Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Abortion time limit

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4634535.stm

How do people feel about this? I think the time should definately be reduced if a baby can survive under 24 weeks.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think its OK as it is. Its a very very tiny amount of abortions that are performed late anyway.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It is a nightmarish topic, I really wouldnt like to say what is a good cut off time.

    If a person decides to have an abortion then there really should be next to no waiting time at all.

    It is good these things are always under review though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Absolute freedom up to 20 weeks. Only on the decision of a Court after 20 weeks and in very specific circumstances (health of mother or severely handicapped baby)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The BMA have voted against this;

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4636991.stm
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Like people have said, it's a nightmare.

    The women who come to us for abortions beyond 19 weeks are most likely to be teenagers, or women in their 40s.

    The teenagers fall pregnant, and then go into a fun game of denial. They're too scared to tell their parents, and time starts to pass. By the time they've got to the stage to even have the most basic of things like a scan, they're usually 16+ weeks.

    The women in their forties become pregnant, thinking it's the menopause... Or, they think they've started to go through the menopause, and their doctors tell them not to bother using contraception anymore. Big mistake, because they're then in hysterics when we start telling them that a) they're are indeed pregnant and b) it has progressed a lot further than they thought.

    At this stage, it's a very unpleasant procedure for all involved. Seaweed sticks called Dilapan have to be inserted into the cervix, and she needs prostaglandin tablets put into her vagina to stimulate the cervix to dilate to at least 3cm. This happens while she's awake. The strength of the dilapan at this stage normally kills the foetus. That, or the general anaesthetic later on.

    Then, under a general, the surgeon has to go in with some very strong forceps, and literally pull and pull until everything comes out into a silver bowl. More suctioning to get amniotic fluid out, then it's over.

    Like I said, unpleasant, but don't think for a second that these women have it done for frivolous reasons - they're not stupid. At that stage, they can feel the foetus moving, kicking etc, and it's very difficult for them. Try looking beyond the foetus and walking in their shoes for a second before anyone comes in with judgement.

    We've had to be extra vigilant at work due to outside pressure, and to be on the safe side, we've cut our maximum limit to 23+4. I think BPAS remains the same.

    In my opinion, the law should stay as it is. And abortion should be as early as possible, and as late as necessary.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    (health of mother or severely handicapped baby)

    Does 'health of the mother' include her mental health?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    Only on the decision of a Court after 20 weeks and in very specific circumstances (health of mother or severely handicapped baby)

    I was going to be polite and say that in theory that that's not such a bad idea, but on second thoughts, even theoretically it's a crap idea.

    The court system couldn't run a bath, seriously. It'd take them six weeks to work out what day the flipping hearing would be on.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    go_away wrote:
    Does 'health of the mother' include her mental health?

    Yes - health includes physical and mental.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But under the Abortion Act, the mental health of the woman is covered up until 24 weeks anyway, why would a lengthy court process be needed beyond 20 weeks if her mental health is grounds for an abortion anyway?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And why should a non-medical professional be making the decision of what constitutes health anyway?

    Or is the decision of a judge better than that of a doctor?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As I understand it current abortion law is not based on abortion on demand and there theoretically has to be a medical reason for all abortions (which is why they need to be signed off by a Doctor). In reality medical reasons seems to have been stretched so that it has become abortion on demand.

    I take the view that abortion on demand isn't actually a bad thing. If a woman wants to have an abortion she should be able to have one, whether its to do with her mental, physical, emotional, financial health or whatever.

    However at a certain age the foetus shifts from being a collection of cell to being an independent life. Now when this stage at is a matter of conjuncture - some people claim the minute the egg is fertisilised it becomes a baby. Others take the view it doesn't become one until it pops out its Mum's tum and starts squalling.

    It seems to be that about 20 weeks with current medical science is when a baby stands a theoretical chance of living outside its Mum (albeit with medical intervention and a high likelihood of being disabled). At that time it becomes a more complex moral judgement. Each case needs to be weighed on its merits on whether the cost to the Mother outweights the fact that the collection of cells is now becoming a human being. Someone has to make that decision and in my view a judge is probably a better person to make moral judgements within the law than the Doctor or anyone else.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    And why should a non-medical professional be making the decision of what constitutes health anyway?

    Or is the decision of a judge better than that of a doctor?

    One hopes he makes his decision after hearing medical evidence (amongst other things) rather than just flipping a coin...

    In many cases he's no longer making a pure medical decision (those ones will be easy). the difficult case is one where there is a perfectly functional 24 week baby and a mother who is likely to suffer some depression, but not life threatening. And the judge has to make a decision whether the life of a baby is more important or the mental health of the mother.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    24-week-old babies are not perfectly functioning. Some occasionally survive due to a lot of medical help, and they will be disabled. If the baby has not been born then it is not independent, it is not fully-functioning as it is part of the mother, not an independent life.

    The mother's choice is always more important than the baby's until the baby is an independent life. Foetuses, no matter how far along they are, are not babies.

    I personally think that court is a stupid way to decide such things. Judges end up agreeing with doctors 99% of the time anyway. Judges, typically male, old and middle-class, are not the best people to empathise with mothers. The Court Service is incompetent, and it would take weeks to get a hearing in a Crown Court, which is not good on a quick timescale.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As I understand it current abortion law is not based on abortion on demand and there theoretically has to be a medical reason for all abortions (which is why they need to be signed off by a Doctor). In reality medical reasons seems to have been stretched so that it has become abortion on demand.

    Abortion is a criminal offence unless it meets the criteria of the 1967 Abortion Act - but it was left open enough to allow doctors and their patients to be the best judges of that.
    Now when this stage at is a matter of conjuncture - some people claim the minute the egg is fertisilised it becomes a baby. Others take the view it doesn't become one until it pops out its Mum's tum and starts squalling.

    Development isn't an issue for me. The foetus could be fluent in 6 languages, tap dance and cure the common cold in the uterus, it makes no difference to me, as long as it's residing in the woman's body, she should have the final say.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    24-week-old babies are not perfectly functioning. Some occasionally survive due to a lot of medical help, and they will be disabled. If the baby has not been born then it is not independent, it is not fully-functioning as it is part of the mother, not an independent life.

    The mother's choice is always more important than the baby's until the baby is an independent life. Foetuses, no matter how far along they are, are not babies.

    The fully functioning is a bit of a red herring. My Mum used to be teacher of severe special needs children, who were not fully functioning (always mentally, often physically) and many of them needed almost constant medical support. That does not seem to me to be a good reason to terminate life.

    I don't disgree that a foetus is more important than a mothers life. But with that in mind I'd raise two issues a) I think we disagree on when a foetus becomes a baby. I think you and Go-Away (and correct me if I'm wrong) hold that it is a foetus until it is literally born. I disagree and think it becomes a baby earlier. b) there would be many cases after 24 weeks where the mother's life is not in danger where we are talking about the life of a baby/foetus versus the health/wellbeing - but not life of the mother.
    I personally think that court is a stupid way to decide such things. Judges end up agreeing with doctors 99% of the time anyway. Judges, typically male, old and middle-class, are not the best people to empathise with mothers. The Court Service is incompetent, and it would take weeks to get a hearing in a Crown Court, which is not good on a quick timescale.

    Which I think is my point. The aim is not to empathise with the Mother or to empathise with the baby or the father who is against the abortion or the the Church or the womens right group, but to weigh up the pros and cons and hopefully come to the best overall decision within the law. Now this may be that a perfectly healthy baby has to be terminated or it may not be.

    I take your point about timescale, but I'm sure that this is not the only time decisions have to be made on a quick timescale and I don't think its a total show-stopper.

    I should also say in my defence my views are not about being anti-abortion. I think it should be easier in the early stages, but should be more difficult in the later stages (and I'm open to persuasion on 20 weeks being too early and moving it up to 24 weeks).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Abortion is a criminal offence unless it meets the criteria of the 1967 Abortion Act - but it was left open enough to allow doctors and their patients to be the best judges of that.


    And my view is that a women up to 20 weeks should be able to go and have an abortion for any reason she wants. So I'd soften this bit.

    Development isn't an issue for me. The foetus could be fluent in 6 languages, tap dance and cure the common cold in the uterus, it makes no difference to me, as long as it's residing in the woman's body, she should have the final say

    In that case we'll be arguing until we're blue in the face, because I do think that at some point that the foetus has developed and moved beyond a baby and that at some point before birth it needs to be taken into account.

    That's not to say that whatever happens the foetus/baby should be given priority, sometimes the health of the mother or in effects on others should take priority. But sometimes a mother may be forced to go through a birth she didn't want because society as a whole has to say your individual rights are worth less than that of the child you are carrying.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I just use the terms embryo/foetus etc because they're medically correct. I don't use the word 'baby' as it's emotive, but if someone wanted me to refer to it as a baby from conception, it wouldn't be any skin off my nose because terms aren't being debated.

    For me, there's no cut off point as to when a foetus becomes a baby, because a) how do you determine that and b) I don't believe there is one. I'll refer to a foetus as a foetus until it is born.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    For me, there's no cut off point as to when a foetus becomes a baby, because a) how do you determine that and b) I don't believe there is one. I'll refer to a foetus as a foetus until it is born.

    Fair enough. But does that mean you'd support abortion all the way through pregnacy, including theoretically up to and over nine months? Or do you have a cut-off point?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Like I said, as early as possible and as late as necessary.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    But sometimes a mother may be forced to go through a birth she didn't want because society as a whole has to say your individual rights are worth less than that of the child you are carrying.

    And this is what happens.

    I'm sure that's preferable.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Where do you draw the line then? Is abortion alright at 8 months and 30 days. What about nine months and a day?

    Why stop when the baby is born, perhaps there should be a cooling off period for the mother where she is allowed to smother the baby?

    I'm not against abortion - however I do accept there needs to be limits on it and that at some point the needs/rights of an unborn child need to be taken into account and that at a certain stage abortions move into infanticide

    Edited - to make it slightly less rude
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    I'm not against abortion - however I do accept there needs to be limits on it and that at some point the needs/rights of an unborn child need to be taken into account and that at a certain stage abortions move into infanticide.

    While I do agree that limits are needed, I don't think that using the so called 'rights' of the foetus are a good basis for making them.

    Take the example of Dr George Tiller - he specialises in very late term abortions in the US (I think it's Colorado) and the majority of these are for severe foetal abnormality and each case is treated with the utmost care and sensitivity - no one has suddenly reached 26 weeks or whatever and thought, "Hey, I know what I'll do today, I'll have an abortion!" I know that wasn't your point, but I think it's very easy for people to dismiss the women in these situations - they're usually demonised as being these slutty idiots who ummed and ahhed throughout their pregnancy until it got too far advanced.

    As it stands in this country anyway, the grounds for severe foetal abnormality are legal up until the point of birth.

    What a lot of people tend to forget is that for these terminations, i.e 24 weeks+ the pregnancy would have been very much wanted, and it's a horrible decision for any couple to make.

    In theory, I'll always believe a woman should have a right to terminate a pregnancy, for whatever reason, at any gestation, but in the real world, with the latter point, that wouldn't happen.

    Even at our clinic in West London, due to outside pressure from the press etc on the subject of late term abortions, we've had to cut our limit to 23+4 just in case a scan is out by a day or two. On the same day, we scanned a petrified teenage girl who was, yep, you guessed it, 23+3. It's a very difficult one indeed, but something that should remain between a doctor and their patient.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I was born 16 weeks prematurely and they knew so little about prem babies back then that they had to make a ventalator especially for me!At that time is was legal to have an abortion up til 26 weeks.

    I feel very strongly about abortion, I'd never judge anyone for having one as its personal choice. But you have to ask 'at what point does life begin?' so for that reason I could never have an abortion.

    Phoenix
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I read that wrong, it looked like you said you were born AT 16 weeks! :eek:

    Life begins at 40 ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.