TM will allow a debate on restricting abortion to cling on to power.

[catgirl1976]

AIBU to be disgusted? I'm reading that she will allow a UK debate on abortion limits to secure the DUP's support.

She's a disgrace. I don't care if you voted Tory or Labour or for Lord Buckethead, but surely any woman must feel appalled that their rights are up for sale to secure her (untenable anyway) position.

However, it is not simply the ability to experience pain which makes a foetus human and worthy of protection.

I've always supported rights to abortion, but as the mother of an ex 30 week preemie who saw many far younger babies thrive on the neonatal ward I honestly think the limit should be lowered. I know several 23/24 wheelers who have gone on to live perfectly normal and fulfilling lives ( and these are examples who are 18+, so didn't even have the benefit of modern medical advances!)

Yes, as women we should have the right to choose, but that right should be exercised before the foetus is viable. I also think there should be exceptions for foetus' with life limiting Illnesses that can be detected by scan, but I don't believe that late discovery pregnancies are a frequent enough issue to over ride viable foetus'.

I thought the no intervention before 24 weeks was because it was more likely to do damage than help because the chances of brain damage/poor quality of life is so high. Yes, there will be miracle babies, but on a whole I thought it was still considered likely to cause disability to be born at such an early gestation. It's the whole question of what makes a life. Comparisons could be made to the current Charlie Gard case.

Also, someone early on in the thread spoke about a late term baby being aborted but making a noise. In late term abortions the heart is stopped before giving birth, so that is simply not true. Sorry, going back a while but it was bugging me.

Then a groundbreaking study called EPICure recorded all births in the UK between 20 and 25 weeks, six days. Out of 4,001 births, the first EPICure study found that 311 babies survived and were eventually discharged, including two babies born at 22 weeks, six at 23 weeks, 100 at 24 weeks and 186 babies at 25.

Interesting and relevant. I have no doubt viability at 24 weeks gets stronger and stronger, but it still seems to be a small minority that survive earlier than this. As a side note, this study apparently stated that 22 weeks was the point for them that a premature pregnancy didn't stand a chance.

Mainly because I don't believe any woman would have an abortion for shits and giggles especially not a late abortion and can trusted to have full autonomy over their own bodies.

What a lovely world you live in. My SIL absolutely would do this - just for fun. Child she did have has been removed from her. But please don't believe that all women can be trusted etc. What a load of tosh.

The unborn baby has rights too.

I think the limit is far too high as it is. 16 weeks should be the absolute cut off unless the 20week scan has highlighted something obviously. FFS. If you don't want to get pregnant and don't want the result, you deal with it asap.

Star
Surely it's better for that baby to never be born then? What would you do with all of these unwanted babies? Forcing people to keep unwanted babies is not the answer. Lots of people are late finding out they are pregnant and it takes time to get through the system.

This post seems to have been missed.

There will be no debate.

It has beenabled confirmed that There is no coalition and there is no formal agreement.

It will be a 'supply and confidence' which is virtually as it is now as that is how they tend to vote

But therein lies the problem. We shouldn't be accepting of allowing women who have found out they're pregnant late to have to sit there for weeks and weeks until they are able to have that abortion? It shouldn't take time to get through the system. How awful for the woman in question.

Whilst we all like to think that late abortions don't happen for any reason other than a sad one, I know of at least 3 women personally who use abortion as a birth control (for want of a better way of putting it) and one put off having said abortion just to piss off her partner (yes, not the nicest lady you could ever meet)

I had a missed miscarriage at 17 weeks. I had to wait 4 days until I was admitted to hospital. That was pretty awful. That obviously has coloured my views. We're in the 21st century now. Of course there will always be extenuating circumstances where abortion should be 'available' (rape, medical issues of baby or mother etc) but really?

We're in the 21st century and woman are still saying that they have the right to kill an unborn child just because it's their body?

Contentious issue for sure.

I"m curious though. I have skimmed through the thread so may have missed something. But haven't seen any posts from any medics/midwives who have to perform these late abortions?

Also, am I right in thinking though. We are talking a tiny minority of abortions passed the 12 week mark in any case?

star a woman shouldn't have to put her body through so much and emotional stress of giving up a baby they don't want. There is no gurantee that baby will lead a good life. Better to end what they don't know than to have a possible negleted or abused child.

"Why did he say that LGBT rights weren't up for negotiation but this is?"

i remember seeing the following written on the Feminism board by another MNer in a similar discussion a few years ago

"Because gay men have come further in 50 years than women have in 150."

It's a fair point that we don't know for sure when foetuses are first capable of experiencing pain. However, since we do know that newborn babies experience pain in a similar way to adults, it seems reasonable to assume that they start develop this ability at some point before birth.

So you didn't read the article then?

Dixieflatline Yes, I read it, but the paper did not look at foetuses beyond the age of 26 weeks, and some people argue that abortions should be available right up to term. Also, it is by no means the only publication on this subject!

lass
you are absolutely right but the echo chamber of mumsnet corbynistas will never listen to what was actually said.
Op YABU because your thread title is untrue

Not for the DUP to decide.

The DUP will want something in return for this....

The news this morning (admittedly BBC so very Tory bias!) is that DUP will want montitary exchange for better services.
Their manifesto is very similar to the Tory one hence supply and confidence however they
•wanted to end such a high level of austerity
•wanted a softer approach to Brexit
•wanted the bedroom tax scrapped

So this will be interesting. Will they give up those things to support the Tory way in exchange for services?

ryan it was my baby born crying. An abortion us a technical term for miscarriage. In terminations they do indeed have to kill the baby so it's not born alive. My baby is very much alive and well and suffers no ill effects.
And that's my point re early birth - it doesn't affect the mothers rights they have a right to end pregnancy but I don't think they have a right to kill a child first.

As for the Epicure study it did show some survive. These are actual people, not stats. Each one matters. The survival is indeed better now which is why I think a revisit might be a good idea.

And I remember our consultant being really irritated that our hospital wasn't included in the prem baby study. He had had really good success rates too. Whilst we were there two out of four survived at 23 weeks - well. This was 18 years ago...

I've not read the whole thread but just wanted to say that if the DUP called for abortion law debate in the UK, I'd be intrigued to see what happened. I reckon there's a very strong chance it would be more liberalised for the first trimester and much of the second (...like most of Europe, which has abortion on demand - none of this two doctors and satisfying a test...). There are so few late abortions I reckon that it would make little difference. The only friend I know who had a late abortion was for lofe amd death reasons.

The unborn baby has rights too.

No, the unborn baby does not have rights. It's life, and it's human life, but it does not acquire personhood and the rights that go along with that until it is born. And that is how it must be if women's human rights are to be upheld.

If you want to see the alternative, look at parts of the US where women are prosecuted and imprisoned not only for ending, or attempting to end, their own pregnancies, but for miscarriage if there is anything about their own behaviour which might have contributed.

The vast majority of terminations take place within 12 weeks. If we want to prevent late terminations we need to make the whole process easier and quicker, not further restrict women's access to late abortion.

If your SIL would honestly have a late abortion just for fun I cannot see how forcing her to continue with an unwanted pregnancy could possibly lead to a good outcome for anyone

There was a research doc I read once (I think it was linked earlier in the thread?) of reasons (aside from foetal abnormality) that women sought late abortion. The women's situations were all awful and harrowing.

I understand a debate is unlikely. I understand any debate would be unlikely to result in a change of law. I understand ths is not a formal coalition.

I am still horrified this is even being suggested and I am disgusted that any mainstream party in this country is giving the DUP with their vile backward views any sort of nod of respectability.

I actually think a relook at abortion times should be discussed. This conversation can be had without hysteria. I don't see a problem with a review, this does not challenge a woman's ability to choose an abortion in my opinion

No hive it wasn't your baby. It was a specific post about a termination. It might have been on the other thread running on this subject. No babies survived pre-22 weeks. I agree there should be separate legislation for wanted babies, but the abortion limit should not be touched. I believed they went off birth weight when deciding whether or not to intervene as a baby under 1oz I believe is considered unviable in my trust. What good could come from removing choice from women? What kind of life would these babies live that are unwanted?

We're in the 21st century and woman are still saying that they have the right to kill an unborn child just because it's their body?
Yes. Lots of people celebrate that, that we have control and say over our own bodies. It is a victory that our body is ours.

You've not answered what you'd rather do with these unwanted babies? Force them to stay with the parents who don't want them? Put them into a massively overstretched adoptive system? The futures of these babies need to be considered. Anyone considering a late termination is not doing it for shits and giggles, and the baby would likely have a sad or unwelcoming life.

Pencils I linked to the 32 reasons not to lower the time limit document earlier in the thread. I think its really important to share whenever the subject of late term termination comes up - it shows that girls (one as young as 14) and women just do not have a late term termination on a whim.

The one that always gets me whenever I re-read the document is the woman who already had 2 daughters from a previous relationship and was pregnant with a new partner who turned out to be abusing her daughters.

Then there's the young Asian girl who was going to the Indian subcontinent for an arranged marriage who was expected to be a virgin but had fallen pregnant. She was over the time limit so she couldn't end the pregnancy so had to have mediation with her family and potentially emergency accommodation arranged by BPAS because they feared for her safety.

Some of the reasons are really harrowing and gut-wrenching but not one of them got up and thought they'd just get rid on a whim one day.

As early as possible, as late as necessary.