Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Abortion to be reduced to 20 weeks

505 replies

avenueone · 02/10/2012 22:51

There is a story on the front page of the Telegraph tomorrow (paper review) saying that in brief due to babies? being able to survive from a younger age it should be reduced.
I personally don't think this is an argument as I doubt they could survive without medical intervention. I feel it is just another attempt to undermine a woman's right to choose what we do with out bodies. Sorry no link but there should be one around tomorrow and I will try and post it.

OP posts:
whistlestopcafe · 02/10/2012 23:32

I don't know how I feel. If it is to chip chip away at abortion rights well that is obviously wrong.

However I know someone with a baby who was born at 23 weeks and because he survived it makes me feel uncomfortable that babies can be aborted at this stage.

TodaysAGoodDay · 02/10/2012 23:39

I think they're right to lower it. I agree with whistle about babies younger than 24 weeks surviving. I know that they can't survive without help, but they can survive, and that to me is the point.

scarlettsmummy2 · 02/10/2012 23:43

I think it should be much lower than even twenty weeks. No issue with this at all.

GoldPlatedNineDoors · 02/10/2012 23:47

Half a pregnancy and allowing for an Anomoly Scan is entirely appropriate. To know about a pregnancy and take longer than 20 weeks to decide what to do is unreasonable.

lubeybooby · 02/10/2012 23:49

I am totally pro choice and would agree with lowering it, at least to 21/22 weeks, now that 23 weekers have a chance.

crackcrackcrak · 02/10/2012 23:49

This again? I don't agree - it is chipping away at women's rights Sad

GoldPlatedNineDoors · 02/10/2012 23:50

How is it chipping away at womens rights? The woman still has the right. She has half of her pregnancy, nearly five months of choice.

mumnosGOLDisbest · 02/10/2012 23:55

i agree and would like to see it lower still except for cases where there are medical reasons. yes give women the choice but 5 months is too far in imo. my scans at 12wks were definately 'babies'.

sashh · 03/10/2012 05:10

I think it should be on demand until term.

I look at abortion as being about the woman and her body, not the viability of what she is carrying.

I also believe women should not be forced to return to a clinic for the second part of a chemical abortion, there is no medical reason for it.

I know a lot of people do not agree with me.

WofflingOn · 03/10/2012 05:23

I am pro-choice and in theory I agree with the reduction to 20 weeks, That is long enough to give the woman a reasonable period of time to decide whilst recognising that the longer she delays for whatever reason, the more of a lifeform she is carrying.
I would want a fast and efficient appeals system to make a judgement on individual cases too.

ShobGiteTheKnid · 03/10/2012 05:23

I think 12 weeks is plenty. The idea that you could kill a baby at term legally is just reprehensible in my opinion. Sassh, do you think that mothers should be allowed to kill a baby shortly after delivery too? What is the difference?

ripsishere · 03/10/2012 05:36

Unpopular though Sassh;s opinion is, I agree with her.

ShobGiteTheKnid · 03/10/2012 05:44

Can you answer my question then rip?

ripsishere · 03/10/2012 06:26

TBH, in some cases I do. I know (and don't care) that that makes me a bad person.
TBH, I don't think you would find many doctors agreeing to terminate at term so it's a moot point.

Orchidskeepdying · 03/10/2012 06:46

Gold plate.. what about the rights of the baby?

Def the law needs to be changed.. I find it discusting that they current law would allow one baby to be killed at 23 weeks then the next would be saved... oh but we mustn't refer to an aborted fetus as a baby must we...

SaraBellumHertz · 03/10/2012 06:54

We already allow abortion up to term where the baby is disabled or the mothers health is at serious risk. I believe this is appropriate.

If we allow it in these circumstances I struggle to understand why we don't allow it in any - it makes no logical sense rather the distinction exists to pacify those who don't really believe a woman's rights are sufficiently important

Orchidskeepdying · 03/10/2012 07:02

You have consentual sex Sara then you should be fully aware of the consequences. If you don't want to risk getting pregnant so much you will have an abortion... Don't have sex! Its not that hard...
Women's rights crap is a smoke screen hiding what's going on. Please understand I am not including rape or insest...

OpheliasWeepingWillow · 03/10/2012 07:05

I agree with it. Totally and I am pro choice. The thought of aborting a baby (yes a baby) at 23 weeks who could have been born breathing, twitching, crying is just abhorrent.

Marcheline · 03/10/2012 07:11

I don't know why but I had expected more posts to be not in favour of lowering the threshold?

I am 20 weeks pg at the moment and yes, my foetus is certainly a baby to me, as was DD. I had emotionally invested in them from before they were conceived.

BUT I totally support other women's right to an abortion up to 23 weeks. How I feel about my babies is not an indicator of what all other women should feel. I don't think that advances in medicine should diminish the rights of women, in fact the idea of that makes me feel quite angry.

I have been trying to think of the right way to put this and not sure if it will sound flippant on screen, but I honestly believe that a baby born to a mother who doesn't want it will not have a good start in life. The mother's life will probably take a negative turn as well. I fail to understand how laws forcing women to give birth to babies that they don't want could make a better life for anyone.

Longtalljosie · 03/10/2012 07:11

It's not government policy, it's just what the new women's minister thinks.

LRDtheFeministDragon · 03/10/2012 07:14

But rape and incest happen - so what do we do, do we make exceptions for them?

What about women and girls who don't receive good enough sex education to understand what's going on, or who're too scared to admit it to themselves? Don't they deserve help?

I would be less concerned about lowering the limit if we had brilliant sex education and good access for women to birth control - but I don't believe we do.

I think this move will end up discriminating against young girls, who may not yet even be very familiar with their cycle (you have to have a stunningly regular cycle to have known you're pregnant in a month without testing, I think), and who may be scared to come forward or not know how to get access to a test if they need one.

Marcheline · 03/10/2012 07:14

Orchids - 'women's rights crap is a smokescreen'? What is 'going on'?

Women's rights are NOT crap. They are vital and relevant. Do you not like being able to vote and own property? Are you a woman?

InfinityWelcomesCarefulDrivers · 03/10/2012 07:19

Surely it is as it is to allow a fee weeks after the anomaly scan. Rightly or wrongly, some terminations are carried out as a result of that. If its reduced to 20 weeks it gives women very little or no time after the scan to talk, decide, make the appointment. How would that work?

ladyintheradiator · 03/10/2012 07:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LRDtheFeministDragon · 03/10/2012 07:22

Yes, and there are quite long waiting lists in some areas, too. It's not as if you can do a test in week 8-9 then snap your fingers and have it done.

Swipe left for the next trending thread