to think they would feel differently if they had children?

[Violetbeauregardesgum]

Just reflecting that the three most vehemently pro-abortion, abortion on demand up till 40 weeks women I know are all child free. Was talking to one the other day and was taken aback by how uncompromising she was. The 32 week old baby that the woman was imprisoned for aborting was not a baby, all women have the right to end a pregnancy at any point.

I am pro choice but think the 24 week cut off is about right. AIBU to think they would feel differently if they had gone through a pregnancy to term themselves?

Why are you persistently ignoring the fact that the woman has almost six months in which to decide not to have a baby?

She doesn't have to have a baby unless she for whatever reason has let that time run out without taking the necessary steps to end her pregnancy.

Can you confirm whether you believe that a doctor should be forced to stop the heart of a healthy baby which is ready to be born and then deliver it dead rather than alive, in direct contravention of the Hippocratic oath, just because a woman has shown up at hospital in labour saying she doesn't want her baby born alive?

Because if you do not agree that a doctor should be forced to do that, you do in fact accept that there should come a point in pregnancy at which a woman can be told, "Sorry, it's too late for an abortion now, you will have to go through with it."

If you don't think that point is at 24 weeks and you don't think that point is when the woman is in labour, and you're not willing to say when you think it should be but want to leave it up to medical professionals and the woman to decide, all that means is that you want the extreme pro choicers to "win" the argument and you want to introduce legal uncertainty into the system and then leave the hard decisions to someone else.

The woman comes first with no questions asked for half her pregnancy, and then she still comes first if there is serious risk to her health or if an ultrasound reveals her baby to be less than perfect.

But when it's a choice between an already viable baby and a woman who has decided she doesn't want to see her pregnancy through to the end despite not having taken action to end it in the first six months, I (and lawmakers in pretty much every country in the world) think there are actually competing rights which need to be taken into account, including those of the baby. By that point, it's no longer all about the woman.

A woman being able to make decisions about her own body is not really heaping responsibility onto her shoulders. What a strange turn of phrase.

For late abortions she's not making any decisions about her own body. Her body has to go through childbirth either way. She's making decisions about someone else's body.

Right, so, once again, if a woman shows up at hospital in labour and demands that a doctor administer an injection to stop her baby's heart before it is born, should she be allowed to make that decision about her own body, and should a doctor be forced to carry out her instructions?

Are you even reading people's responses to you?

I am. So far only one person has been brave enough to answer the question.

Is there a reason why you won't?

Yes she should be allowed to make that decision.

No a doctor should not be forced to carry it out but access to a doctor who will should be available.

Once was enough.

I'm not 'persistently ignoring' anything, I just think that no woman gets to 6 months and then just decides not to have a baby. I think any woman in the position of requesting an abortion past 24 weeks is going to be in an unusual, complicated and difficult circumstance. I don't believe women just carelessly 'let that time run out', I think the tiny number of women in that position will be in difficulty maybe because of DV, MH, substance issues, age, learning barriers, I don't know what else, but I think they are women with struggles and not women who just bob along for 6 months then change their mind on a whim. I don't pretend to know why a tiny number of women end up in that position well enough to pronounce on what should happen, I think it should be case specific and I don't think that's 'leaving the hard decisions to someone else' I think it's leaving them to the people best placed to make them in each specific rare situation.

But I do not think we should have a situation where an unborn foetus has rights as a born person does. Women cannot trust law or practice in the places which award rights to the unborn, women die unnecessarily because either the foetus is explicitly prioritised or the doctors are too scared to prioritise the woman even when the letter of the law allows it. I don't know why you think I'm advocating for legal uncertainty, what I'm concerned about is that emotive hyperbole about killing babies will lead to women losing the access we currently have to safe abortion.

I do see what you're saying, but ultimately we have to draw the line somewhere, including in these very difficult, exceptional cases.

A woman seeking an abortion for non medical reasons after 24 weeks could turn up asking for help at 28 weeks or at 38 weeks. If you think she should be able to get one if she shows up at 28 weeks but not at 38 weeks, you agree we have to draw the line somewhere and the only thing we are arguing about is where that line should be drawn.

If you think she should be able to get one at 38 weeks then you are arguing for no limit. But unless you actually think doctors should be forced to carry out terminations of healthy pregnancies at full term, a woman's legal right to an abortion at any time and for any reason is in fact conditional upon her finding a doctor willing to do it. The closer she gets to her due date, the harder it will be to find one.

And what if she presents at A&E, in labour and seeking an abortion, and is visibly drunk, high or having some kind of manic episode? Do you want whichever doctor is on call to take her word for it, or are they supposed to be responsible for assessing whether she is mentally competent to consent to the procedure she is asking for? What happens if they get it wrong, either way?

So this idea doesn't actually work, does it? It's all very well to say a woman should be able to have an abortion at any time and for any reason, if that is what you believe, but in practice she probably won't be able to. And your vulnerable woman who is 30 weeks pregnant is led to believe that she still has choices that she in fact no longer has, because although she has the legal right to make that choice she has no actual means of enforcing it in time.

You didn't answer it, someone else did.

there should come a point in pregnancy at which a woman can be told, "Sorry, it's too late for an abortion now, you will have to go through with it."

Your language is telling. This sounds like the way that parents or teachers speak to children when they’re in trouble rather than how doctors discuss a treatment or procedure with a patient. It seems quite a patronising way of dealing with another equal human being.

I’ve said above that I believe 28 weeks is better (and should also apply to foetuses with detected abnormalities) but accept that is completely arbitrary. Lots of people want no limit for children with disabilities so if that is the path that we as a society want to go down it should apply to all pregnancies.

I notice that you keep arguing for the doctors that are “forced” to do this job but don’t acknowledge that medicine is a career with lots of difficult decisions. I’ve had a baby in NICU and regularly had to step out of the room for difficult procedures. There was always a nurse who would hold his hand and comfort him when I couldn’t. I don’t believe working in NICU is an easy job when you see babies in pain and dying every day and I thank those nurses for doing what I can’t. But ultimately some medical specialists do have to take those difficult decisions and do those difficult jobs and they know this when they go into it. They all do what they believe is best for their patient and abortion is no different to any other area of medicine, they do the best they can for the woman they are treating.

Both charities that support women and organisations that represent doctors want to make abortion easier to access in various ways. Given that the groups most affected want this, I do think UK laws are too stringent. And just because the rest of the world could do better, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t.

What difference does it make if it's 24 weeks or 28 weeks? Either way there will be women who are the wrong side of that time limit, which appears to be your objection to it being 24 weeks.

Doctors go into medicine with the aim of saving lives, not ending them. They expect death to be a part of the job (more or less, depending on their choice of specialism), but only the deaths they are unable to prevent. If you want to make terminating full term healthy pregnancies on demand part of the remit of obstetricians, I think you'll find some of them deciding not to choose that specialism, which will reduce the quality and availability of women's healthcare for everyone.

I don't see what's so wrong with saying that there comes a point where it's too late for an abortion. The law of pretty much every country says this.

Some women, incidentally, decide they don't want to become mothers after their babies are born. I'm not sure there's much logic in believing that you can't tell a woman who is at full term with a healthy baby that it's too late for an abortion and she must be allowed to end her baby's life before it is born, but that if she decides she doesn't want to be a mother as soon as she is holding it in her arms she can't ask the doctor to kill it because that would be murder. It's the same baby.

What difference does it make if it's 24 weeks or 28 weeks?

I’ll say it again. Any limit is arbitrary. But a limit that stops vulnerable women getting the help they need is worse than one which does not.

Doctors go into medicine with the aim of saving lives, not ending them.

Very emotive language. Why does any doctor perform any abortion if they don’t want to “end lives”. Perhaps because they believe it is best for their patient? Why do they become incompetent or emotionally affected at 24+1 but not 23+6? Why do you believe that our most highly trained medics can’t make rational decisions in the best interests of their patients only when faced with a pregnant woman? Because this conversation would be frankly ludicrous if we were talking about any other area of medicine where difficult decisions need to made or procedures performed.

The law of pretty much every country says this.

I wonder if more countries ban abortion than allow it? I assume more countries have the death penalty than not. Do you think we should always aim for the lowest common denominator or should we make decisions based on the situation we are in and what is the right thing to do for those most affected?

I’ll say it again. Any limit is arbitrary. But a limit that stops vulnerable women getting the help they need is worse than one which does not.

How does a 24 week limit stop vulnerable women from getting the help they need but a 28 week limit not?

If a woman has not sought an abortion by the 24 week limit because she is vulnerable, there is no particular reason why that should change within the next four weeks, but not afterwards.

And if you set the limit at 28 weeks you'd still have to tell women who are 29 weeks pregnant, "Sorry, too late."

Very emotive language. Why does any doctor perform any abortion if they don’t want to “end lives”. Perhaps because they believe it is best for their patient? Why do they become incompetent or emotionally affected at 24+1 but not 23+6? Why do you believe that our most highly trained medics can’t make rational decisions in the best interests of their patients only when faced with a pregnant woman? Because this conversation would be frankly ludicrous if we were talking about any other area of medicine where difficult decisions need to made or procedures performed.

Doctors perform abortions because they believe that the consequences for society of banning abortion are worse than performing them. That doesn't mean there should be no limits, or that a doctor should be required to perform an abortion when the baby is at term and ready to be born.

And I thought you wanted women to make the decisions, not doctors. If it's 100% up to the woman then the doctor is merely carrying out her instructions, not making a decision. If the doctor is the one who ultimately gets to decide whether it should be done then not only is the woman not making the final decision, she does not know whether she will be allowed to have the abortion she is requesting. If she requests it in time to meet the 24 week deadline, she does know that her request will be granted.

I wonder if more countries ban abortion than allow it? I assume more countries have the death penalty than not. Do you think we should always aim for the lowest common denominator or should we make decisions based on the situation we are in and what is the right thing to do for those most affected?

The lowest common denominator? I am talking about countries like Sweden and France. There is only one other country in Europe where you can have an abortion for non medical reasons up to 24 weeks, which is the Netherlands. And even there, any later than that and you are shit out of luck.

So far in this thread the only country people have been able to come up with which allows abortion at any time and for any reason is Canada, and in practice women there can't find a doctor who will do it and have had to travel to the States.

I don’t think you understand the role of a doctor. They act in the best interests of their patients, not of society. They treat individuals and ultimately an abortion is a procedure like any other. Sometimes doctors can and do refuse to carry out treatment because they don’t believe it is in their patient’s best interests.

Also If she requests it in time to meet the 24 week deadline, she does know that her request will be granted.

I think you might have missed the article I posted from BPAS earlier that demonstrates that this isn’t true. Women present before 22 weeks and can’t get appointments in time.

That's a problem with availability, not an indication that the legal deadline should be later. If the deadline were 28 weeks those same women would be presenting at 26 weeks and potentially still being too late.

You don't seem to understand that the current law allows for abortion at any stage, to save the life of the mother. So given that anything you can imagine and lots you can't has and will happen in healthcare, doctors have and will perform an abortion at term with a healthy foetus in that case. So there is no question about doctors being ' forced to carry out terminations of healthy pregnancies at full term', it will have happened. It will be incredibly rare, but it's legal and will have happened. So that point is moot.

And there is no question over a woman 'finding a doctor willing to do it', this isn't the US, in the NHS you don't go shlepping around to find a doctor who'll do what you want. If a doctor is required to do it, for the rare and difficult circumstances in which it is legal in the UK, they will do it. Why are you trying to make out that a woman would have to search out a doctor? That's not how the NHS works.

Your argument seems to be that vulnerable women will believe they've got 40 weeks to choose to have an abortion so will dawdle, and I don't think that's true. I don't think any woman in a position to get an early abortion would deliberately wait, why would they? So I think that women accessing late abortions will be doing so for complex reasons. Not just that they didn't get round to it and think they've got the whole pregnancy to do so. Plus I think saying 'although she has the legal right to make that choice she has no actual means of enforcing it in time.' is in effect scaremongering, because in the UK doctors don't pick and choose what procedures they'll do in that way.

There's no need to be so patronising.

I do in fact understand the role of a doctor.

By saying a woman should be able to have an abortion at any time and for any reason you are actually hampering a doctor's ability to refuse her one if they feel it is not in her best interests.

If a woman is requesting an abortion at full term for non medical reasons I would tend to start from the assumption that she is extremely vulnerable and may not have sufficient capacity to fully understand what she is asking for.

I agree. My answer would be change it to 28 weeks and see if women’s charities and doctors still think there is a problem, as they agree there is with the current laws. If they do maybe we need to consider changing it again.

What qualifies as pro choice in your view? Abortion up until birth? What is someone if they agree with abortions to a limit? Pro restricted choice?

I'm late to the thread but happy to answer - No.

Would it not make more sense to focus on outreach work with vulnerable women and girls to educate them about the contraception and abortion options available to them, including time limits?

I don't think you will find much support for increasing the deadline to 28 weeks.