To think abortion law is a tough nut to crack?

[chandellina]

so the Telegraph has revealed doctors allowing abortion on sex-selection grounds. I see a couple threads on In the News expressing disgust over this, a view shared by many, I'm sure.

But as far as I understand you can have an abortion on demand for just about any reason - not feeling able to cope, not feeling financially secure, too young, too old.

So even if you were terminating for gender, couldn't you just give another reason? And if you believe in a woman's absolute right to choose - why require a stated reason at all?

My point is that the law seems very flimsy, and why be moral about sex selection and not other things - like terminating because a pregnancy interferes with a desired age gap between children, or it otherwise not being "the right time." I know there are cultural issues involved too with gender selection, but those probably are also in play for women coerced by family not to have a child out of wedlock, etc.

thoughts?

At the moment abortion has been limited to 24 weeks because that's around the point of viability. I support choice til term though.

bumbley, the NHS states here that 90% of abortions are carried out prior to 13 weeks gestation, and 98% are carried out before 20 weeks. The actual number of abortions done up to 24 weeks are small: 2,744 for 2010.

Reasons might include: not being able to access an abortion earlier, change in circumstances (e.g. 1/3 of domestic violence starts during pregnancy), being late in finding out about pregnancy.

It is a bit of an arbitrary value though Rita, some babies born earlier than that survive and others that a born later die. Why pick that date in particular? Surely it should be, at the very least, the earliest date that a baby has survived from...Norway are obviously managing with a much earlier cut off date. I wonder why we don't follow suit.

bumbley - no it's not arbitrary, babies born before 24 weeks don't survive.

Sunny, the percentage carried out after 20 weeks may be small but 2,744 is not a small number.

The reasons you gave could apply at any point in the pregnancy - even after the 24 weeks so I'm not sure that they justify a 24 week limit.

bumbley, it's because the survival rate of babies born at 24 weeks has not improved greatly over time, with only 33% leaving hospital after birth (this goes down to 9% for babies born at 22 weeks).

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists says that 'If born before 26 weeks, many premature babies require very intensive and invasive care, including help with breathing and the removal of waste fluids from their bodies. This is because their lungs and metabolism are not fully developed yet (if they were still in their mother's womb they would be breathing and eating through their mothers). Their skin is also not fully formed and neither are many of the normal bodily functions you would find in a full-term baby. These babies therefore require round-the-clock attention and care in the first few months of their lives.'.

Yes, Edam they do. I think the earliest baby that survived is around 22 weeks. It is one of the reasons why the date has come up for debate - because more and more babies ARE surviving before 24 weeks.

Do the people who support abortion to term , support it for any reason or just for conditions incompatible with life?

Yes, I know that sunny but some babies have survived earlier and it would make sense that the cutoff date, if it is based on the prospect of the baby being able to survive independently, is based on the EARLIEST date that a baby has survived because that means that life (defined technically by law) has actually been possible from that date.

Peanut, some support it for any reason-it's all about the woman's choice

No, it's not true to say 'more and more' are surviving. They aren't. Go and ask the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

Well Edam it's more than your 'none'.

I just cannot, and will not, ever understand people who want abortion up until birth.

So if a friend of your has a still birth do you tell them to 'get a grip, it didn't take a breath so I was never a real baby anyway, was it?!'

It's just such a callous position. That until you've taken a breath you mean nothing :(

In any case Edam, my point is that if you're going to make the cut off point for abortion tie in with when life is viable then it should be from the earliest time that survival was possible - not 'somewhere around' that time.

Ok it's a DM link, but come on! There are babies like this!

Me neither remains :( although I also find it difficult to apply the reasoning to miscarriages as well.

Remains, my point exactly - the very latest the abortion limit should be set is the earliest that life is possible if that is what people are trying to base their definition of life on.

bumbley only 9% of babies born at 22 weeks survive. I linked above to statistics, but I don't think you've bothered to look at the link.

It just feels so wrong. The idea that the baby can live but the Mother could opt for it to die. I don't believe that any life is more valuable than other, so I find it hard to comprehend that one person could have control over the ultimate destiny of another life, when that life is independently viable.

Does it matter that it's only 9% ?!

Would you say to someone with cancer that a treatment only has a 9% chance of success, so instead, how about we just let you die?

And how many of those 9% will have long term health-problems/disability, I wonder?

Remains - that's the difference between chance and choice, and between a much-wanted baby and an unwanted baby.

Wishing forced motherhood on someone who doesn't want to be a mother is a very strange thing to do, and unlikely to lead to a happy outcome for parent or child.

(And yes, doctors do look at how likely or unlikely a treatment is to benefit a patient before offering it. Someone who is 92 may well not be offered a treatment with a 9% chance of success, especially if they are frail and unlikely to cope with the rigours of treatment.)

IIRC, many doctors are reluctant to treat 22 weekers, as treatment will be very painful and distressing for baby and chances of them being healthy at the end of it are so small (surving doesn't equal healthy).

Sunny, I've seen them before and as remains says, who cares if it's only 9% - that still means that life IS possible at that date. If abortion can only be allowed until certain date because after that the baby COULD survive then it needs to be from the earliest date that a baby can survive. Otherwise that argument just does not make any sense and it may as well be 25/26/27/28/29 weeks because some babies born at those dates don't survive either.