weeks? Or she's a victim of rape and incest who is unable to get an abortion up until that point? Or she has a sudden change of circumstances that means she's now unable to care for a child? Too bad, now you have a baby, deal with it.

OptimisticPessimist Wed 03-Oct-12 09:43:06

Property there is already a crime of child destruction for use in those cases, it was used in the Nikitta Grender case IIRC. Choosing to abort a pregnancy occurring in your own body is totally different to somebody committing a violent assault on you and killing the foetus against your will.

Sunnywithachanceofshowers Wed 03-Oct-12 09:43:44

I don't think we should lower the limit. It really is chipping away at women's rights, and has no basis in scientific fact. And as someone pointed out upthread, only 2% of abortions take place after 20 weeks anyway.

I think it should be easier to get an earlier abortion - a friend of mine had to wait which took her over the 12 weeks.

drjohnsonscat Wed 03-Oct-12 09:44:11

Propertynightmare the fact that you can feel a baby moving is neither here nor there when making a policy decision that will affect everyone. It might affect your personal decision but it's not based on science or ethics or anything. It's your personal connection with your baby and therefore your choice. Other people should have their choice too.

I had a relatively late termination and went on to have two babies. Having a baby post termination didn't make me wobby on abortion - it made me more convinced of the importance of it. That's just my experience. So I don't pay any regard to people who say "Oh I could never do that because when I was pregnant xyz..." It's just your personal experience and mine was different.

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