Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

abortion limit to be cut

43 replies

tweeni · 23/02/2006 22:27

i read that they want to cut it to 20 weeks. i personally think that isn't early enough when the youngest gestational age of a baby who has survived with no disability is 19 weeks 6 days.anyone elses thoughts?

OP posts:
goldstarlover · 24/02/2006 20:10

agree with RZ about testing that early.
you wouldn't see enough.. that's why they wait until 12 weeks... which is fine IMO because I do feel that abortions for medical reasons should be allowed whenever.

magnolia1 · 24/02/2006 20:13

I really do think it should be as low as 12 weeks if not for medical reasons although there are some unfortunate people who don't even know they are pregnant till after 12 weeks!!

kittyfish · 24/02/2006 20:22

And some women who don't realise at all and give birth in the loo fgs. So the nausea, tiredness, constipation, indigestion and other such delights didn't give it away then?

Original poster
tweeni · 24/02/2006 20:35

no a scan at 8 weeks just for dates and to confirm the baby is alive and well not for detecting organs etc

OP posts:
magnolia1 · 24/02/2006 20:41

Kitty, I was actually thinking of young girls who ignore all those signs and finally realise should still be able to opt for abortion if they want to. Not everyone suffers so dramatically. I for one was very lucky and had no signs apart from weight gain with my 1st and still had periods so it is possible

RedZuleika · 24/02/2006 21:36

Tweeni: I think it's overkill to suggest that everyone have a scan to confirm that the foetus is alive. I just don't think it's necessary. If a heartbeat is visible at about 6 weeks and for most people there's a 95% chance of a live birth once the heartbeat has been seen (certain medical conditions aside), all you're going to be doing is confirming life over and over again - with no particular impact on care. If there's a problem, then a miscarriage will occur sooner or later. I'm not sure that the number of missed miscarriages which happen annually in this country justify the cost of scanning everyone.

As for the dates, well - again, I'm not sure I think that pinpoint accuracy is a universal requisite.

RedZuleika · 24/02/2006 21:37

justifies, I meant

PeachyClair · 25/02/2006 14:12

Surely a young girl who has not disclosed as pg would be medical anyway- there are risks with very early pg's and mental health is also a health risk as much as physical health.

CarolinaMoon · 25/02/2006 15:14

I really don't get what the viability of the baby has to do with anything.

It's still a baby, however early in the pg it is.

And it's not like a 24 week foetus can survive on its own outside the womb is it? - they need a huge amount of medical help to replicate the support they would have inside the womb.

I am not anti-abortion, I just think the viability thing is a smokescreen - it's not the real issue at all.

monkeytrousers · 25/02/2006 15:50

Has anyone read the Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan essay ?Abortion: Is it Possible to be both ?Pro-life? and ?Pro-Choice???

It's not available online but there's a snippet here

bundle · 25/02/2006 15:51

redzuleika, where do you get a figure of 95% live birth rate from, when a heartbeat is seen @ 6 weeks?

monkeytrousers · 25/02/2006 15:51

also, agree Soph

RedZuleika · 25/02/2006 19:03

bundle: Off the top of my head, I'm not sure. I have a lot of research relating to my own medical condition (one to which the 95% does not apply), so it's something I've read in that accumulated bumpf. I have a suspicion that it's in Prof. Regan's book 'Miscarriage', but I don't have a copy to hand at the moment, so can't check.

Charlene1 · 11/04/2006 15:22

When preg with DS, i didn't know at first. Suspected, did a test and confirmed with doctor. They sent me for a dating scan and I was nearly 14 wks. I was ecstatic to be pregnant. I was "bullied" into having the blood tests by midwife and friends/family, even though I said I would want a baby no matter what - Downs didn't bother me etc. they said "you'd want to know if something was wrong", dp said if it's disabled then we should think about abortion cos it's not fair on baby or him as he would have to bring it up, not just me (although we agreed from the start I would be a fulltime SAHM). Apparently his family was of the same opinion, and my family think disabled kids should be "put in homes". I refused to have an amnio (didn't want to know, risk of m/c, painful etc.) and did not have an anomaly scan until nearly 22 wks. They then changed my dates again. If they had found anomalies, I would have been pressurised into aborting and could not have lived with myself. Thank god he was fine. If I had had to have an abortion, it would have been OVER 24 wks possibly and a very hurried decision.

I hope to god I never find myself having to make a choice like that, for any reason.

When pg with dd, I refused all tests, and I was constantly pressurised to have them, but stuck to my guns, was very anxious at scan but luckily everything again OK.
If they lower the limit, then maybe other women will not be put into that situation.

Everyone is different and has their own reasons for abortion, early or late, but it should be their choice and not doctors, governments, partners, family etc.
I have heard of cases where scans are wrong and the aborted baby is actually fine, but it's too late then.
Makes me shudder.

Caligula · 11/04/2006 18:16

Er... I don't think it's that extreme to have an abortion if you split from your partner. Most women wouldn't choose to be single mothers if given the choice, and if you know you're going to have to go through a pregnancy on your own and then afterwards have an ex in your life exerting some control over your life from then on, it's not really that extreme to choose a different life, is it?

kitty4paws · 12/04/2006 23:18

Don't know the exact facts but from my understanding the 24, 20 week limit is for "social" ( not sure if that's the correct term) abortions e.g. the mental health of the mother etc etc. nothing to do with the baby.

where there are significant abnormalites detected with the baby or to save the mothers life abortion is legal up to the moment of birth. This has allways been the case since abortion was made legal.

Even if the "social" limit was lowered below the amnio date ( e.g. 18 weeks) if major problems were detected then an abortion would still be legal upto birth. So there would be no need to rush tests etc.

I also think the viability limit is a smoke screen, what happens when babies of 18,15 or even 10 weeks can be saved ? Science fiction NOW but what of the future ?

Jimjamskeepingoffvaxthreads · 12/04/2006 23:30

yes ktty4paws- termination for disability is legal up to birth (which I don't agree with but that's another issue). It's meant to be for "serious" disability, but that's problematic because a) there's no definition of serious and b) it can often be hard to tell prenatally how serious a condition will be. Also unless you either have a chromosomal condtion or know what you are looking for it can very difficult to even guess what condition a baby has, and often impossible to confirm until birth.

kitty4paws · 12/04/2006 23:42

Jim jam,

The case last year of an abortion after 24 weeks for a cleft palate (sp?) was where I live. A lady vicar brought a case against it but lost.

It is, as you say, so very difficult to define a) serious abnomality and b) degree of abnormality.

"Genitically" I have asthma but I have no symptoms at all but my sisiter has had major problems her whole life with her asthma ?? go figure !

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread