No foetal pain before 24 weeks so OK to abort....?

[StableButDeluded]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/10403496.stm

I'm a bit about this. Just because they supposedly can't feel pain still doesn't necessarily make it OK. It just doesn't sit right with me that doctors can be aborting a baby of 24 weeks in one part of a hospital and saving the life of another baby that was born at 24 weeks in another.

I still think that with all the medical advances that now enable premature babies of this age to survive, the abortion time limit should be lowered, apart from in exceptional circumstances. Pain or no pain.

i saw this and still find it difficult to except that they dont feel some sort of pain etc,but i still feel there is a right for a women to have a abortion if she chooses,and abortions carried out this far are very far and few between.

the upper time limit is necessary but should be equalised in the case of abnormalities to not do so is disabelist. also not just controlling parents/partners; many Dr's still block women's legal right to access free and safe abortions. some pct's have waiting lists, some women are in denial, some women experience domestic violence for the first time during pregnancy there are all sorts of circumstances that mean women need to access late abortions

It wasn't that long ago that doctors thought that premature babies didn't feel pain, and that has now been shown not to be the case, so I'm somewhat surprised at this research. I don't think it makes any difference to the abortion debate (although perhaps on techniques). I remember in the last abortion time limits debate that the scientific evidence was that the viability of very early babies had not changed. Very few 24 week babies survive, and there is a different ethical debate to whether it is right to perform heroic procedures on tiny babies. In a few countries (I think Holland) the doctors associations have a limit before which they don't attempt life saving at all.

I don't think the baby feeling pain is relevant to whether the abortion limit should be changed.

However, I would argue that a baby less than 24 weeks CAN actually feel pain. My babies were born at 23 weeks and most definately experienced pain, it was heartbreaking.

nooka statistically at 24 weeks more babies survive than die.

if babies or whatever term you want to use can feel pain after 24 weeks..why the hell is it ok to abort for ds so bloody late?

i wouldn't really believe anything i read on a pro-life website, to be honest. Church and science have never been in agreement. And by 'science' i mean 'things that have been proven'.

The overwhelming majority of terminations - I don't know the stat offhand - are performed within 12 weeks of pregnancy.

The number performed after 20 weeks are tiny and usually for very good reasons.

I'm very much pro-choice, but I strongly believe that late term abortions should only be available for medical reasons, i.e. to ensure survival of the mother or in case of a condition that would make baby incompatible with life.
The decision of having an abortion should be made in the first trimester. I realise that vast majority of abortions take place within 10 weeks of gestation, however, there are still some who change their minds for whatever reason at much later date.
Yes, women should have a choice but with such terrible choice they must take the responsibility that comes with it.

unfortunately some conditions cannot be picked up until 20 week scan which means the decision to terminate can only be taken then.

Rollmops

What if a woman has an abusive husband/family and has literally not been able to get to the abortion clinic in the first 10 weeks?

What if a woman's circumstances change massively while she is pregnant, for example her husband has an accident and needs full time care?

What happens if a woman becomes very depressed or has a breakdown for some reason during her pregnancy and knows she couldn't cope with having a child?

I think I agree with you that late term abortions should be restricted to unusual circumstances. But I wouldn't want to say just medical reasons. There may be other very good reasons. I think we should leave it up to the doctors to exercise their discretion - and trust them.

I think that whatever alot of people think is just a guess really if they have had the luxury of never being faced with a terrible diagnosis. I have. It was horrific and I went against all the things I previously believed in. Twice so far in life have I done the opposite of what I said/thought I would do when faced with extremely difficult situations. Deep down there is a tendancy to not really believe something will happen to you. Even when we were told our baby was very ill and may have severe genetic problems, we were still hopeful until all hope was gone..

Anyway, these late abortions are 1% and around 1,000-2,000 a year. Many are for abnormalities. I would guess that most are for life threatening abnormalities. Some of the babies with Downs syndrome will also have major heart defects etc. I would guess that alot of people having late abortion were told that the baby would not feel pain. Maybe they will feel some relief that that may the case.

Late termination for abnormaility is not about selfishness. There may be some thoughts of not being able to cope with a severely ill child but overwhelmingly there will probably be a feeling of not wanting a baby to be born to suffer and die or of wanting to prevent a baby who will never lead anything near a normal life.

There was a really interesting commentary on this in the Indie on Sunday - talking about the unconsciousness angle - that these babies/foetuses were in a sort of sedation until 24 weeks. So if we are saying it's okay to kill a baby/foetus that is unborn and sedated, does it follow that we are happy to drug and kill the elderly when they've served their useful purpose or become disabled?

I think that's a bit of an unfair comparison whomoved and a whole different debate. As jelly beans says it feels a bit different when you are faced with a terrible diagnosis and all evidence says that all your baby will know is suffering and will probably not live into childhood.

I agree with you, StableBut Deluded. And yes, I think there are quite a few people who would be happy to end the lives of the elderly and disabled.

"But I wouldn't want to say just medical reasons. There may be other very good reasons. I think we should leave it up to the doctors to exercise their discretion - and trust them."

Isee your pointbut I dont agree im afraid. it leaves too much room for women to not be treated fairly. An awful lot of doctors disagree with abortion and so would be less willing to agree that there was a 'good enough' reason to have an abortion.

I would always rather no child was born than an unwanted one.. Of course unless they are over 24 weeks when they do become 'babies' IMO because they are capable of surviving by themselves... I may regret saying that as I dont really know ther medical facts about when babies can survive from.

Happy to review opinion if im wrong.

Coolfonz

I lost my live born (lived for an hour without any intervention) daughter at 22 weeks and she was most definately my baby !

She was not my foetus!

"As jelly beans says it feels a bit different when you are faced with a terrible diagnosis and all evidence says that all your baby will know is suffering and will probably not live into childhood."

I don't see the difference between aborting a 24 week old foetus, and ending the life of a new born baby in these circumstances.

and we had to register her birth and her death !

She was called Emma and is still very much loved.

OnEdge.

Thanks TheSheikingHarpy and LynetteScavo

very sad to read the 2 post, what a terrible thing to go throughe

but I do have to point out that not all babies born with disabilities will suffer or die young.
(dd is 15 and not suffering) sorry just had to say that,