Abortion to be reduced to 20 weeks

Ok Bdd, but you were the one who said that the father should have some rights.

By the way, with all your talk of "knowing the baby", did you read the BPAS audit about abortion requests past 22 weeks. These are not women who are in happy settled relationships with their DPs, where said DPs have been stroking the bump and singing to it nightly, but then one morning when 23 weeks pregnant thought "I can't be arsed with this now, plus it'll really upset my loving partner, so I'm off to the clinic."

and that is 'forced by the state' - you haven't answered why there should also be someone/some people else who can do that forcing, or why that forcing should happen earlier than the current legal cutoff.

Also, is this still the same BDD? I notice the namechange and don't want to engage with a sockpuppet who's misrepresenting the real BDD...

"As yet unborn, but a person and already relevant to those that 'know' her or him"

IMO the choices of the person carrying the fotus will always take precedence, even over the choices of the father.
What do you propose, that men be able to force women to carry a baby they do not want to carry to full term?

But Bdd that doesn't help me understand your opinion.

Excluding exceptional circumstances, legally,, it isn't possible to have an abortion after 23 weeks and 6 days. After that point, the law and society says no. Before that point, it is up to the woman and the two doctors who review the case.

You have mentioned that the father should have some rights, I am trying to understand, in your view, as the starting point for the discussion you want to have, what those rights would be and when would they apply.

''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.''

Quoting Newnames.

why do we want to make things more difficult for people who are already in a horrible situation?

BDD can we separate out the two issues?

At what gestation are you suggesting that the father gains some rights over the foetus?

(by the way, born babies don't usually smile until 3-4 weeks old)

Cheerful could you point me to the post where someone advocated killing an already born baby in some cases?

I don't know. Many of the children I know in care were born to mothers who have had abortions, so I assume they do have access to them.

I do not think that feminists completely advocate killing children. And actually though I've been told I'm not "allowed" to be a feminist if I oppose abortion up til birth, I do consider myself one.

I meant only that there is, to me, very little difference between an 8 month old fetus and, say, my five year old. And definitely very little difference between my DS and an already born baby, which some posters on this thread have advocated the termination of "in some cases."

I am aware that an abortion of a late-term fetus does not necessarily have to mean its death, but as far as I am aware this is always the case. Maybe I'm just ignorant of it, but I haven't heard of any cases of the fetus being "delivered live, and raised under state care until it can be adopted"...at least, not on purpose.

CheerfulYank, of course us feminists completely advocate killing children.

Completely. FFS.

Actually, terminating a pregnancy doesn't, necessarily, mean killing the fetus. If the fetus would be viable, there is the possibility of a pregnancy being terminated, the fetus being delivered live, and raised under state care until it can be adopted.

I do wonder if the number of children in care would fall with abortions becoming more accessible; How many children that were wanted every step of the pregnancy end up in care?

I absolutely do not believe that women should have the right to abort at any point. I think it's a terrifying and horrible idea.

Where does "every child should be a wanted child" end, really? My friend who is a social worker sees many unwanted children every day...they are 5, 6, 8 years old. Should they receive an injection to stop their hearts?

Badancing - you were suggesting that fathers might have some rights around a foetus a woman is carrying. I understand the idea of the foetus having a right to life, I understand the idea of a woman having rights over her body. What I am curious about is what sort of rights you think a father could have?

'Should women have the right to abort a child at any point in the pregnancy then? Beyond 24 weeks?'

Yes. I believe so and so do many others. Hasn't this already been covered in this thread?

4Sure, but surely by that argument, you're arguing that fetuses with something "seriously wrong with them" don't deserve the same right to life that a healthy fetus does?

I still stand by the belief that every child should be a wanted child. Should a woman wish to end a pregnancy, that remains her prerogative, regardless of the stage of the pregnancy.

I wasn't stating anything; I was asking what you thought and following a line of my own thought. Essentially, though, yes, that's roughly where I'm going. The state subjugation enforced by a 24 week limit; is that something you agree with or would you extend beyond 24 weeks?

Yes, subjugation by the State. Are you saying because the State subjugates women, individual men should be able to as well? Or am I not following your line of thought?

My view point on it is, that an abortion should take place well before 20 weeks. For eitherway it is a life albeit an extremely young one. Then again there are bound to be grey areas where a scan is done at a later stage and there is to be found something seriously wrong with the baby/or something is seriously wrong with the mother's health etcetera., To let a baby grow for 24 weeks and then the woman only then decides that she wants rid and there is nothing wrong with her or the baby then that is sick! The baby at 24 weeks is well formed and kicking, to me, at that stage, you really are murdering a child. Yeh yeh I'm sure some people wont like what I wrote in the end part but it is just my own personal view on the matter, which will make no difference to the law or what actually continues to carry on within this very sensitive issue of Abortion Rights.

Because isn't a limit of 24 weeks subjugating of the mother? Authority exists over her choice from that point...

Something I note about this site is the way many people like to dissect the question rather than attempt to answer it. Is this because there are a lot of academics here?

Or are you suggesting that if the father dies while the mother is pregnant, then the mother should be able to abort (post 24 weeks), but if the father is still alive then the mother shouldn't?

How is that relevent to whether a father has a rights over the mother's body?

Should women have the right to abort a child at any point in the pregnancy then? Beyond 24 weeks?

Thanks EG I was just thinking how to phrase that...

What sort of rights could a father have for a foetus that didn't involve subjugating the mother?