Abortions after 24 weeks.

[11122aa]

Last Friday it was debated in the House of Lords if to ban abortion after 24 weeks on grounds of disability to the fetus. While it is said to be unlikely to become law. What is everyone on here's view.
www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/disabled-uk-lawmaker-speaks-his-bill-stop-abortion-disabled-how-dare-you (Couldn't find an balanced UK based website reporting it).

As early as possible, as late as necessary. Always.

I suppose there's the question as what qualifies as "as necessary" in the "as early as possible as late as necessary" phrase.

So, in a scenario that a healthy woman (physically and mentally) carrying a healthy pregnancy feels in week 36 that she is genuinely not feeling able to to give birth/have the baby- what would be the outcome? Counselling to figure out emotions, or put adoption into the picture may well take time by which point labour might begin. This is a purely hypothetical scenario, but in the as early as possible as late as necessary phrase, how would as necessary be defined? And by whom?

As early as possible, as late as necessary.

I am very, very uncomfortable with the idea of men thinking they have a right to influence women, women they dont know and whose reasons they don't know, on what they should do with their bodies. Especially when their decision has lifelong consequences for the woman.

Necessary would be defined by the person who has the uterus.

So, in a scenario that a healthy woman (physically and mentally) carrying a healthy pregnancy feels in week 36 that she is genuinely not feeling able to to give birth/have the baby- what would be the outcome? Counselling to figure out emotions, or put adoption into the picture may well take time by which point labour might begin. This is a purely hypothetical scenario, but in the as early as possible as late as necessary phrase, how would as necessary be defined? And by whom?

Termination of pregnancy would not be considered in this instance. IME she would be referred to MH services for review and SW would be involved regarding possible fostering placement. Generally though they would be working with the woman to try to get the root of her anxiety and to keep mother & baby together if possible.

But it's a complete strawman argument as it's a situation that I've never heard of actually happening.

Konyaa - if you look at the reasons for women presenting for late abortions (other than out of medical necessity) it is a litany of the most tragic cases you can imagine - women in abusive relationships, girls in their teens pregnant as a result of rape by male relatives, women who didn't realise till too late. BPAS, I think it was, published a list. And they're vanishingly rare - about 30 for the year I looked at (it was about 2014 or thereabouts). The cases were all absolutely heart breaking, and all (of course, given the present law) were turned down. But the idea that if it becomes legal to abort as late as the woman deems necessary women will be queuing up to have abortions for frivolous reasons is a myth - hence my comment about trusting women to make the right decisions. Women would only decide to go through an induced birth late in pregnancy if they were absolutely desperate.

As early as possible, as late as necessary.

I lost my son at a day old at 24 weeks and I still take that stance.

Absolutely concur with everything here, and agree the uterus holder needs to decide. However, there is bound to be a conversation about the "necessary" after the point of fetal viability and if a law needs to be made, these discussions will be had,hopefully not amongst men sat in room. I'm just thinking through the entire spectrum of possibilities and how said law would be worded and interpreted.

How many more women come to harm/die NOW from carrying on with unwanted pregnancies or delivering babies with conditions incompatible with life, compared to the tiny number of women who will suddenly decide at 36 weeks that they cannot continue a pregnancy??
IME people do not have terminations lightly. The number of late terminations is small, of very late ones very tiny.

StrawMAN argument indeed.

I suppose what you're looking at medically is that a tmfr post 24 weeks effectively is an induction where the child is unlikely to survive birth, or the neonatal period, or have such a poor quality if life that survival without medical intervention is not possible.

If the baby is healthy, and it's a maternal choice post 24 weeks, induction then will result in a live birth, depending on how close to term they are.

So the woman goes through birth regardless. If the t is not fmr, the child could have a healthy life following adoption. She has to go through birth, but if she really doesn't want a baby then surely adoption if preferable to termination?

92% of abortions are done before 12 weeks and only 0.1% done after 24 weeks which in 2014 was just 211
From here www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/433437/2014_Commentary__5_.pdf

The woman ought to be the one deciding that, not the law.

really, many foetuses with genetic conditions not compatible with life will not survive delivery, some will live for a short while (hours or days), some longer than that required intensive, invasive and inevitably painful treatment, to only then die.
I really don't see the 'benefit' there. But accept that is MY opinion and may not be yours.
I'd defend your right to make the choice that would be right for you you, just as I reserve the right to make that decision for me should I ever by unlucky enough to be in that position.

I don't really understand the cleft palate remark. Surely if those foetuses were terminated solely due to a cleft palate then that shouldn't count as a disability? I presumed that they were a symptom of a more serious disorder.

I think the law is fine as it stands.

From the limited instances of late(r) term TFMR accounts I have heard about an injection is/can be administered to stop the heartbeat before labour so there is not a live birth.

My friend had a termination at about 30 weeks. Some abnormalities were found at 20 weeks but they didn't find out the true extent until weeks later and then had an agonising decision to make. The baby wouldn't have survived long after birth (if they did at all) and they didn't want to risk a painful death for their child.

Early as possible, as late as necessary.

pug sake and Kitty

Exactly, Konyaa re injection. And this also means the woman can have as much pain relief as she needs without worry of crossing the placenta.

BPAS document

www.bpas.org/media/1181/32-reasons-not-to-lower-the-abortion-time-limit-briefing.doc

I don't think any woman should be forced to continue a pregnancy if she does not want to. I'm not sure that should always include the right to terminate the foetus as part of terminating the pregnancy though.

As early as possible, as late as necessary.

I had a tfmr at 13 weeks, medically managed, so it was a labour and not surgery. I found that such a hard thing to go through and undoubtedly it would have only have got harder if I was further along, but felt nothing but relief afterwards. I fully support the right for women to choose.

There are cases of post 24 week abortions on the ground of cleft palate but cleft palates may be an indication of more serious malformations.

Q&A: Abortions for fetal abnormality
www.rcog.org.uk/en/news/campaigns-and-opinions/human-fertilisation-and-embryology-bill/qa-abortions-for-fetal-abnormality/

BarbarianMum and Really I agree I am uncomfortable with viable 24 week plus foetuses being terminated. This Italian case is horrific.

Baby that survived botched abortion was rejected for cleft lip and palate - Telegraph
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/7652889/Baby-that-survived-botched-abortion-was-rejected-for-cleft-lip-and-palate.html

really, many foetuses with genetic conditions not compatible with life will not survive delivery, some will live for a short while (hours or days), some longer than that required intensive, invasive and inevitably painful treatment, to only then die.
I really don't see the 'benefit' there. But accept that is MY opinion and may not be yours.
I'd defend your right to make the choice that would be right for you you, just as I reserve the right to make that decision for me should I ever by unlucky enough to be in that position.

That's what I said though? We have the same opinion...

Ah.
Ok.
Well, then I got the wrong end of the stick and apologise, really

To be honest terminating after 24 weeks (not for medical reasons) upsets me after having and holding my son. I also had a thirty weeker who survived and is now 3.

But I realise that it's MY issue. It's got fuck all to do with me what another women does with her body.