i heard on the radio today that the abortion deadline.....

[ShaysMummy]

was to be brought down sooner than 24 weeks. is it just me, or does anyone else feel this is long overdue?
I dont want anyone to rip into me or anything mind.
just wondered what your thoughts were?

there have been cases where 22 week babies have survived which is when i terminated my pregnancy and a late abortion is not a pleasant experiance when medical advances improve babies chances all the time where do you draw the line i agree social abortions at this late stage are not acceptable but there are circumstances where it has to be done

Over 90% of children with trisomy 13 die within the first year of life (I think 50% die within the first week), so long term care issues are not an option. (They are far more of an issue for Fio and myself, and yes it sucks, but you deal with it).

I'm with Fio. I'm comfortable with a 24 week cut off point for whatever reason, but not after that (except in examples such as the cancer case mentioned earlier, although I do think that is completely different from terminating for disability). I guess I'm with the disability activists- equal rights for disabled or non disabled foetuses.

And therefore I guess I'd say keep it at 24 weeks. It works, kind of.

Secretmummy. Yes. I agree with you. You were you, in that situation. I don't think it can be imagined, people can't conjecture.
Listening.

Trisomy 13 and 18 and 21 were the ones they talked to us about ( think oneof those is Downs?). At 20 weeks, though it would have torn my heart apart, I think I would have ended the pregnancy for one of the non-viable ones. But at 39 weeks?

I think both myself and Fio have a smidgen on an idea what its like to bring up a child who will require lifetime care though.

Trisomy 21 is Downs Syndrome. I think the effect on your life is actually longer lasting for DS than for something like trisomy 13 or 18. There are health issues involved. Many doctors for example aren't happy to undertake c sections for children wtih trisomy 13 or 18 if they are in distress as their expected lifespan is so short, and the c-section risks are therefore deemed to be too great for the mother.

I do think it is shocking that termination for disability can be carried out up to 40 weeks- when there isn;'t even any definition of which disabilities qualify. I have no issues with termination for whatever reason up to 24 weeks, but see no need for it to be extended to 40 weeks for disability if the mother is healthy and not in physical danger.

sorry message not clear- there are health issues involved with trisomy 13 or trisomy 18- meaing the bit about c sections and drs.

And when I say "effect on your life" I mean in a practical sense because a child with DS can be expected to live until middle/older age, whereas a child with trisomy 13 or 18 is unlikely to make it past 2 (actually unlikely to make it past 1 week)

Jimjams - I completely agree with you. Have not got even a smigeon of that experience, but agree with you.

But I do think people carry on about things they don't know anything about -'oh, just do this, or that...'

this is hard to discuss without feeling im being judged my baby wouldnot have survived into adulthood and would have had no quality of life so i did what i thought was best the baby was given an injection to stop its heart then i had to deliver a dead baby which we were then able to see, even as late as 39 weeks surely in some cases this is more humane than delivering a baby that may only live for a week anyway or a few months and suffer in that time. i believe we treat animals better than that.

also having a severly disabled child was not something me or my partner could have coped with it would no doubt have cost me my marriage and there would have been no way we could have had any further children and what if something happened to us who would look after that child then? yes you love your children unconditionally and we loved that baby which is why we did what we did

I'm not judging you because I'm talking about post 24 week terminations, which I think are entirely different. I don't judeg social abortions so I'm not going to judge ones carried out for reasons of disability pre-24 weeks. My problem is with allowing a vague term of disability to be sufficient to allow abortions up to 40 weeks. That is what I would like changed, nothing else. Keep the limit at 24 weeks, for everyone, unless the mother's physical health is in danger.

I know lots of people with severely disabled children and many of the children at ds1's school (SLD/PMLD) will not live to adulthood (there is a memorial garden at his school). I suspect all the children there will require lifelong care. I can't think of one single person who would say that a termination at 39 weeks was a better option.

Secretmummy - I'm not judging you, either. Not at all.

sorry didnt mean anyone on here was judging me but that has been my experience in the past have been called a selfish bitch by sil and was the talking point at work for a long while

I think that abortion for people who decide that parenthood is not for them should be lowered to at least 18 weeks, but the timescale should be left well open for people who discover something during the pg that would effect the babies life.

I would just like to say that some people on this thread have shocked me with there lack of sensitivity for such an emotive subject, and please do not buy in to all the anti-abortion propaganda about babies being killed after they were born during the abortion this is absolute rubbish, I can not believe that some intelligent adults actually believe such crap.

I think it would also be beneficial to a sensible conversation if people stopped using the words "kill" and "murder" this does nothing to help your argument it just angers and hurts a lot of people.

gbiyjj the people at your child's school will be those who have made the decision that they can cope with a disabled child, not those who would find it unbearable to lose a child and less unbearable to have an abortion. I don't think I would personally be able to face continuing a pregnancy where I knew the baby would be born dead or die within a week. Apart from my own feelings I'd worry about what suffering I was putting it through. I also don't wish to be kept alive at any cost, I'd like to be able to choose my own death - you may feel differently. Since I'd avoid suffering myself if I could I feel I have the right to decide that for my foetus.

The stats I quoted were for post 20 weeks abortions (and only England & Wales, apologies to the rest of Britain if I didn't say so before). Yes better for cancer cases to be induced if they can go far enough but at 21 weeks that's a more difficult decision than at 31 weeks.

Problem with trying to define what disabilities are acceptable for termination and what not is that we all have different ideas about the sanctity of life, what life means and who qualifies - human, animal, plant, maybe even computers soon?

flutterbee - I think I must be one of the people you are talking about. My information comes from three people I trust who are medical professionals and I do not know them to lie about something like this. I do apologise if I have offended anybody as I am not in the habit of taking advantage of an emotive subject. I personally have not put my opinion forward as I have no experience of this myself. My point was simply that late abortions are more common and more complicated than people would have us believe.

I do believe that there must come a point in a pregnancy where a HEALTHY baby must be given precendence over the mother if her reasons for termination are not to do with either her health or her baby's health. Some of you have said that this does not happen, but I personally have counselled people who have been allowed late stage terminations which are very traumatic for the mother when there has been no solid medical reason for them. Yes, you do need two doctors signatures for a termination, but this is not a difficult thing to achieve as a doctor is obliged to pass you to someone else for an opinion if they will not authorise it themselves.

Please do not think I am intending to offend anyone, we are all putting our viewpoints across in an adult discussion. People who are likely to be offended do not need to read this thread if they would rather not know other peoples opinions.

Hi Hockeymum it wasn't you that I was singling out as being hurtful that was aimed at a few other people but it was your earlier post that I was targetting as anti abortion propaganda.

I have to say that if I had been told what you had been told by 3 seperate medical proffesionals I would have contacted the police straight away so that they could investigate such stories to see if what you are being told is true or just another urban myth on the rumour mill, I think we all know and agree that doing anything like you said is totally against the law and needs to be looked into straight away.

I always have been and always will be pro-choice but I do feel as I said in my earlier post that the limit for parents who just don't want kids should be dropped to about 18 weeks.

hockeymum, that is why I feel there should be a lower llimit det on abortions for 'social' rather than medical reasons. This would mean leaving the other limit (eg the non limit for medical reasons) alone.

However Jimjams you have brought up a point I hadn't really considered, and it has made me think why should we have a two tier law. I am still not totally convinced that a women should be made to go through the rest of her pg and birth knowing that her child will, in all likelihood, live for a short short while. If she chooses not to.

Perhaps we should be pushing for better/earlier testing that will mean these desisions are not having to be made so late. scanning at 20 weeks maybe and probably is the first time that problems are picked up. Could this scan be done earlier? I don't know. If these scans/tests could all be performed at 16 - 18 weeks (again unsure if the baby is developed enough atthis stage), it would mean less of a rush, people would have more time to think/be councelled. Hmmm food for thought.

"gbiyjj the people at your child's school will be those who have made the decision that they can cope with a disabled child,"

I doubt it, the majority of people wouldn't have known. Most conditions are not picked up on scans, and others have had postnatal conditions causing their disability (eg meningitis) having a disabled child is not usually something people have a choice about. If you say that it is OK to terminate right up to birth, what about all those babies born with conditions that have not been diagnosed in utero, is it OK to kill them at a day old?

As I said before Pre 24 weeks terminate for whatever reason, disability, not convenient, too poor, wrong sex, family already too big,whatever- I have no issue with it, but in my mind somewhere between 24 weeks and 40 week termination becomes infanticide, and I do not believe that is ever right, however disabled a child is. TBH I think it is a far bigger decision to carry a child with DS or something like muscular dystrophy than a condition where a child will die very early on. Many of the conditions deemed to be incompatible with life (by the medical profession) such as trisomy 13 and trisomy 18 are in fact compatible with a short life. (sometimes (very very very occasionally) teens, usually less than a year). There are many very moving websites out there where the children do seem to have short but dignified lives, and they are often able to go home for a short time. I was stunned when I saw these websites as I had been taught that the conditions were incompatible with life and that the child would die at birth, obviously not the case. I also personally think that it is probably better for the mothers mental health to go through the birth and then natural death of a child shortly afterwards than to terminate post 24 weeks. You get a lot of support from parents who have been through the same thing, and somehow - judging by personal pages on the web- people appear happier to share their stories about the birth then natural death of their child, than about a late (post 24 weeks) terminationfor an abnormality. Recent research has been published showing that women get over miscarriages faster than they do terminations (they asked people 5 years later and there was a significant difference), certainly I know people who have had early terminations and not been affected by it at all, but that may not be the usual scenario, and anyone is going to be affected by a late termination.

There are conditions such as anencephaly which are not compatible with life- but they can be picked up at a 12 week scan- that was the main reason I had a nuchal in my 1st 2 pregnancies, as I knew that I would have to terminate for anenecephaly and I would rather it was sooner than later.
And of course the cancer scenario is different (although in 99.9% of cases I'm sure there would be an induction and care given -presumably the sticky patch is between24 and 32 weeks in that case- where the infant will have a poor chance of survival, but the mother may need urgent attention.

I think the idea of very disabled children suffering isn't always correct either. I suspect its truer of conditions such as muscular dystrophy (which I think isn't picked up on scans- although I think you can test for some forms if there is a known family history??? could be wrong). Very disabled children live in a sensory world, and certainly ime show pleasure as much as anyone else. I don't think that possibility would justify a termination at 39 weeks as I don't think its necessary true.

I've been pondering this. Like Fio 24 weeks isn't an absolute cut off for me- but by the time a child would be expected to live if they were delivered then I think that should be an absolute cut off whatever the reason. I suppose the argument is that people may not be able to cope with a disabled child, but there are other situations where I can imagine a pregnant woman may suddenly feel she wouldn't be able to cope with a baby in late pregnacy (partner leaves her, another child dies, given the opportunity for fantastic lifetime achievement job she has been trying for for years, wrong gender in some cultures whatever), but if that child isn't diasbaled then she has to accept that unless her physical health is in danger she has to have the child (and then do whatever and hopefull receieve counselling in the meantime). I don't see why it should be any different.

Thinking about it, most of the very disabled children I know have had birth injuries. I don't think I actually know anyone who knew they were going to have a disabled child.

Jimjams you have argued your case very well. I always knew 'for me' even if I knew I was going to have a disabled child with such a problem that 'it wasn't compatable with life' then I would still go threw with the pg and have the baby no matter what. That is a personal choice however. So do I think other women who may not have the same mindset as me should be made to go through that experience? I just don't know. I also agree with you that if you have the baby and it has a dignified life no matter how short, then that is far far better than termination and that the after effects of termination are far more wide reaching than the natural death of a baby.

I guess the issue becomes more cloudy when the condition of the baby is not 'fatal at birth' or even likey to have a short life. Then what does the potential parent want to do? Again do you force them to give birth to a disabled child that they feel in their heart would be just too much for them? I just don't know.

I suppose I still feel that parents should be offered the option of a termination, BUT I feel it perhaps is too readily offered (cases of cleft palate and club foot spring to mind).

Like you say most disabilities happen at or after birth, they couldn't have been picked up on scans etc. And sometimes the ones that could are not actually as severe as first thought. That worries me too. Where parents are told they ahve a heart/kidney/whatever problem that means XYZ, when the baby is born there isn't a problem. That is sad too. Oh gosh I don't know, but jimjams I love to read your posts as you say it so well. Thank you

TBH I think it is very difficult for anyone to know how they would feel about a disabled child unless they have one. Before birth I suspect they imagine the disability, the child isn't so real, after birth tyou have in your arms a baby (and yes granted that's a figure of speech as many poorly children would be in SCBU) and the disability comes after that iyswim.

Really have no problem with termination before 24 weeks. Afterwards though it does become somethihg different (infanticide in my mind) the closer you get to term. I'm not sure there's a clear cut off, but if as a society we are tallowing terminations at 39 weeks in law for a section of society (and not for any other section) I think we needto ask ourselves why and what that says about us.