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?

You said Doctors perform abortions because they believe that the consequences for society of banning abortion are worse than performing them.

This is not true. Doctors act for their patients not society.

You can do both.

But the consequences of banning abortion would affect society, not individuals. And not the patients themselves.

The point is that they perform abortions because it is necessary healthcare for women to have access to them.

That doesn't mean we must have access to them right up until birth. It's reasonable to have a cut off point.

Can, not should.

We could, but I don't think that we should. 28 weeks is far too late.

And other than for a small number of women who happen to discover that they are pregnant around the 24-26 week mark, I don't believe it would have much impact.

A woman who is so paralysed with fear and doubt that she takes it right to the wire is going to take it right to the wire whenever the cut off point is. Giving birth to a 23 week dead foetus is bad enough; leaving it another 4 weeks would be even worse.

But the consequences of banning abortion would affect society, not individuals. And not the patients themselves.

You said doctors go into medicine to save lives not to end them.

I asked why any doctor would perform abortions at all if they don’t want to “end lives”.

You said because they think it best for society.

This is not true. They perform abortions because they believe that it is the best course of action for their patient. Two of them literally have not sign a form saying so.

Banning abortion affects those very same individuals that the doctors have signed to say need one. Of course banning abortion affects the patients themselves.

So you think that 28 weeks is also too late if a child has a disability that is not incompatible with life? Should we move the limit to 24 weeks in cases where the child is disabled? Because most people get this news at the 20 week scan and 4 weeks is plenty long enough to access tests, make a decision and have the procedure. And if it isn’t we should speed this process up and make it more efficient so no one has to go beyond 23+6 days.

This is not true. They perform abortions because they believe that it is the best course of action for their patient. Two of them literally have not sign a form saying so.

This is a formality and everyone knows it. They never say no.

Banning abortion affects those very same individuals that the doctors have signed to say need one. Of course banning abortion affects the patients themselves.

Sorry, I missed out a word. I meant that it doesn't just affect the patients themselves, but society in general. For example, the unwanted children who are born, or the existing children of the mother. So yes it affects individual patients but it has a big impact at a societal level as well.

You can get that kind of news at any point in the pregnancy, not just at the 12 or 20 week scan, and you may need a lot of time to do further tests, have counselling, figure out what the potential outcomes are and what the likely impact would be for you. And the prognosis can change at any time during your pregnancy.

So no, that's a much more complex issue than simply "do I want to have a baby or not?"

I don’t think doctors lie when they sign the forms. I think they genuinely think it is in the best interests of the woman.

Regarding the societal impact you take about unwanted children that are born, surely this is an argument for access to abortion? Regarding other children in the family, wouldn’t we normally assume that a mother is best placed to know what is best for her children unless she’s unfit?

But if you missed it, you missed it. Just like a girl/woman who doesn’t know she’s pregnant until 24 weeks. Too bad. Got to draw the line somewhere don’t we?

Are you being deliberately facetious?

Yes it is an argument for abortion, well done.

Isn't it great that women in the UK already have some of the best access to abortion anywhere in the world?

It's not an argument in favour of terminating healthy pregnancies at term.

No. Lots of posters have explained complex, challenging circumstances where vulnerable women and children are involved that may require a late abortion. You’ve shown that same lack of empathy there. You’ve literally said there’s got to be a cut off. But for some reason it doesn’t apply to a child with disabilities that are compatible with life.

Because those are two different things...?

Yes, you've made your vulnerable women argument, and I get it. You can feel empathy for vulnerable women and still believe that there needs to be a firm cut off point, because the consequences of there not being a firm cut off point are on balance worse than the consequences of some women not making it in time.

If anything, I think your suggestion of increasing the cut off point to 28 weeks is the least logical of all.

Perhaps we should look at what happens in other comparable countries. Have countries with a later cut off point (of which there are hardly any) eliminated the problem of vulnerable women having difficulty accessing an abortion? Are countries with an earlier cut off point (of which there are many, including almost the entire European Union) experiencing worse problems in this regard? If yes, why have none of them increased their cut off point to 24 weeks I line with the UK?

But the cut off should be the same for everyone surely? Why exceptions? The only logical exception would be if either mother or child is destined to die if the pregnancy goes on.

I’ve said myself that 28 weeks is completely arbitrary. Abortion to term and trust women and doctors is the only logical, rational answer. But as you know it’s not palatable so we compromise, hopefully in a place where no one vulnerable is caught out. Equally, on the other side a limit isn’t logical if you believe that a foetus is a life and it is wrong to kill an unborn baby. That wouldn’t work for society either.

If you’re having a philosophical debate, you don’t need to look at other countries, argue from a place of logic. If you’re having a debate about a practical issue, yes looking at other countries may be helpful. But I’m not sure anyone has solved either of the problems I’ve tried to highlight: how do you ensure all vulnerable women who need an abortion have access to one, and who do you write a law that ensures that parents who are not in a position to raise a disabled child don’t have to, without inadvertently discriminating against the disabled?

I don't understand why you think vulnerable women are being caught out at 24 weeks but they wouldn't be caught out if the limit were 28 weeks.

If you were arguing that the limit should be increased from 12 weeks to 16 weeks I would agree with you. It's very common for women to not realise they are pregnant until they are a couple of months along, and quite common for women to need more than a few weeks to think about their decision.

But if a woman is vulnerable and as a consequence has not procured an abortion by 24 weeks, there is something more complex going on and there is no reason to think that whatever the problem is will have resolved itself by 28 weeks.

Regarding the disability point, we've already been over that in quite a lot of detail earlier in the thread if you care to look.

It’s entirely logical that less women will be caught out at 28 weeks than 24.

Nobody has explained to me why it’s ok to abort a disabled child at 36 weeks but not a healthy one?

If you’re having a philosophical debate, you don’t need to look at other countries, argue from a place of logic.

I've been arguing from a place of logic by asking the question about whether a woman in labour should be entitled to terminate her healthy pregnancy and strangely enough almost no one was willing to answer. In my experience it is the people in the "any reason, at any time" camp who don't like it when you try to test the limits of their position. Very much like the people in the "trans women are women, be kind" camp absolutely hate it when you start asking hard questions about prisons and intimate care for disabled people and women's sports.

If you’re having a debate about a practical issue, yes looking at other countries may be helpful. But I’m not sure anyone has solved either of the problems I’ve tried to highlight: how do you ensure all vulnerable women who need an abortion have access to one, and who do you write a law that ensures that parents who are not in a position to raise a disabled child don’t have to, without inadvertently discriminating against the disabled?

I don't think any country has solved those issues, no, and I don't think they can be solved.

Re the first issue, I don't think all vulnerable women who need an abortion would have access to one even if you removed all legal barriers, because the barriers they face are not legal ones.

Re the second issue, I've said all along that up to a certain point in time the only thing that should matter is whether the woman wants to be pregnant or not. But past a certain gestation I do think other things need to be taken into account.

If you are talking about discrimination against disabled people in relation to foetuses, you are in fact acknowledging that a foetus has some sort of personhood and rights. I agree with that. And that's why I think, past a certain point, it's a balancing act. If the baby is perfectly healthy and the woman just doesn't want to be pregnant or raise a baby but has failed to get an abortion within 24 weeks, I would attach more weight to the baby's rights and personhood, as well as not asking members of the medical profession to do something many if not most of them will feel crosses an ethical line. If the baby is very ill or disabled then the burden of caring for it, either for the parents themselves or for the social care system if the parents give the baby up, is correspondingly much higher and that is a relevant factor. Having worked with a profoundly disabled child who was abandoned by his parents at birth and lived in an institution, I wouldn't say I am comfortable with the disability exemption but I understand the need for it.

I don't agree. Other than women who happen to discover that they are pregnant after 24 weeks and before 28 weeks, I believe it would make no difference. Women who can't access an abortion at any point between 4 and 24 weeks don't magically figure things out between 24 and 28 weeks.

BPAS think it would make a difference, including to women who find out late but before 24 weeks. These women need time to process and decide too, not just those whose child may be disabled. BPAS are probably in a better position to know than you or me.

But when what about women who find out at 30 weeks? (There was one on Mumsnet a couple of years ago.)

And what about women who don't find out until they're in labour?

If you are talking about discrimination against disabled people in relation to foetuses, you are in fact acknowledging that a foetus has some sort of personhood and rights.

That doesn’t logically follow. I recognise that all being well a foetus will become a person when it leaves the womb. Whether that potential person might be disabled or not shouldn’t be the deciding factor in whether that doctor is allowed (or forced as you would say) to inject its heart and kill at it as it starts its journey down the birth canal.

Why can’t you leave this to women and their doctors? I just don’t believe that for those women who find themselves in labour without warning, their first thought would be to demand an abortion. And doctors can say it is medically too late, just like when women are hold they can have the c-section they planned, because actually the baby is crowning.

Well are we leaving it up to the woman or are we leaving it up to the doctor?

If it's the woman's decision then the doctor has little or no real power to refuse her request even if they do not believe it is in her best interests or that she has fully understood the consequences of what she is asking. They become powerless to intervene and stop the woman from doing something she may regret for the rest of her life even if they suspect that she is suffering from a severe mental health crisis or being coerced by an abusive partner into terminating her pregnancy.

If it's the doctor's decision then a woman seeking a late abortion has no certainty that she will be able to get one. She may find herself with no practical ability to enforce her legal rights, going from one hospital to the next trying to find a doctor who will agree to do it. And unlike in Canada, there is no neighbouring country just across the border where, depending on whether it's a red state or a blue one, you can find doctors willing to do just about anything if the price is right.

The UK's current system isn't perfect, but it works better than most.

As a lawyer, I attach a lot of value to legal certainty, and I think having clear rules and fixed cut off points gives you that. And this doesn't necessarily disadvantage vulnerable women; in many cases it will benefit them. For example, the woman whose partner or ex partner is trying to coerce her to terminate, who just wants to get over the 24 week line, or the woman with mental health problems who is burying her head in the sand and will finally seek out a doctor a week before the cut off point, whenever that is.