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.

If you removed the women who have abortions after 20 weeks for medical reasons, I think you'd mainly be left with women with severe substance abuse issues and chaotic lives.

I mainly mentioned the young people and sex ed in the Netherlands because it's part of a positive attitude to contraception, sex ed, and availability of contraception generally over there and in several other countries. Also what we learn when younger we remember and influences us for many years. Also you say "over half of abortions are carried out for women over 25" so nearly half are under 25 I assume.
Still, some interesting information that I'm willing to take on board.
But I'm likely to hold to my views in the middle ground of this debate as far as I can see.

I don't think it should be reduced to 20 weeks.

I think the limit for abortion should be when the fetus can survive outside of the mother without major medical intervention. I don't know what point this would be, but it would have to be the point where the baby could be delivered without major cost to the NHS.

I'm very pro-choice, but the thought of aborting a full term, healthy, baby is horrifying to me.

Yes Narked I see what you mean about being a straw man but people are actually saying that it's fine to abort at 40weeks etc. Doesn't matter that it's rare, the fact that someone would think that that was ok just feels me with

Although 23/4 weeks is technically the start-off point for viability, babies born at this stage don't survive without MASSIVE intervention. They will require ventilation in NICU & a hospital stay of 10-15+ weeks. And very likely have disabilities. If they survive at all.

It's only really above 32 weeks gestation that survivability & a reduced disability rate become possibilities.

And believe me, as the mother of an ex-premature baby, that these babies SUFFER in NICU - we're talking ventilation without sedation, lumbar punctures, bacterial infections.

So I don't think the argument should be about visibility, but whether the mother wants the baby (or not). Just because a baby could potentially survive at great cost doesn't mean women should be denied terminations.

Ps a NICU cot costs £1K per day to run. My DS, a premature baby who survived at great cost is a £100K+ baby.

In reference to the link, it hasn't really changed my opinion much tbh, at my most lenient I would grant the abortion but (controversial) should remain on enforced contraception until they are fit to carry a child full term or abort at a more appropriate stage.

The idea of having it done once is horrific, twice is just nihilistic.

IMO dating scans should be given much earlier.

Ok, I stand corrected mousymouse but even so you are killing something that could survive on the outside world 36+ baby.

LOTSOFCHEESE

Where did you get your information from? My 30 weeker is 9, fit healthy and doing well. I think it's 28 weeks that there is little risk of permament damage. Term babies can be damaged..

"So I don't think the argument should be about visibility, but whether the mother wants the baby (or not). Just because a baby could potentially survive at great cost doesn't mean women should be denied terminations."

I couldn't disagree with your post more. And I think that you'd struggle to find healthcare professionals who would terminate a post 24 week fetus.

"My DS, a premature baby who survived at great cost is a £100K+ baby. "
So if he had a car accident and would cost 100k he should be left to die?

I would pay more taxes if they went towards saving ill babies lives. As a tax payer your DS was worth every penny. As was mine, at your reckoning a 42K baby and worth every penny.
www.patient.co.uk/doctor/premature-babies-and-their-problems

Make no woman carry a foetus to term unless she wants to is what I believe.

Maria Miller being Minister for Women is a fucking joke. Then again, David Cameron, father of disabled child, doesn't give a fuck about them either.

blackcats yes, I agree my DS was worth every penny. And yours too. There is no debate about that. Or anyone being involved in a car crash requiring treatment which costs that much, either.

I wanted to dispel the myth that babies born very prematurely can survive easily, without intervention, which seems to be the view of some posters on this thread.

I am a HCP. Part of my clinical role involves working in an obstetric service. Plus I have extensive first-hand experience of life in NICU. So that's where my information comes from.

blackcats I think it is because of the way the pro-life movement tries to gloss over the issues that very prem babies face. NOT because lotsof or me think prem babies are not worth saving.

I am very positive about disability (iyswim) so do not think a disabled child is a tragedy but it is dishonest of people like Maria Miller to pretend that if prem babies survive they do so with no problems.
Of course some do.
But I work with preschool children with delays and disabilities and a large percentage were prem. Sometimes their problems are not apparent until they are due to start school, often they are present from a very early age.

My DD cost tens of thousands of pounds. She wasn't prem but she got cancer. Some of her injections cost 1k each! She was worth every penny as is your child.

Maria Miller, the Women's Minister, is saying that it makes "common sense" to lower the limit to 20 weeks, based on an assertion that "care for extremely premature babies has improved rapidly"

The RCOG dispute this & say there is no evidence to support the statement.

It's not about the care of premature babies!!! I really wish people would understand how much premature babies suffer in NICU & the rates of disability & poor health.

Nor I am saying we shouldn't spend money on premature babies.

It's not that simple!

Maria Miller is anti abortion. One of the few MPs who voted for Nadine Dorries (AKA fruit loop) amendment intended to ban BPAS from pre abortion counselling and open it up to church funded anti abortion groups.

i think we should differentiate rules and opinions depending on reasons for the abortion. I don't think many would oppose abortion even to term when the mothers life or health is at risk. Surely in really late cases the baby could be delivered and adopted out though?

i have a bit ofc a problem with the idea of 'mothers health' being affected. This is a bit blurry to me. physical health yes but i'm not sure about emotional health (prepared to be convimced otherwise). my
relative had an abortion on these grounds but i'm not sure that the upset she would have suffered outweigh the baby's rights to live. I know pg can't always be prevented currently cuddling my much loved accident but i know of people who have had multiple abortions because of breakups with partners/lack of education/care/not using contracrption/even reality kicking in :( imo that is wrong.

I have to laugh at the adopted out idea - really? So force a woman to carry the child, deliver it, then what? - would the woman go to a post delivery ward, a special ward?, a ward with women whose babies have died?

Countries where abortion is illegal, as far as I know don't have an endless ream of babies waiting to be "adopted out".

I wouldn't have a late abortion (well I hope I never have to face that choice), but no way do I want to legislate on other womens emotional health. I really do doubt that as many posters have said that a woman is going to wake up and go "oh think I'll abort my 30 week foetus today" Any women that I know who've had an abortion have thought long and hard and tearfully about it and have made a choice which as far as I know was, they feel, the right decision for them.

i'm talking about women where the risks are only emotional. not belittling depression either but where a baby doesn't fit in with a life plan or isn't planned/wanted. i don't think these problems out weigh the rights of the fetus/baby. Nor did i suggest putting them on a ward with mums and babies --don't think women who have mc or lost babies should be on these wards either.

mumnos - why is mental health less important than other health aspects? Mental health problems can be and often are lethal.

I think it's a bit more complicated than "oh but the pretty little babies can all just be adopted and everything's fine and dandy".

maybe i'm not explaining myself clearly. i'm not against abortion if it will be detrimental to health physical or mental but find the term wooly and could be applied to most situations imo.

mumnows - the current legislation is that abortion can only be carried out until 24 weeks unless the foetus has a condition incompatible with life. So your relative can't have been about to give birth when she had her abortion.

Are you saying that no women should be allowed abortion unless there's a good medical reason?

Very few babies are actually put up for adoption, especially now coercion is much more difficult and forced adoptions have a lot of oversight and bureaucracy. I don't think the alternative to late abortion is adoption - it just doesn't work out that way.

The real alternative to abortion on demand is children being brought up by women who didn't want them or in circumstances women felt were not suitable.

as i posted ^thread my relative was 15wks due to the time it took for docs to arrange.

i don't pretend to have all the answers or thankfully even personal experience. i do have opinions but am open to changing them which is why ive entered this debate. just putting some ideas out there. i think personally i'd find having a baby adopted out would be less traumatic than aborting it. so far i still feel 24wks is just too late to abort a healthy fetus, most women could do it earlier.

dowa medical or emotional yes but how do you define emotional? theres a big difference between the person who is upset by ab unexpected pg and has to rethink plans budget etc and the woman who is depressed or unable to come to terms with being pg.

Mumno are you against abortion at any gestation unless the mother's life or health is in serious danger? Or are you in favour of a lower limit? Sorry I am not quite clear on your position.

EmmelineGoulden
The real alternative to abortion on demand is children being brought up by women who didn't want them or in circumstances women felt were not suitable.

This.
I can't believe there are women who seem to think oh well, everyone is having abortions at 24 weeks/wants to abort at 30 weeks.

But start putting more limits,a nd you play into the hand of pro-lifers. I expect if Romney gets in Wade v Roe is for the chop...

Here you go blackcurrants - nearly 60% of all women who have an abortion in the USA already have a child.

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22689931/ns/health-womens_health/t/whos-getting-abortions-not-who-youd-think/#.UG7Ahk3R58E

It doesn't surprise me - healthcare costs are crippling and there is so little welfare; a new child could have a devastating effect on the family and ruin the life of an older sibling. :(