Womens rights and the Tories...This article makes interesting reading....

[redadmiral]

lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,,2281390,00.html

Yup, and thus (she argues) you should reduce from 24 to 22 to take account of this. I disagree.

I don't say you should, edam, I say, I can understand why a reduction back to 22 weeks is worth considering. I know there are studies ongoing to assess any changes in the survival rates of pre-24 week live births, and that they haven't changed in 10 years despite major advances in caring for premature babies in general.
I will freely admit that my views on considering 22 weeks rather than 24 for a cut-off point for abortion on demand, are heavily influenced by the fact that ds2 was prematurely stillborn at that point. I think we all bring personal experiences to a debate of this sort tbh - just as well we are not all MPs. Rationally I am against any alteration to the 1967 Act because I know what a fight there was to get this onto the Statute books. Emotionally is another matter.

I'll say it again, it's interesting that anyone who has witnessed a 22+ week baby, whether living or not, feels uncomfortable about the 24 week limit.

I had a scan at 22 weeks (having a higher risk pregnancy) and it hasn't changed my views on abortion. I don't see that my experience of carrying a much-wanted baby is relevant to unwanted pregnancy.

Actually, come to think of it, I stopped worrying quite so much at 28 weeks (wrt higher risk pregnancy). Somehow, for me, that was the point at which I felt ds had a chance even if something went wrong. Dunno why. And it has no relevance to anyone else's pregnancy, just might be why I'm not bothered by 24 weeks.

Edam - With all due respect there is a world of difference between a scan of a baby at 22 weweks and seeing or holding a born baby at 22 weeks.

Probably, yes. But I don't think we've got a statistically valid sample of people who have seen a baby of 22 weeks' gestation on this thread.