Nigel Farage on abortions- slippery slope?

[Ph2028]

Following the speech, Farage was also asked about his view on abortion limits. He replied that he was pro-choice but that it was "utterly ludicrous" for abortion to be allowed up to 24 weeks, when a hospital would "move heaven and earth" to help a baby born at 22 weeks survive.

Aibu to think it may be a slippery slope to reducing the number of weeks until it is effectively banned...

Anyway it's a bit of a non issue on Nigel's part given nearly 94% of reported abortions happen before two and a half months of pregnancy.so very few abortions happen at 24 weeks.

Now i remember why I requested a tubal ligation when I was pregnant with first baby as I didn't want anymore in any circumstances. It was predictably denied so dh got a vasectomy instead.

The majority of women having late term abortions are in horrific situations, yes. Someone who just doesn’t want another child isn’t going to wait until 23 weeks to abort is she? The ones carried out then are for serious abnormalities or might be ones like a 14 year old girl who has hidden her pregnancy from her parents or something like that. Which is also a horrific situation for a child to be in.
Most women who have an abortion do so early on - why wouldn’t you? Do you know what a late term abortion involves in terms of pain and bleeding? Nobody is doing that for fun.

Adapt to having a larger family than you’d planned to or give the baby away to someone who would be desperate to have one. There are other options to explore.

Access to contraception and to abortion (ideally as early as possible, but later in specific circumstances) needs to remain a basic right for all women and girls. It's irrelevant that some very premature babies can be saved, because while that's amazing for those desperate to be parents, it shouldn't impact the rights of those desperate not to be.

No it doesn't, it's vague on the figures but halfway down it says 15% of ALL women have felt pressure to have a termination. And where is your evidence that abusers want women to be pregnant - I would like to see it. I didn't say coercion was my reason to be against abortion (again I didn't say anything about banning abortion as unfortunately most don't agree with me). And many pregnancies are not wanted (including my own at 49) but eventually result in a much loved child. I would just rather some of the over a 100 million (I've just looked at the figures) spent by the taxpayer on the abortion industry was diverted to support for pregnant women.

What I do find most peculiar and frightening is that so many men seem to have strong views on women’s abortion rights.

Women are the ones who can get pregnant, go through pregnancy and childbirth. Take maternity leave, and still do the vast majority of the childcare.

There are more than enough children in the care system already. Abortion laws should be left alone and men should stay out of it. Unless men are suddenly going to start campaigning for better rights and conditions all round for women and children. Pull their sleeves up and start looking after these babies and children.

Yeah I’m sure that’s a really mentally healthy experience for the mother’s existing children who get to see their mum pregnant, giving birth to a sibling and said sibling then mysteriously vanishes never to be seen again. Jeez, people really don’t think these things though. It’s all about producing babies for the supposedly desperate. But not disabled ones obviously.

In the UK abortion is ilegal except in certain medical situations. Our laws are already stricter.

Killing an unborn baby is also barbaric, unless there are sufficient medical reasons

No, no, I haven’t misread you at all.

“Boasting openly about having abortions is far from classy. It’s symptomatic of a society which generally no longer values privacy. People over-sharing about everything to everyone. I dislike it.”

Adoption comes with its own can of worms for all parties involved, it's not a easy solution or panacea to be glibly suggested. Two people close to me were adopted as babies and were very much loved, but still have a lot of issues to process about it.

I've actually worked keeping babies at 22/40 weeks alive, the medicine is improving and I do think that's the right thing to do when they have parents who want to potentially provide them with life long care, and if they are medically suitable (a significant number are not, and are palliated - dying very quickly without invasive medical intervention - so it's not true that we "move heaven and earth" to aggressively resuscitate all babies born at 22/40 or even all babies born at 23 or 24 weeks).

I think 24 weeks is actually a rational abortion cut off based on the extremity of prematurity related illness, death and disability that is seen before this gestation. It's very hard work keeping babies below 24 weeks alive, for those looking after them and the babies themselves. No part of their body is mature, even their brains have gross anatomical differences (lack of folding) compared to older babies.

I don't think that we should do it in the absence of loving parents who at least indicate that they want to provide care (which many will need for a lifetime).

At the same time, I believe in women's right to access abortion. Even though babies at this gestation can and often are born with signs of life, as are occasionally babies born for a few weeks before this, birth itself is stressful to the baby. So I think how things are currently done is about right, even though it does make me sad to think about a healthy baby at 23 weeks being aborted, it's the same sadness I feel about a healthy baby at 23 weeks being exposed to alcohol and drugs - ultimately women's bodily autonomy prevails for me.

However, another possible cut off would be the gestation at which babies are not able to take any first breaths at all / go into cardiac arrest as a result of the stress of birth and therefore not able to contribute to their own transition at birth at all. I think medically that will be very difficult to overcome (ie if possible to keep babies alive then nearly 100% will have severe brain damage). It's a major factor in whether aggressive treatment is likely to be worthwhile in a 22/23/24 weeker. For example, I would counsel the parents of a 23 weeker that we will not resuscitate their baby if they are born without signs of life. Fewer and fewer babies will make any breathing effort / will survive birth the lower the gestation and I suspect there is an absolute physiological cut off somewhere, maybe around 18 weeks but I'm not sure.

No it says all women in the survey. And it doesn’t define what pressured means. There are social, relationship, economic, housing, work and other pressures that mean that sometimes women take the decision to abort. That is life I’m afraid. We don’t live in a perfect world and we all have to make choices.

The article is about reproductive pressure generally, including keeping a partner pregnant. The solution to it is not to ban abortion - it is to help these women leave these terrible relationships. Why would you think it’s a good idea for a woman to have a baby when she’s in a relationship with a man who tries to force her to have an abortion?

At what stage does the fetus become an unborn baby to you?

Many premature babies end up with a variety of often lifelong disabilities, even if born not that much earlier than full-term. I'm not sure it's reasonable to think we'll be able to save much younger foetuses tbh, without risking them having far too many issues. Before anyone says this is ableist, it isn't, it's considering quality of life.

For those who would like forced pregnancy to occur and would like to see ‘fetal rights’ placed ahead of the rights of living, adult women, how will you feel when the government and society decides to restrict the rights of ALL pregnant women, even those with wanted pregnancies? Caught eating some Brie or having a sip of champagne at a wedding? Off to a detention centre for you, missy. Tripped down a couple steps after complaining to your friend via text that you were sick of being pregnant? You were clearly trying to force a miscarriage. Wanting an elective caesarean because you had a traumatic previous birth? Sorry love, natural birth is safer for the baby. Can’t have pethidine anymore either, it affects the baby and it has the right not to be drugged.

It may sound preposterous now, but that’s EXACTLY how it started in the US. It started with recognising fetuses as having rights that SUPERSEDE the rights of the person carrying them. If that’s what you want, great. If not, then you’d be wise to rethink your position.

I agree. It’s a simpleton idea to suggest unwanted babies should be given up for adoption or the mum should simply adapt to having a larger family. The point is, it’s not just about not wanting the baby, it’s also about not wanting to be pregnant, not wanting to give birth, not wanting any of the other stuff that has to happen before the baby is born.

I thank my lucky stars every day that I live in a country with such easy and compassionate access to abortion. I’ve used the service, had no regrets, felt no connection, didn’t ruminate afterwards, and if someone had suggested I have the baby and give it up for adoption instead, I’d have told them to jog the f**k on.

Thank god for abortion. I also kick back at this having to have a sob story about it. For many women it’s as simple as, I don’t want a baby. I think it’s far more profound and damaging to continue with a pregnancy that’s not wanted.

For all his pseudo-nationalist rhetoric, Farage does not give two hoots about British values. What he is trying to import here is about as British as McDonald's.

Being an outlier could be seen a a positive thing.

I'd say certainty at the point a heart beat can be detected. Would you be happy for someone to have an abortion a week before due date without a significant medical reason to do so?

So basically going back to the 'good old days' before the 1967 Abortion Act which legalised abortion in specific circumstances? Adapt to having a larger family than you can afford or have room for? Giving a baby up for adoption is much more traumatic than having an abortion. Women used to die from having illegal abortions leaving their children without a mother. That is a time that no-one should want to go back to.

I'm not sure who all these women are that you know who are boasting about not using contraception and having abortions willy nilly, but maybe just give them a wide berth and let women keep the abortion rights that they fought for.

I am increasingly of the opinion that i am not really interested in the views of anti abortion people and their "who will stand up for the baby" rhetoric unless they are ALSO shouting loudly about a ) the father and his long term responsibilities b) what support women who are now being forced to have babies they dont want will get (medical, financial, emotional, mental) c) they have specific plans and campaigns for long term support for those children.

Also, we all know that most abortions by choice are done early. I dont care.how good medical science gets, if I got pregnant I'd far rather have an abortion than give birth at 12 weeks even if some miracles test tube thing can be developed which means I could stop being pregnant. Because I dont want a child.out there in the world that is mine but that I am caring for and no matter how good medical.science gets, that foetus is not viable without it.

Most people on here don't like to be warned about the pernicious infiltration of US ultra-right politics. Everyone in every single country in the world is susceptible to manipulation. This is working well for the MAGA format at the moment. Don't forget, a lot of those people in the US administration are TV people. They come from entertainment, not politics, and what they're doing is trying to export their latest 'show' to the UK. Instead of The Apprentice, this is now franchised politics, with Nigel as the British host. And all of us are participants in their sick little show whether we like it or not.

A lot of abuse starts in pregnancy. I don’t know if abusers necessarily want women to be pregnant. They want them to be vulnerable and more accepting of abuse. Pregnancy can have that effect.

I suppose the question is do men make women pregnant (vulnerable) in order to abuse them? Or do they abuse pregnant women because they are vulnerable. I suspect it’s a bit of both really.

You may well be right, but in fairness 50 years ago the idea of a 23-week old foetus being viable outside the womb (let alone having any quality of life) was unthinkable, so who knows what medicine might be able to achieve half a century from now! That’s why I think basing the abortion limit on viability is a slippery slope.

I don’t believe what you’ve said is ableist at all but sadly it’s often the same people who want to restrict abortion who also believe that all life is sacred and therefore don’t care about babies suffering with lifelong disabilities or pain.

As they say, you don’t stop abortion by banning it. You stop safe abortions.