Abortion to be reduced to 20 weeks

[avenueone]

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.

For what it's worth, my son is a product of rape. He's a very much loved child, despite this. But I chose to keep him.

I'm still 100% pro-choice. I don't care whether a woman has an unwanted pregnancy through lack of contraception, or whether she conceived through rape; if that woman wants an abortion - if she feels she doesn't want, or can't have, that baby right now, then give her access to that abortion. Lets stop pitting women seeking abortion against each other as "more deserving" or "less deserving" of bodily autonomy.

"Personally I feel that abortion should be illegal unless theres risk involved"

Me too!

Since there is always risk involved with a pregnancy, that means it should be legal in all circumstances.

Glad we've got that sorted.

AThingInYourLife

But yes, death during childbirth is still a risk, even if the pregnancy has appeared to be progressing normally.

I may be wrong here, not having statistics to back this up, but I believe the risk of a woman dying as a direct result of childbirth & pregnancy is greater than the risk of her dying from having an abortion.

Oh yes, I'm sure that's right LonelyCloud - childbirth is still a risky undertaking.

arf @ AThing - it's amazing how many people forget that pregnancy and childbirth poses a serious risk to the health -and even life - of the woman. No woman has ever died during a safe, legal abortion - and lots of women die during childbirth.

I read somewhere that it's 1 in 3 women in the UK who will have an abortion in their lifetimes. That really brings home to me the extent to which we shame and silence women into not talking about their abortions.

LonelyCloud - I've read that too.
Another thing is that possible death during or soon after childbirth isn't the only risk - I have friends who still struggle with physical problems and/or have had to have vaginal reconstruction have bowel/bladder/uterine prolapses etc. All because of pregnancy and childbirth. Saying 'there's always adoption' doens't negate all of that.

@ AThing

Well said!

There are babies who don't survive at 27-30 weeks.

It might be a fairer discusssion if women actually could have an early termination on the NHS. But in reality, it takes months, pushing them right to the edge of the limits. What about young girls whose cycles haven't even established yet, it might take them months to be sure they are pregnant?

Yes, you decide to have consensual sex, but contraception can go wrong, and some people can't use certain methods, because they are allergic to them.

Whilst it is lovely and fluffy to say that a 23-week foetus is a baby, what about the women who are so desperate they have to have an abortion? Who have struggled to get one? Who are at the limit? Where the very act of giving birth will endanger the life of the mother and baby for some reason?

Life is not black and white, and rules need to reflect this

Another question for the anti-choicers is simply this:
Say you get your way and Abortion is illegal/restricted.

Women will have abortions anyway - they always have done, they always will do.

When they do, they will have broken the law. How should they be punished? Prison? Fines? Who will pay to prosecute these women? How will taxpayer funds support their punishment? Should the doctors/nurses who perform these illegal abortions be punished too? Prison? Fines? Being Struck off?

People imagine they can wave a magic want and stop all abortions, but it doesn't work like that, and never has.

Women will have abortions anyway - they always have done, they always will do.

And many die/cause themselves serious injury in the process:

Here's something for the 'pro-lifers' to chew over...

...According to the World Health Organisation and Guttmacher, approximately 68,000 women die annually as a result of complications of unsafe abortion; and between two million and seven million women each year survive unsafe abortion but sustain long-term damage or disease (incomplete abortion, infection (sepsis), haemorrhage, and injury to the internal organs, such as puncturing or tearing of the uterus). They also concluded abortion is safe in countries where it's legal, but dangerous in countries where it's outlawed and performed clandestinely. The WHO reports that in developed regions, nearly all abortions (92%) are safe, whereas in developing countries, more than half (55%) are unsafe. According to WHO statistics, the risk rate for unsafe abortion is 1/270; according to other sources, unsafe abortion is responsible for one in eight maternal deaths. Worldwide, 48% of all induced abortions are unsafe.

source

twofingers your user name rocks

Two fingers that's heartbreaking.

Oh dear fucking god!

I have just read your post voldemort and am dumbfounded. I hardly know where to start with such an inhumane view...

Presumably you aren't disabled Voldemort.

I think women should always be able to terminate a pregnancy, whatever the term. It is her body that it bearing the strain of carrying the baby, and if at whatever point she decides she no longer wishes to do that to herself, she should have the right to stop.

Whether or not that leads to the death of the foetus is not relevant to that discussion. However, it is a different and much more difficult discussion as to what should happen to a baby that is born as a result of such a termination and is viable, with or without medical intervention. In fact it's two different discussions, depending on whether or not the baby requires medical intervention.

Think of it this way. Suppose medical knowledge was such that someone's cancer could be treated using cells from a donor (with a suitable genetic match). Suppose that the treatment required the donor to have daily sessions for nine months, and take a number of drugs which affected them quite strongly. Early on in the process, the patient would have no chance of surviving if the treatment was interrupted, but later on there would be some chance, increasing right up to the end of the treatment at nine months.

Do you really think that the donor should, because they agree to undertake the treatment initially, have a legal obligation to see it through to the end regardless of what it is doing to them, physically and/or mentally?

I cannot imagine a developed legal system which would impose such an obligation on the donor.

Oh the irony of voldemort citing Darwin.
I have never read such unenlightened tosh. I'd ask you to defend your views, but i don't want to encourage hate speech.
Twat.

I'm not British so it doesn't really matter, but I'd support lowering it to 20 weeks, disabled or not. In fact I'd do 12 or maybe 16.

Someone posted awhile ago that she was of the view that a woman could demand that the fetus be removed at any point, but not demand that it be killed. I agree.

I'm not sure I agree with you discrete. The relevant question, for me, concerning abortion is the point at which someone acquires human rights - in this case the right to life. Is it upon birth? You seem to suggest that it is certainly at this point at the least - or rather that the rights of the mother are ALWAYS a priority over the rights of the child.

I am not saying I have an answer to the question; but I do think that the question involves the rights of at least two people*: the mother and the child.

I am also uneasy with the notion that the father has no rights at all in this issue in any circumstance.

voldemort, that is complete and utter bollocks.

I take it you also oppose immunisation, antibiotics, surgery and all other forms of medicine? These remove the need for humanity to evolve themselves away from vunerability to disease and infection, after all.

Leave it lonely I really don't think she should be encouraged to air her bile.

Voldemort is an evolutionary cul de sac.

Sorry lambethlil .

I shall try to restrain myself from responding to any more such utterly idiotic and nonsensical posts from Voldemort.