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

[policywonk]

yikes

yes,i totally understand, anon.

i think the cut off should remain at 24 weeks or should be raised to term for all reasons, it amounts for such a tiny percentage of all terminations, that i doubt raising the limit to term would signal a massive increase in terminations.

but saying that won;t win anyone an election!

"That's all well and good, and I sympathise, but I'm a little that you think it reasonable that one country should take into account travel time for citizens of another country when setting its laws! Not entirely realisic, I think."

Why? Its a reality that women from Ireland, and NOrthern Ireland, which is after all part of the UK, do travel to GB for terminations. I could go into a long diatribe about how many of our laws and institutions are still directly related to the centuries of British occupation, but I'll stick with the fact that its a lot more than travel time, and opinion on whether Irish should be considered or not won't change the fact that they do make up a significant subgroup of those accessing the service in GB, and will continue to do so, particularly later term, which is the issue at hand . If you are suggesting that its unreasonable to care about women who are already being put at a great disadvantage, thats your prerogetive to argue, I would respectfully disagree.

In answer to the question about the post 24-week limit being only applicable from evidence of severe foetal abnormalities, the wording of the Act includes:

"There is no time limit on abortion where two doctors agree that a woman?s health or life is gravely threatened by continuing with the pregnancy "

so basically the law is saying that you can terminate up until term provided you fulfil those criteria. so the cut off is almost meaningless , as the percentage of later abortions is so small ....

So I would assume if the baby is viable they would attempt to deliver a live baby.
I still therefore do not understand why this law would have any influence on the late abortion debate??

I think it depends on the circumstances - sometimes they inject the heart first

Lulumaman the percentage maybe small, but it was still 2,874 termiations of babies over 20 weeks in England and Wales in 2002 (the only stats I have to go on atm)

That's still a lot of babies.

Why, if delivering the baby would also save the womans life would they need to terminate?
Surely a questionable use of the law? Still cannot see how this can be used as an excuse for late termination??
Am i just being very thick?

Thank you Fatti, I thought the wording was something like that.

No you're not being thick anon. I would imagine that someone could argue for a late termination for a non-disabled baby on grounds of severe life threatening psychological trauma. I don't know whether that has ever happened though.

I know someone who had a backstreet abortion and her description of that made me convinced that abortion is necessary, but like you I think it should be equal. I would argue it should be allowed to birth because a) I think late terminations are rare and b) it allows decisions to be made on a case by case basis.

See this is where I could argue with myself.
I am so pro choice & would hate the thought that legislation prevented someone making an informed decision about their unborn child.

But it just feels so wrong to abort so late.

My head says one thing & my heart another.

The only point i am sure on is that the law must be equal & the cut off point should be the same even if severe disability is suspected.

my sister had a scan at 22 weeks, was told baby small, then at 28, 30 and 32 weeks at her normal hospital - it was only at this point was she referred and it was discovered her little boy wouldnt be viable in this world! - so she had to let him sleep forever at 34.5 weeks, she is haunted by this every day, she had to give birth to a still born and walk out the hospital without her son - the decision wasnt made easy, the docters advised her too, but as she says its still me that signed it!
Everyone deserves their chance, but regardless of the scans, cut-offs the outcome would be the same. scans neeed to be better earlier on, otherwise she may not have carried to term - bless you beanie!xxx

my sister had a scan at 22 weeks, was told baby small, then at 28, 30 and 32 weeks at her normal hospital - it was only at this point was she referred and it was discovered her little boy wouldnt be viable in this world! - so she had to let him sleep forever at 34.5 weeks, she is haunted by this every day, she had to give birth to a still born and walk out the hospital without her son - the decision wasnt made easy, the docters advised her too, but as she says its still me that signed it!
Everyone deserves their chance, but regardless of the scans, cut-offs the outcome would be the same. scans neeed to be better earlier on, otherwise she may not have carried to term - bless you beanie!xxx

my sister had a scan at 22 weeks, was told baby small, then at 28, 30 and 32 weeks at her normal hospital - it was only at this point was she referred and it was discovered her little boy wouldnt be viable in this world! - so she had to let him sleep forever at 34.5 weeks, she is haunted by this every day, she had to give birth to a still born and walk out the hospital without her son - the decision wasnt made easy, the docters advised her too, but as she says its still me that signed it!
Everyone deserves their chance, but regardless of the scans, cut-offs the outcome would be the same. scans neeed to be better earlier on, otherwise she may not have carried to term - bless you beanie!xxx

woops didnt meean to press 3 times lol!

yes, lynette, but what is the alternative?

forcing women to carry to term?

women going for back street abortion?

i think access to free , legal ,safe abortion is paramount

each case should be on its own merits, and i am confident the decision to terminate at 20 + weeks is not one taken lightly, nor is it using abortion as contraception

as has been demonstrated again and again, tehre are multiple complex reasons for women terminating , whether it is pre or post 20 weeks

the woman is not an incubator, and she has to take precedence over the baby she is carrying

you cannot have a society where a woman is forced to deliver a baby she does not want ... it is morally and ethically far worse to do that IMO than to provide access to termination at 24 weeks or more.

Has anyone ever asked those 2,874 women why they choose to terminate after 20 weeks? Serious question because I can't see anyone saying "I've just found out I'm pregnant, but I'm going to leave it for 20 weeks because I have a lot on at the moment".

I'm a man so I don't know what it's like, but carrying a baby for 20 weeks for no reason would seem mad. There must be really good reasons (at least to them)

i think you are right, onager.

i don;t thikn that it is left so late on a whim.

i imagine there are complicated reasons and that that termination and aftermath are not a bed of roses

'damaged irreperably by being born too early?
'

One persons damaged baby is another persons dearly beloved child

or friend

in fact, one persons damaged child born at 24 weeks IS ds2's dear;y beloved friend

Lovely, friendly, kind hearted, joyful. Oh yes, and has CP.

I can think of a million words todescribe our little friend, not sure damaged would be on the list.

Injured at birth might be better.

was taht my phraseology?

i apologise, i am sure you know i would not choose language deliberately to offend and upset.

I know that lulu

But felt it was a distinction I needed to make anyway

Not everyomne knows a child like this one, he just happens to be in ds2's class. If I had a list of his symptoms people would post but he's just not like that.

can soemone answer my question
people like dp post that "some people don't want disabled children" so what do they do if it happens at birth?

tbh I think abortion is personal but the cut of for all babies should be the same. lets stop discrimination in the womb.

no, that;s fine peachy, i woudl rather know the right way to phrase it

2shoes, i think for a lot of parents there is a difference, rightly or wrongly, with a chidl diagnosed with something before birth, than something that occurs during or afterwards, and the laws regarding termination reflect that.

i should think most parents love and care for their child

some would not or could not

i should think some are fostered and adopted and some might go into residential care?

does that make them terrible people?>

not everyone can cope, has the capacity to cope, the inclination to cope, the infrastructure

i should thikn whatever those people do , it is not a decision taken lightly

you should not judge and discriminate against people who can't cope , jsut as you ask people not to discriminate against those with disabilities

tehre has to be compassion and empathy each way

there is such a huge spectrum of disability and birth injury, that it is impossible to make broad statements about the rights and wrongs

so what should the cut off be, 2shoes?

based on teh fact that some women will not have the relevant information until 24 weeks + depending on scans ,amnios and results etc...

Just another reason I won't be voting for Cameron. Onagar makes a good point. Termination is never an easy choice for a woman, but it is her choice. I am sure none of these women make the choice lightly, and I think it's one of the choices that has to be left to women to make. Each woman will do what she thinks is right. And as Lulumaman says, just think of the alternatives.

"some people don't want disabled children' just demonstrates an ignorance really and a lack of understanding that most people don't get the choice. Probably all of us wouldn't actively choose disabled over non-disabled. But I personally would choose disabled over junkie, or disabled over future murderer/rapist/wife beater etc etc And I would choose ds1 over no ds1.

The irony is his life in the womb would have been protected (with the exception of my life in danger) over 24 weeks, yet he's far more disabled than many of the fetuses terminated for 'severe' disability.

Having said all that I would be perfectly happy with the limit being raised to birth. As someone else said women should be allowed to make their own decisions for their own circumstances. They should also have access to counselling, many seem to be dumped, have the decision almost made for them (once the machinery starts moving) then left to pick up the pieces.