If the Tories win, Cameron will support plans to reduce the upper abortion limit

[policywonk]

yikes

By daftpunk on Wed 15-Jul-09 17:49:53
"2shoes...sometimes a disability isn't picked up until late in the pregnancy....uncomfortable as this may be to you, alot of parents don't want disabled children."

Lots of parent in the world would rather have a boy than a girl.

Is that an equily valid reason to terminate the pregnancy?

I agree with this policy 100%, I would like to see the limit reduced.

lynettescavo....no, of course not, although in some cultures this happens.

true smallwhitecat, a lot of disabilitties happen at or after birth, I wonder what these people do then....

i think the limit is fine as it is
and i think that termination should be made available to everyone, no matter where in the country they live

I see the situation as different when things such as rape and abuse are involved, where continuing the pregnancy would genuinely cause considerable psychological harm to the Mother

But non life threatening disability- I very firmly beleive that when you conceive a baby and decide to caryy n with the pregnancy past 12 weeks, you are (or should be) signing a contract in your mind to love that baby no matter what. Conception sometimes produces disablitlies we know this. probably as often if not more disablity and illness display far l;ater (eg the sheer numbers of asd kids these days)- a clear bill of health at birth is in my direct experience meaningless.

i think saying some people dont want disabled children is extremely harsh it may not be what you ordered but you would love that child no matter what

my ds has ASD this cannot be picked up from birth i always said i wasnt going to be tested for anything anyway as i would love my child no matter what i had routine tests but didnt further any

i thought i had nt child and when he got to 2 realised i didnt i didnt give him up or try and send him back i loved him no matter what you dont always get what you hope for but

i know so many people who cannot have children and very sad for your freind peachy, who would love to have a child disability or no disability i know its all down to choice but some people could be aborting one after the other on the hopes for a perfect child and there child if born to them would have been perfect its society and shitty ways of thinking that makes somebody not want a child who is different or more work but there children and my ds has disability it stayed hidden for 2 yrs

you dont alwasy get what you want but you always love what you get

And Fio, on that day I also will join you (and I dont do naked)

I'm against this entirely.

You (I'm presuming all or most on this thread live in GB) on the whole have easy access to early abortion, for the vast majority a lower limit would have no bearing whatsoever. Not all of us are so unfortunate.
I live in Ireland, where abortion is still illegal, and necessitates travel to another country, often but not always GB. Its a much harder, more long winded and difficult experience. Not only do you need to find out where and how to access the service, you need to pay for it as a private overseas patient (much more expensive), find accomodation, travel expenses, etc etc. Women in that position often tend to have later abortions, and thats without considering those who have to travel even in case of disability or incompatability with life.

Its not as clear cut as you might think.

exactly proverbial

IMHO its not that parents should not have the right to terminate BUT the cut off point & guidlines should be equal regardless of disability.
Should that be 24 wks who knows?
But why is a disabled baby any less worthy of legislative protection post 24 wks than a baby where no disability is detected.

proverbial sorry to be thick, but is it still illegal even with non conpatible with life?

because a lot of things arent picked up until the 22week scan (which in one of my pregnancies i didnt have until nearly 25 weeks)

But should we not improve antenatal care & screening to ensure these abnormalities are picked up earlier, rather than tolerating the waiting lists for scans,
delaying detection & forcing parents in to making a rushed ill informed decision & possibly the increased trauma of a v late termination.

Unless it's for a dire anomaly picked up at the 20-week, I'd like to see it reduced. IMO, if you haven't made up your mind that you don't want the baby by 12 weeks, tough. If you decide you don't want the baby after that, there's always adoption. 24 weeks, when the baby is actually a fully-formed human being capable of feeling pain, is just too awful to contemplate.

scanning at 20 weeks is late enough for abnormalities to be detected if a parent decides to scan at all.

Yes, 2shoes, in that case you can get a referral to a GB hospital, but you're still pretty much on your own. The only time you can legally get a termination in Ireland is if the pregnancy will actually definitely kill the woman. Court orders have been obtained to stop young women travelling to GB, once famously in the case of a 12 year old incest victim (known as the X case), and for a 17 year old whose foetus was anacephalic.

God bless the emerald isle.

was the scan not changed to 22 weeks because there were certain things not being picked up as early as 20 weeks

and then for someone who lives in northern ireland/ireland it gives them 2 weeks to come to terms with things, make their mind up and arrange a private termination in england?

proverbial that is dreadful

Absolutely if this were to be considered women would have to be guaranteed a scan between 18 and 20 weeks.

Seems to me though that both sides are right. I can persionally and emotively never agree with terminating a pregnancy that would result in a live baby (I wouldnt even that but recognise hugely personal decision) after a lower age than exists now, however equally I can see that reducing that ability would only cause a resort to the backstreet abortionist and intense misery for some.

Which is why my take on this is that the best way forwards is positive working and financed inclusion that allows people who do not have contact with SN to see disabilty for what it really is (something that comes in very many guises but always has person attached). Resources for dealing with babies in extremely poor famillies should be better (not so much cash- new babies are cheap or at least can be if youre not after the latest buggy and gucci trainers- as sorting out the housing mess and making sure support mechanisms such as homestart are there and funded). giving women in DV households somewhere safe and not scary (becuase hostels are seen that way) to run.

Then, and only then, may late terminations really reduce becuase of a genuine drop in need as opposed to a drop becuase they are hidden instead.

harleyd, that might be handy if all hospitals actually gave you an anomoly scan. I got one quick scan at 15 weeks this pregnancy, thats it. Last time had one at 10 weeks and one at 26 weeks, neither in depth.

When queried on this I was told "Sure why do you need to diagnose in utero, since we won't offer you much of anything either way" or words to that effect.