Abortion to be reduced to 20 weeks

Very well said dr, I agree entirely.

I have written on here before about my gyne problems. I could easily be 16-18 weeks pregnant or more and not know. And I am no innocent, am actually an ex HCP.

There was a thread recently somewhere where a woman had given birth not knowing that she was pregnant and the amount of women that posted saying that actually they didn?t know till they were 18, 20, 22, 24 weeks gone.

Sometimes because of their personal medical history, sometimes their circumstances.

Why would all of these women have fewer rights?

You either agree or don?t, no sitting on the fence.

As for the comments what if a woman gave birth to a 24+ weeker that she had planned to abort, well as in the main abortions given at this time are usually due to conditions that will not /cannot sustain life chances of a live birth are low, or if it is a live birth most will die soon after a short, agonizing life, surrounded by bright lights and noise and pain and confusion.

It is a feminist issue, and it is a chipping away of women?s rights

FionaOJ if the baby can survive outside the mother (and is taken outside of the mother) then the baby has independent rights. But if the baby is inside the mother then it doesn't have independent rights.

Whether it could live outside the mother or not at that point of gestation is moot because we are not at a point where we extract live babies from their mothers other than to deliver them. All the while that the woman is a vessel, in my view the woman gets absolute rights over what happens. When she is not a vessel she doesn't.

So I could imagine a science fiction situation where a woman decides she doesn't want a baby but rather than have a termination, the baby is taken out and grown to term "in vitro". That baby has its own rights because the mother has been taken out of the equation. But this is not a real world situation and nobody even suggests it for late term where the baby would survive perfectly easily. So until we get to that futuristic point, the whole issue is moot for me. The woman has ultimate control. She chooses whether to give life or not - and sometimes she chooses not. And yes that does mean very late term abortion is ok in my world. Women have to give birth - they provide literal access to the world. I don't think it's too much to say that they decide whether to give access or not - simply because of the physical imposition on their bodie3s and their lives. Once access is given, every individual has their independent rights but until that point they don't.

That's how it seems to me. Obviously not everyone sees it that way but that's my interpretation of it. Incidentally, I studied philosophy at university and it was shocking to me that the inter-relationship of women and foetuses was never discussed throughout a three year degree - this issue on which all of our understanding of "individual rights" - what it is to be an individual with rights - can founder, was ignored in favour of various male philosophers' meanderings on the subject.

I don't particularly agree with the viability argument anyway, but 20 weeks seems quite reasonable to me.

Fiona I think you have a very good point about the 'what if a woman gives birth to a live baby she was thinking about aborting'. I do think there should be a limit on abortion, but I really don't think it should be any sooner than 23 weeks.

This allows for medical tests, counselling, and in the vast majority of cases, a woman would already know she is pregnant. But still, it's a very tight turn-around point for those that choose to have medical tests.

I'm not sure why we are even talking about rights up to term. It is diverting from the point as that is not what is the opposing argument to a lowering to 20 weeks. The opposing argument is to keep the law as it stands at 24 weeks unless the pregnancy is life threatening to the mother.

The 24 weeks limit covers most situations. A very small minority of cases have to use the 'unless' clause. We need to be discussing what is wrong with the 24 week law.........and I guess this all centres on the following stats:

Survival rates:

21 weeks and less 0%

22 weeks 0-10%*

23 weeks 10-35%

24 weeks 40-70%

I have seen these stats quoted in many places. I do not know what the repercussion are in terms of long-term health for the 10-35% in the 23 week bracket.

But I will say that there are so few abortions in these periods that it is becoming a moral argument that ultimately is used to fire up a political storm. And that is what I am uncomfortable with.

But surely that is the case already, if a woman goes past 24 weeks without being able to have an abortion, for whatever reason, then they still have choices other than abortion.
I am not against abortion, but I think the line should be drawn when a foetus is viable. So 23 weeks max. I can't carry on posting now, but I will come back and read later, I'm not trying to cause an argument, just putting across some possible issues.

When pregnant with DD I had to have some tests as it was high risk pregnancy. These tests could not be done until 18 weeks. I remember the doctor making the point that if I chose to have the tests done, then the timescale between the test results being returned and the legal deadline for a termination was pretty fine.

Lowering the abortion limit puts women like me with pregnancies like mine into an impossible situation. Do you continue with the pregnancy and hope of the best or live with the knowledge that there is a real chance of giving birth (and possibly dying during it) only to see your child live a short, agonizing life? A fact made all the harder by the knowledge that all of the pain could have been avoided if the govt just respected women's right to know what is best for their own bodies and their own children.

Fiona The baby could be adopted or fostered or the mother could be supported to keep the child. There are choices. You simply can not compare a foetus on the inside with a baby on the outside.

I am a feminist and pro choice but agree 20 wks should be limit. It is not like years ago when women didn't find out they were pregnant for weeks and weeks. The ability for some exceptions should be built in though.

But I don't think women would go into pregnancy thinking they have 40 weeks to have an abortion given that currently the majority of abortions are carried out early, I see no reason why that would change. I doubt there is a large number of women currently thinking they have 24 weeks to have an abortion, most want it carried out as quickly as possible.

Sorry that should say 23-37 weeks.

I was just interested, as someone who has delivered a baby early. If abortions were available for every woman up to term, then sooner or later a woman will deliver a baby that she planned to abort. And I expect that would leave the woman in a very difficult position. I was just wondering what the supporters of term abortions would do/expect to happen next.

Another angle is that if women go into pregnancy thinking they have 40 weeks to have an abortion, then deliver between 26-37 weeks there will be a lot of unwanted babies on SCBU, and a lot of babies going into care or being put up for adoption unnecessarily.

To me it seems to open up a whole new set of problems.

I know

I knew things were getting bad in the US, but I didn't realise it had come to this. They've given a 15 year old a life sentence for being addicted to coke and subsequently having a stillborn baby at 36 weeks. They haven't actually proved that the cocaine addiction is what killed the baby (plenty of babies are born to mothers addicted to cocaine).

It seems obvious she's a child herself, in need of some serious help, not criminalising and locking up for life

What if it was one of our children?

aufaniae that article is shocking.

It works fine as it is as far as I'm concerned.

So, for me, this is just a way to erode women's rights.

There are many other issues the Women's Minister should be tackling as a matter of priority..........but no, it has to be the one area where women are given rights

Fiona - I would expect the mother to be able to make a choice about what happens to the baby, presumably with a fair bit of counselling.

I'm not sure where you're going with the question.

There are two separate decision process there, the first is whether to continue the pregnancy (which in your scenario can no longer be made - the baby is born) and the second is if the pregnancy is continued (which in your scenario it has to the point of the baby being born), whether to raise the resulting baby or give it for adoption. If the baby has been born the mother can still either decide to keep it or give it up for adoption, the same as after a pregnancy where the mother hadn't intended to abort. I wouldn't think badly of someone who intended to abort but gave birth before it could take place and decided to keep the baby, nor would I if she still felt unable to raise it and decided to give the baby for adoption. I would compare it to surrogacy - before the birth the mother may intend to give it to the intended couple but in law she can change her mind and decide to keep it.

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

Absolutely agree.

Having my 3 babies has made me ever more convinced that no woman should be made carry on with a pregnancy against her will.

Sorry if this has already been asked, but for those who support abortion to term - if a woman was 30+ weeks pregnant and still undecided whether to have an abortion, or had booked an abortion for the following week, went into labour, or developed pre-eclampsia and needed an emergency c-section, and the baby was delivered alive. What would you want to happen to that unwanted baby? There would have to be systems in place for soon to be aborted babies, that were born alive, before the abortion. Or would you expect the mother to keep the child?

I'm genuinely interested in what you would expect in those circumstances. FWIW I had my daughter at 28 weeks.

joyful Is it currently legal to terminate at any point a foetus who has cleft lip/palate or club foot?

I think on the last thread somebody used the phrase "as early as possible, as late as necessary" which describes my feelings exactly. Early termination is obviously physically easier for a woman to go through and recover from than a later procedure, and obviously for many it is easier to cope with mentally.

There are massive problems with access to early abortion, if Maria Miller really cared about making sure termination occurred earlier surely that's the area she'd be focusing on?

I'm on the fence for this one.
on one hand I agree that abortion other than for life threatening conditions (for mother and fetus) should be able to be done until very late in pregnancy. but other abortions should be done as soon as possible.

knowing the nhs and just how long some things take and the need for councelling (the woman has to make a very important life changing decision after all) I think 20 weeks is a bit early. just imagine you have made your mind up and get told 'you are one day over, you have to have this baby'.

Like most of these things, if your initial reaction is "Oh, that sounds like a good idea" - look at who else supports it.

I used to be a Christian; I opposed women clergy - until I saw who else did, and I ended up supporting a woman to lead our church.

Any reduction in abortion rights plays into the hands of pro-lifers, Catholics, and the US religious right. It's an awful idea.