Article on abortion by Rachel Johnson (I know, I know)

[emkana]

I'll get straight to the point and say that it is this paragraph that I mainly have a problem with:

And as for late-term abortions, there is no evidence that these are being sought for trifles such as webbed toes alone. There were 136 terminations beyond 24 weeks in 2006. All of them were for what is called a ?ground E? case ? meaning if the child was born, it would be seriously handicapped.

What I don't like about it is that she just says "seriously handicapped", as if that was a clear and precise definiton of something. What counts as "seriously handicapped"? I know that we were given the option to terminate the pregnancy when we were having ds - all he has is a type of dwarfism! So what is "seriously handicapped"? This is just sloppy writing isn't it?

... and a problem with the abortion law. There do need to be better definitions of 'seriously handicapped' for terminations up to birth.

I meant to add a link to the article:

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rachel_johnson/article3255912.ece

I thought it was a poorly written article myself, in that it really didn't have a clear point.

She could have simply written, 'I'm pro choice and think abortion should be kept legal and safe as long as necessary,' and saved herself, and her readers, the trouble.

agree with yurt.

It could, and has been, classified as a cleft lip

The only person in real life I know who had a late abortion did so because the foetus had no brain. (literally) As the foetus had no brain it was incapable of releasing the hormones to trigger labour. The lady in question was induced at 28 weeks and the baby survived a matter of minutes.

The mother felt that it was pointless taking a baby with no brain to full term. Even if she had allowed the baby to grow to the size of a newborn, the baby would have had to be induced.

Sadly my friend has suffered severe depression because she is convinced that she murdered her baby.

Has she had any decent counselling? Hard to go through something like that without it. And its for cases like that that the law needs to remain - and yet be carefully thought out.

My own preference would be that terminations post 24 weeks can only take place for conditions that are incompatible with life (by which I mean the baby will definitely die in infancy). It just seems clearer (and it appears easier to diagnose in utero compatible/incompatible with life versus severity of disability - which is very hard to predict).

There would have to be some sort of proviso made for the late receipt of test results though I guess.

I'm with expat, was just a pointless generalising article that I wasted time reading.

I've never heard of cleft palate so severe that surgery couldn't improve the quality of life of the patient at all.

A work colleague of mine had a daughter with severe cleft palate.

'Normal feeding' was indeed impossible for this child, a 4-year-old girl, and she was going to need a number of reconstructive surgeries throughout her life.

But it certainly wasn't imcompatible with life entirely, especially not given alternative methods of feeding a person who cannot feed in the normal fashion.

In fact, this girl and her family were having some plastic/reconstructive facial surgery that was unavailable in the UK performed for free in Los Angeles via a charity programme.

Don't get me wrong, she has many health problems associated with her condition, but she is very much alive.

"Meanwhile, about 1,100 women had an abortion between 22 and 24 weeks: teenagers who panicked and hid their pregnancy; women who had no idea they were pregnant because they were on the contraceptive pill. One wonders what on earth these girls and women would have done if safe, legal procedures weren?t available for them."

Surely this part of the article is the important bit, I don't think many people take issue with late term abortions in the situations where there is a severe handicap and the 135 that take place past 24 weeks would happen regardless of a change in legislation as they are perceived as medical necessity and are devastating for those involved.

It's the teenagers who panicked (although they managed to face up to it before 24 weeeks) and the women who had no idea they were pregnant because they were on the pill (only 99% reliable form of contraception IF used 100% correctly) that I think most of the pro-lifers have a problem with.

All in all a rubbish article which didn't even seem to make a clear point, her arguement was based around something that isn't even seen as an issue by most people and has no direction or conclusion. Fluffy journalism.

It wasn't meant as a personal comment directed at you, belgian, but at this person from Maria Stopes.

For me the issue is the lack of clear definition of 'severe disability'. I do think that needs tightening up with the law. Obviously the baby described in Reallytired's post would come well and truly into that category- it sounds as if her mother had literally no choice, but with no clear definition of 'sevrious' it becomes hard to know where to draw the line.

It's often so difficult to predict in utero.

My friend's baby had Anencephaly

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly

It happens in about 1 in 10000 pregnancies, although most pregancies miscarry. I believe that Anencephaly is quite a common reason for late abortions.

I agree that it is hard to know where to draw the line with "serious". Is a condition like Downs Syndrome or a severe cleft palate really incompatible with life? What is a life limiting condition? I think that late abortions need to be considered carefully on a case by case basis by people who are experienced.

Families in these situations need more financial, emotional and practical support than they get at the moment.

Reallytired, I am no expert but DS can be incompatible with life if that individual child has other serious issues than "just" the DS itself (like heart abnormalities etc).

I think it is unwise to group each diagnosis as that one being OK to live with and that one incompaitble with life as very often it depends on different variants of individual conditions and the severity of associated problems that parents are basing their decisions on and not just the label that their babies abnormalities are given.

But they are usually unable to diagnose those sorts of things accurately until birth. At least one mnetter was told her child's heart abnormality was very serious indeed (the child also has DS) and it was only at birth that they found out it was much less severe than had been predicted. Now a healthy 5 year old.

If you're going to allow termination at say 36 weeks for 'serious' disability then you need a proper definition of serious. Not just some particular medic's view.

'these sorts of things' being the health conditions associated with DS. Anencephaly is relatively easy to diagnose accurately in utero.

Everyone's "serious" will be different though. I had a scare re: Edwards syndrome with my 2nd pregnancy and would definitely have terminated if I'd had a positive result, as I would not want to go full-term with a baby who would die (on average) at 3 days old. Other women choose to proceed with such pregnancies and some of those children do live for a few years. Their parents believe they have some quality of life.

Yes I agree - everyone's serious is different- which is why it needs to be properly legislated. Currently for example DS is classed as 'serious' by many- medics included (I've found medics views to learning disabilites is often a bit odd). I personally do not think it right that a termination for DS could take place at 39 weeks (as the law currently allows).

Edwards would be covered in my 'incompatible with life' division because deaths usually occur in infancy (same for trisomy 13). The children who survive into teen years with trisomy 13 or 18 (or older) tend to have mosaic conditions.

Anyone seen '4 months, 3 weeks, 2 days' beautiful [and very sad] film about a young girl trying to get an abortion in communist Romania in the 80's. Would recommend it.

What is the difference between terminating a pregnancy at 39 weeks and killing a newborn baby?

Personally I think there should be enuthansia for children (or adults) who are terminally ill and REALLY suffering.

I would prefer these matters to be decided partly by legisation and partly by a panel of experts.

Prehaps more research needs to go into early pregnancy testing so that abortions can be carried out earlier. I think its wrong to abort a DS baby at 39 weeks, but I would not a problem with an abortion being done because of Downs before 22 weeks.