Pro-life/ Pro-choice?

Sorry Katie, I wasn't trying to offend or be patronising. inanna has put it much more clearly than I.

katemiddleton, you've mentioned a couple of things that make me take my hat off to you for your honesty and willingness to learn ("i want to know to educate myself so i can be sure my opinions are based on fact";"it's rare on mn that a belief i hold is deeply challenged" [i presume you mean you are being challenged here?!). however, to my mind, supporting women in their choices should have pish all to do with our opinions of what they're doing and whether we think we'd ever do the same. it's just about accepting someone else's humanity; their fundamental right to act as they see fit. if we assume we see "fitter" than them,for moral, ethical, economic etc etc reasons, we're on very dangerous ground.

Umm the same reasons anyone needs to know anything Daisy? Education. I want to know to educate myself so I can be sure my opinions are based on fact and not just feeling. As I said orginally the removal of the threashold for termination was not something I'd considered before so I have not fully formed my opinions. Perhaps it would be more convenient if we all had fully formed opinions before we posted but that is not going to happen where new things are being considered (or things that are new to some people).

I haven't suggested at any point a woman having a late stage termination does so on a whim and I actually find that inference quite offensive.

Some other things I am now wondering about include if there is actually an issue of women wanting very late terminations (24 weeks plus). I do know there are issues in some parts of the UK and NI of women not being able to access terminations quickly and with relative ease so I wondered what the reasons were so the causes could be removed if possible. I am also concerned the Nadine Dorries and Frank Fields of this world would seek to change the current law which works very well in the majority of cases and where there are issues they appear to be related not to legal but moral and practical access issues. I think that's a greater threat to women.

I am also wondering if the threshold were removed if we would find more women being forced to wait longer for treatment due to less urgency which might lead to more surgical terminations or those involving foeticide. But I am not stating that to be the case. I am just wondering if that could potentially happen.

Thanks for that link AyeRobot I had a quick read but was juggling toddler and lap top. Some interesting stuff. I will have a ponder.

Pro-choice here.

I hadn't really thought about the really late abortion question.
I don't think there is a morally easy answer, but I have been convinced by the arguments on here that it should be legal to term.

Still it is necessarily an arbitrary dividing line. I think we would all agree that infanticide is wrong. But abortion at 40 weeks is not so far different is it?

I don't think the comparison with kidney donation really stands up as giving a straight answer and dismissing all moral qualms about this. There is really no direct parallel with pregnancy and parenthood, because it is such a unique process.

But Katie, why do you need to know the reasons?

As inanna (and indeed, you yourself) pointed out, having a termination at a late stage is not a pleasant experience, it isn't done on the toss of coin or a whim.

You could read the study linked to by Christiane above, which explains it very succintly.

i think abortion is a hard decision for most people tbh, no matter how early it's carried out. to assume that women who request late terminations do so from some kind of lack of care for the baby/foetus and/or themselves, or knowledge about the process, is incredibly patronising. i had a termination 10 years ago, have since had two kids (with the same partner i had the termination with), was at the time and still am clear that it was the best course of action, but still found the process unpleasant and traumatic. surely only in the most miniscule amount of cases, if at all, anyone should have the right to decide over and above the pregnant woman what to do with an pregnancy? to suggest otherwise is fundamentally anti-feminist.

Another reason for decide to abort late could be because circumstances change during the course of the pregnancy so that what had looked manageable before suddenly looks a lot less manageable. And some people just take a long time to decide. It's a hard decision for many people.

The 2009 statistics for E&W are here to download

I'd be interested to know how many of the 1.5% are for unwanted pregnancy and the reasons why they have not been able to access a termination before then. I would guess one reason is not knowing about the pregnancy??

Sorry didn't spot the bit where we had to hold original opinions

There are a variety of reasons as to why the 1.5% of women who have terminations in this country wait until after 20 weeks gestation, but I have to say that being unable to get an appointment before then is unlikely to be one of them.

Don't mean to be rude, but "early better than late", bit of a no shit sherlock conclusion, don't you think?

Preveon is better than cure.

But given that prevention cannot be 100%, we must make sure the cure is available.

Katie, I agree that terminations should be far easier to access (at any stage), and yes, it would mean that many take place sooner than they do currently, which would be good thing.

But I simply don't agree that simply by making early termination easier to access this automatically means that there will no longer be any demand for late term terminations.

My prevention is better than cure remark related to late abortions vs early ones. Nothing to do with avoiding all pregnancy as even the best contraception can fail.

Any way I've made my point which is easier to access early termination to avoid later abortions.

KatieMiddleton Mon 16-May-11 20:01:06
"I'd much rather women didn't have to even contemplate a late abortion for an unwanted pregnancy because they can access a safe early abortion easily....
I don't think removing the threshold would benefit women because a late term abortion is so horrendous. Prevention is better than cure to my mind."

I'd rather that my slary was six times that which it actually is, and that David Cameron was forced to live in Elephant and Castle on benefits for the rest of his life, but wanting it don't make it so.

If there are women wanting late term terminations (and they really are very few in number) then of course they should have them, no matter how much you'd rather they had undergone the procedure earlier.

"Pevention is better than cure" is fine if there is a possibility that we could reasonably expect there to be no unwanted pregnancies ever again as a result of education, sterilisation, chastity belts etc. But we can't expect this.

Late term abortion does sound horrendous. Which is why it is already so rare, and surely is testimony to the fact that if a woman demands one at that stage she must be absolutely convinced that it is the right course of action, considering all the attendant risks and trauma.

The fact is that late term abortion is already rare, even within the current legislation. 89% of all abortions in the UK are carried out at 12 weeks or below; only 1.5% take place after 20 weeks.

A change in legislation will actually make very little difference to the vast majority of women who seek a termination annually, as overwhelmingly these are done in the first trimester.

A change in legislation will mean that those women who are currently forced to gestate and deliver a child against their will will have the option to terminate instead. This can only be positive for women.

Thanks for replies. If anything it just makes it harder for me to understand. I'd much rather women didn't have to even contemplate a late abortion for an unwanted pregnancy because they can access a safe early abortion easily.

It's rare on MN that a belief i hold is deeply challenged and I'd never really thought about it before but I don't think removing the threshold would benefit women because a late term abortion is so horrendous. Prevention is better than cure to my mind.

Better a few women have late abortions for the "wrong reasons" than any woman be denied an abortion that she needs (either physically or psychologically).

There are a number of reasons why women have late abortions. The limit is arbitrary to be honest - in late abortions, the foetus is killed and the woman has to expel it through her vagina, whenever it takes place. Cannot be a very pleasant experience at all. While part of me finds the idea of it very uncomfortable, I believe it's a woman's right to make that choice.

An interesting study here: www.mariestopes.org.uk/documents/Late%20abortion.pdf

KateMiddleton

Abortion of fully formed foetuses (which stand a chance of living) are pretty grim I would prefer not to say what is done since this is primarily a mothers forum. Just that I would not want to be the doctor that has to carry it out.

If a pregnancy gets to that stage there should be a credible reason, there are just so many things out there that makes this kind of situation unnecessary.

Why would any woman want to terminate a full term baby? There's a huge difference between an embryo which is just cells and a viable, full term baby. I am extremely uncomfortable with that - not least as to how the termination might occur. Currently terminations are allowed up to a point where giving birth would effectively terminate the pregnancy and the foetus. By extending the limit for termination this method won't work because women will be delivering live, viable babies. And what happens then?

I would like to see abortions available on demand up to 12 weeks using the abortion pill (when the procedure becomes surgical) because it has better outcomes for women. I would also like optional, independent counselling available for those who request it pre-termination.

Late term abortions are not something any woman I've ever met wants to do and should only be for extreme circumstances because it is unpleasant and traumatic. Early abortion should be much more accessible to avoid the need for late term abortion. The sooner an unwanted pregnancy can be terminated the better for the woman and the embryo/foetus.

Plus when it's outside a womb, the baby is no-longer a risk to the mother's health.

Do pro-lifers also believe that if your kidneys match the type of someone with kidney failure you should be forced to give one up?

Pro-lifers really seem to blithely forget the risks and effects of carrying a child to term.

Oops, apols, Straight2Extremes - must read more carefully (and not be distracted by Just a Minute)

ChristinedePizan

I responded to this comment "But a full term baby couldn't live outside the womb without someone to care for it? "

She was talking about outside the womb so it is not a foetus anymore.