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).

kitty really good of you to share that with us.

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

Totally agree. Only 10% of abortions are performed over 13 weeks. As early as possible seems to be what most women aim for.

Konyaa yes you are right. Post 21 weeks you have to go to a specialist fetal medicine centre. They inject potassium into the babies heart, leave you alone for around 2 hours and rescan to ensure they have died.

You then go and have the first hormone suppressant tablet (usually at your local hospital so we had to a few hours after) wait 24-48 hours and then go into hospital to go through the 'normal' induction process with pessaries. I got to spend a whole day and night with my dd2, have prints and photos of her and a memory box like I would for any baby that was stillborn. I just had the extra horror of having to make the choice.

It is utterly horrific to be absolutely honest which is why I think it's so important to get the nipt test available in the NHS. That's another matter though

There is absolutely no person that would willingly go through what I did just because they flippantly changed their mind.

My twins arrived at 26 weeks gestation in April and (luckily) our amazing neonatal unit managed to save them despite serious (and currently ongoing) breathing issues.

I still support post 24 week terminations for whatever reason the mother deems necessary and appropriate.
I had the choice of selective termination on the day I delivered and chose not to, however I would never judge anyone in that position, after being in it myself.

Kittyandteal incomprehensible.

Women need the right to choose to end any pregnancy for any reason at any time. Otherwise women cannot have any autonomy over their own bodies.
Trust women to make the right decisions over themselves and any pregnancies in their own bodies.

I think the law is right now and shouldn't be changed.

Kitty I'm so sorry. Life can be very unfair sometimes

I've been fortunate (so far, who knows what my 20 week scan on Monday will show) to have not been in this situation, so I can't speak from experience.
I fully believe that a woman should have the rights to make whatever decision they deem appropriate and necessary for themselves and their foetus. I do not believe women have later term abortions frivolously. For the majority of women, a decision to abort is not one that is taken lightly, at any stage of pregnancy.

That Italian story is a little odd in that it almost exactly mirrors a story I was told by a Catholic pro-life campaigner about 10 years ago, except it was a nun who went to pray by the body of a 22 week foetus in a Scottish hospital and found it alive . Despite the procedure for late termination being as Kitty describes and not just by early induction of labour.

I acknowledge that there is a problem in that the exceptions that allow for abortion after 24 weeks IF the fetus has a disability, reek of eugenics.

My proposed solution for that problem would be to just allow women to have abortions after 24 weeks regardless of the reason. This would not change anything much in how many abortions are done for what reasons, as any woman who just doesn't want to have a baby would have an earlier abortion, but it would send the message that women's bodily autonomy is respected.

Let's be honest - a man wanting to restrict late term abortions is doing so because he thinks that women can't be trusted to weigh up the options properly. Anyone who believes that a woman can take the decision to have a late term abortion lightly can just fuck off to be honest. What kind of callous monster can think about women who've been through that and consider them worthy of judgement rather than the utmost compassion? I believe only someone who doesn't consider women equal and capable would do so.

Oneflewover - I don't think that's fair. I don't believe he has that opinion because he doesn't trust women - after all lots of women have the same opinion. I don't think that allowing abortions after 24 weeks "reeks of eugenics" either. It is a compromise between respecting the life of the mother and the life of the child. Most late abortions are carried out in order to save the child from suffering - not because the parents are trying to create a perfect child. In Italy where I live and where no abortion is allowed after 24 weeks, there was a case of a mother finding out her baby was severely brain damaged and would never be able to move, speak, hear, see or even probably perceive the outside world. He would, however, have been able to survive - possibly for years. She found this out after 24 weeks and so was unable to have an abortion. She eventually went to France to have one which made an unbelievably upsetting situation even worse. We need to keep the option of abortion open for such desperate cases.

Another aspect of this insistance on "as late as necessary" is often glossed over. Who is going to perform these late abortions? I don't think you can expect medical staff to do this. It is already a very difficult decision to carry out late abortions but this can usually be rationalised when it is clear that it is in the best interests of the baby. If it is clearly NOT in the best interests of the baby - would doctors and nurses be willing to do it? I doubt it.

To be clear, I consider myself to be both feminist and pro-choice but I cannot hand on heart say that I agree with late-term abortions for anything but to avoid suffering (either to mother or baby) and this is for both practical AND ethical reasons.

I agree with everythingOneFlewOverTheDodosNest wrote above.

As early as possible, as late as necessary. It's a slippery slope otherwise.

The difference I see Allegretto is that I believe that all late term abortions are done to avoid suffering. I do not believe that any woman would choose a late term abortion flippantly - I trust women have weighed up their options and come to their decision after much consideration. Somebody who wants to remove the right for women to do this clearly does not trust them much.

My understanding is that currently women who seek late term abortions for reasons other than foetal abnormality are usually suffering themselves, either from the effects of abuse or from poor mental health and they are redirected to the correct support for them. I cannot see that a change in the law to remove the link with disability from late term abortion would suddenly bring out lots of women who had got pregnant, waited months and months, and suddenly decided to have an abortion on a whim. But then, I have faith in women.

OK but why does the late-term ending of a pregnancy because a woman is suffering (a perfectly valid reason, I agree) necessarily require the foetus' life to be terminated? Why not an option that allows the pregnancy to be ended and the foetus/baby to be relinquished and to be helped to live if medically possible?

I agree BarbarianMum. Where I live it is possible to give birth completely anonymously and leave the baby in hospital, no questions asked. That should always be an option. OneFlew - I think there comes a point when you HAVE to weigh up both lives. Yes, the mother may suffer - but so will the baby. It's not a question of trust but of reading a compromise. And to return to my other point - who would you expect to do the abortion?

Because it's a very different scenario, BM, going through a possibly live birth with limited pain relief. that is likely to add to the suffering of the woman.

I can understand the logic of your position,but the two "options" are not equivalent.

Not equivalent but maybe a reasonable compromise between the rights of a woman and those of an almost to term, viable foetus. An epidural, or epidural plus ga if you prefer, do provide a lot of pain relief. It's not as though late term terminations are a walk in the park even if the foetus is dead.

I don't think it's a compromise at all, though, because I don't think a compromise is possible between abortion on demand and induction on demand.

If a woman wants to have an induction at 24+1 because she isn't allowed an abortion then, the single best thing doctors can do for the foetus is to delay the induction by days or even weeks.

It is a compromise between respecting the life of the mother and the life of the child.

See, that's the difference - I do not think a woman's rights should ever be compromised.

I trust women to only have late-term abortions for very good reasons. I don't think anyone else should get to decide what constitutes a good reason.

Yes, disabled children are a financial and emotional burden. So are healthy children.
If a woman who is poor and already has too many children can't have a late term abortion, but a woman who has enough money to raise another child, but whose fetus has severe disabilities (but could live), can - then that does imply that to the society that decides whether women are allowed abortions, healthy children are more valuable.

I would not have mentioned that there's an uncomfortable eugenics aspect in there if the topic hadn't already been on the table, and I would not do so in a discussion where that view hasn't already been uttered, because I am aware that might be twisted to argue in favour of removing that exception to the ban on late-term abortion.

But in principle, I just think women should not be forced to give birth. Ever.

That doesn't make sense Vestal . Once you are past a certain point in pregnancy you do have to give birth to stop being pregnant whether the foetus is alive or dead.
If you mean 'forced to have a live birth' then I disagree. If you mean 'forced to go to term' then I agree with you.

I believe n pro choice all the way , the reason for wanting an abortion should bare no relevance, however , genuine question , in terms of late abortion , what would happen in terms of a full term baby?

Exactly- you can't remove the necessity of giving birth. The only difference you are talking about is whether to give birth to a live baby or not. I don't believe it is on anyone's interest to allow a healthy baby to be euthanised after 24 weeks (or indeed a disabled baby unless it is such a severe disability that it would suffer more being born).

Vestal - the decision to allow abortion for severe disability is to prevent suffering of the child not because society values that child less.

I don't believe it is on anyone's interest to allow a healthy baby to be euthanised after 24 weeks

How about 23 weeks?

You know I have much less of a problem understanding rabid 'prolifers' than this kind of "only when I believe it's okay" line.

the decision to allow abortion for severe disability is to prevent suffering of the child

Is that so? And who decides what the cut of is for this? Who holds the list of "too much suffering to live" disabilities?

I must admit despite being marginally active in abortion campaigning (mainly around NI) I have never heard the following phrase before, still though it sums up the only rational position perfectly-

As early as possible. As late as necessary.