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.

I am just uncomfortable with the fact that aborting at 24 weeks as you legally can at the moment in one room they could be fighting to save the life of a wanted baby and somewhere else they are destroying the life . I think 20 weeks is perfectly reasonable and is more than enough time to make the decision on wether you are opting to keep the baby or not.

yes it is good Sunny thanks for posting.

Since the anomaly scan is done at 20 weeks, it'd be inhumane to have the cut-off date for abortion reduced - a woman should not be forced to carry a pregnancy with a severely disabled, possibly incompatible with life, child to term.

Well thank goodness we don't make laws based on what makes people a bit uncomfy.

Another in favour of 'as early as possible, as late as necessary'.

I think it vanishingly unlikely that any woman would choose a late abortion if her circumstances weren't desperate, and if she really can't bear to remain pregnant then why the hell should she.

I do think it would be reasonable to have early induction followed by adoption as another option for women in this circumstance, alongside late abortion.

Also, for those who say abortion/late abortion only in cases of rape, do you really think it realistic or ok to make a woman go through a court case first? Because we all know how easy it is to get a conviction

Making exceptions for rape or incest or whatever makes no sense.

Either the woman has the right to choose what happens to her body or she does not.

Either the fetus has independent rights or it does not.

A fetus produced by rape is no different to one produced by any other means.

I would prefer it to be an option until 30 weeks or so.

Very, very few women would leave it so late but they still need to know they can do it if they have to. And no, I've never had an abortion, I've had 2 planned children and would still support the right of mothers to have the choice.

Misslb88:Think of the poor people that cannot carry a baby.

That would be me then. . .

So does that mean I have the right to make decisions over your life and your fertility does it?

I do care. I care about my rights over MY body. I care that you have rights over your body.

I worry that we are going blindly along a path where someone else, some random person will suddenly have the right to decide important matters to me without my input.

Since the anomaly scan is done at 20 weeks, it'd be inhumane to have the cut-off date for abortion reduced - a woman should not be forced to carry a pregnancy with a severely disabled, possibly incompatible with life, child to term.

No, I agree.

I promised myself I would never come on another abortion thread on MN but here I am.

I Do Not Understand why it is so hard for people to realise that anyone having an abortion post 20 weeks is in an incredibly difficult position. For most, the system (either healthcare or wider) will have let them down somewhere along the way. For others it will be a heartbreaking decision following an anomaly scan. None of them will waltz into it.

People - you can have all the bonkers views you like but that does not give you the right to legislate over another woman's body.

If you are pro-choice you are pro-choice, stop fucking about with the fence sitting.

FWIW I had a termination last year at 12 weeks. I was 'lucky' - a private scan picked up anecephaly. I might have otherwise got to 20 weeks and had to terminate then. It was the hardest time of my life but it would have been infinitely worse had I got to 20 weeks and had my right to choose removed.

I am pro-choice and I know that abortions can be heartbreaking. But I am pro-CHOICE. Because I believe that women can make their own decisions about their own bodies. Whatever their situation.

This is a feminist issue. No doubt about it. It sickens me that the minister for women is taking away choices from women. The fact that she dresses it up as being in the women's interests is even worse. The only way you fight for women's interests is to fight for them to have choices.

YY msgee

There was a poster on here who had a late abortion for "social reasons". She posted her story several times and I found it exceptionally moving.

It is quite clear that no woman chooses such a path without much soul searching and pain.

"Making exceptions for rape or incest or whatever makes no sense.
Either the woman has the right to choose what happens to her body or she does not.
Either the fetus has independent rights or it does not.
A fetus produced by rape is no different to one produced by any other means."

Spot on.

And someone else said that "women's rights must not conflict with a foetus's rights". Well they do. They do all the time. There is a massive conflict - if you believe in rights, pregnancy is one huge conflict. The only way to resolve it is to allow that the already existing independent being has rights that the dependent being does not. Unless independent beings' rights have a sanctity, we are all at risk of being made to be living life support machines for other beings against our will.

sashh
"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."

Yes, I suppose ignoring the (fully-functioning) viability of your near 9-month old offspring would be critical to convincing yourself you aren't committing murder.

I would rather not see it lowered, by all means lower the stage at which a baby is considered 'viable', but not the legal abortion limit.
The vast vast majority of terminations are done before 12 weeks. Terminating a pregnancy that late on won't be lightly undertaken (show me a person who has a temination 'lightly'!) on a whim.

I am confused now.
I thought this is only for 'social reasons' abortions (what a horrid term) and that medical 'neccessary' ones can still be carried out until very late in pregnancy?

I'm confused as to what 'social reasons' are makes it sound a bit flimsy.

It jusy seems very nihilistic , What sort of person would abort a 36 weeks plus baby other than a complete monster? I'm sorry if that's controversial but the baby will cry and everything when delivered, then take it to be killed?. No, I'm sorry can't think of any reason where that would be okay.

a fetus that is aborted at a late stage will be given an injection in utero to stop the heart. so the fetus delivered will be dead.

KillerRack, did you read TeaAndHugs link above? I'll link again. It's an audit of those requesting abortion at 22 weeks +, some of whom were in drug treatment programmes, or were teenagers hoping it would go away or who had false-negative pregnancy tests.

www.bpas.org/js/filemanager/files/bpas_press_briefing_late_abortion.pdf

I realise that wasn't quite your point but might give some insights into what the reasons were for late abortions. Indeed, some women were too late in the BPAS audit as they were more pregnant than they thought etc.

|Sorry, further along in tthe pregnancy than they thought - pregnancy is of course binary

Thank god this won't actually happen..

This minister is completely uninformed. A number of doctors have come forward and said that there have been no recent changes in the survival rates of babies born before 24 weeks. Why would she say such an emotive thing without finding proper sources to back up her opinions!

Also Telegraph ran this story of the possible change in policy with the journalist's own story of abortion entitled "My abortion agony..." or something like that. Where are the voices of the many millions of women saying "My abortion was bearable, ok, really quite a good thing..."?

And there are millions of them, by the way. Something like 300,000 terminations per year. Everyone knows lots of women who've had one, statistically. Everyone I know who's had one (inc me) is content with their decision. So even if my sample is very skewed and the number who are ok with it is not 100% - so let's be very generous to the other side and say on average only 50% are ok with it. That means millions of actual women out there being content with their decision and all we ever read is "my abortion guilt/anguish".

I'm not saying the women who are ok with their decision are pleased that the whole thing happened. Mine was sad because it was a wanted baby but had a genetic disease. So it was sad but I'm very happy with what I chose. Where are those stories?

Where are the voices of the many millions of women saying "My abortion was bearable, ok, really quite a good thing..."?

Because if people countenance abortion at all, they want to hear that you've suffered drjohnsonscat but I'm sure you know that. Some women do suffer, whereas some feel relief, or nothing at all. That's their business not anyone elses.

As newnames said sarcastically yesterday in answer to someone who felt 'uncomfortable' with abortions that didn't tick her boxes: 'thank goodness we don't make laws on uncomfy decisions'.

We do, and I'm sure newnames knows it too, not just on abortion but on issues such as assisted suicide where moralists feel free to stick their oars in just in case those choosing it haven't really thought about it much.

Yesterday I said I was content with abortion law. Actually I'm not: I'd love to do away with that nonsense about two doctors and complying with defined reasons.

But if that's the price people who feel 'uncomfy' about it want women to pay then I suppose I'll put up with it until people start to grow up. But I'm not conceding any more ground to them.

'if people countenance abortion at all...'

Obviously I meant only those people who don't credit their fellow human beings with with the sense to make decisions about their own lives with all that entails.

I've just had my 20 week anomaly scan so have been reading up on all the severe abnormalities that are picked up at that scan. I think it would be criminal to force a woman to carry a child so unwell that it would have at best a lifetime of suffering, at worst die shortly after birth. Some allowance has to be made for this surely?

If a pregnancy is 100% healthy, then I can understand a lower limit, but we can't know it is healthy until after the scan. Catch 22 situation.