Abortion limit

I was amazed to discover you can have an abortion (legally) up to the age of 24 weeks. At 24 weeks the baby is fully formed. I think this is literally murder. The limit should be far lower - closer to 16 weeks. The only time an abortion should be given after this time is if there are complications or there is a risk to the mothers life.

Blimey.

I agree with you. that IS a first in these current affair threads!

However, this limit of 24 weeks is actually a reduction from the original limit, and is technically trending in the right direction.

although that said, the majority of abortions DO occur before 13 weeks anyway and that percentage is also rising - so perhaps the ones between 16-24 weeks are the medical reasons ones. There cannot be many women who voluntarily opt for an abortion after 16 weeks just because they changed their mind or whatever.


For example the amnio test is only done at 16-18 weeks (although that raises another debate - I am not sure I like the idea of aborting a child just because it has Down's Syndrome..) I am aware it picks up other problems but the main reason it is done seems to be for women over 35 where the risk of having a baby with Down's Syndrome is higher.

I had the triple tests done and was told that i could then have an abortion if it had something wrong. I wanted the tests but only to know what i was up against and could prepare myself. I was also given a book by my midwife and you can choose to have an abortion up to 24 weeks even if there is nothing wrong. It is murder.

Although a woman can ask to have an abortion up to 24 weeks, she still needs to get the approval from 2 doctors first and the majority of those wouldn't agree unless their was a good medical reason. I didn't have tests for any of my children because I was prepared to go ahead, whatever the circumstances but I can also see how some people might find it difficult to cope with a severely disabled child. There is also the times when the mother may find herself seriously ill and it might be a danger to her life to go on with the pregnancy no matter how difficult it might be to end it.

I don't think anyone can judge until they are put in that situation themselves. Most abortions are carried out earlier now, simply because technology is getting better at detecting pregnancy in the early stages.

Not something I can directly relate to, never been there and hopefully never will, my only stance on abortion is that I do not see it as morally right except where the mothers life is at risk.

Having said that if my own daughter was in such a situation where she wanted an abortion I would like to think I would be strong enough to support her despite it being against my beliefs.

I think abortion should only ever be used if there is a medical reason. I have a mate who's sister has now had FOUR of them. Using it as a form of contraception is totally wrong in my view.

Someone said that at 24 weeks a foetus is fully formed - it may have all the bits that it's going to need but most 24 week foetuses wouldn't survive without substantial medical attention, if at all.

I'm horrified by some of these comments. Nobody should ever presume to know the circumstances in which a woman might find herself facing an abortion at an advanced stage in her pregnancy. From what I've read, at 24 weeks it's not a routine procedure and it's not 'easy' or painless. Bandying around terms like 'murder' isn't helpful. If it's murder at 24 weeks then when does it stop being so? Tough one isn't it?

I agree that 24 weeks is a very long time but as someone pointed out, some tests can only be done quite late on and people do get their dates muddled. Pushing down the limits is more likely to force people to make decisions too quickly and could increase the number of terminations rather than reducing it.

I believe it used to be 28 weeks which personally I think was awful BUT nothing like as bad as prior to that when the whole process was illegal.

There may be a very small number of women who have multiple abortions (it was common in the Soviet Union for example because there was no alternative available to women)

koshkha wrote:

I'm horrified by some of these comments. Nobody should ever presume to know the circumstances in which a woman might find herself facing an abortion at an advanced stage in her pregnancy. From what I've read, at 24 weeks it's not a routine procedure and it's not 'easy' or painless. Bandying around terms like 'murder' isn't helpful. If it's murder at 24 weeks then when does it stop being so? Tough one isn't it?

Not that tough really, for the most part, it doesn't stop being murder at any number of weeks. Unless as I said, it's for a genuine medical reason.

In an ideal world, people wouldn't need to get abortions unless there were medical reasons (and of course, in an ideal world, there would not be those reasons either!).

However, it isn't an ideal world.

Sure, better sex educaton in schools and easier access to contraception is one solution of prevention, rather than cure. But no contraception is 100% perfect. Those that use abortion as contraception are probably in the minority. It is not like you can get one at the drop of a hat.

From The Marie Stopes website:

" Abortion is legal in the UK up to the 24th week of pregnancy. However, if there is a substantial risk to the woman's life or if there are foetal abnormalities there is no time limit.

To comply with the 1967 Abortion Act, two doctors must give their consent, stating that to continue with the pregnancy would present a risk to the physical or mental health of the woman or her existing children"

As mentioned above, late abortions are rare but I suspect that any great reduction in the time frame would mark an increase in illegal abortions.

koshkha wrote:

Someone said that at 24 weeks a foetus is fully formed - it may have all the bits that it's going to need but most 24 week foetuses wouldn't survive without substantial medical attention, if at all.

I'm horrified by some of these comments. Nobody should ever presume to know the circumstances in which a woman might find herself facing an abortion at an advanced stage in her pregnancy. From what I've read, at 24 weeks it's not a routine procedure and it's not 'easy' or painless. Bandying around terms like 'murder' isn't helpful. If it's murder at 24 weeks then when does it stop being so? Tough one isn't it?

I agree that 24 weeks is a very long time but as someone pointed out, some tests can only be done quite late on and people do get their dates muddled. Pushing down the limits is more likely to force people to make decisions too quickly and could increase the number of terminations rather than reducing it.

I believe it used to be 28 weeks which personally I think was awful BUT nothing like as bad as prior to that when the whole process was illegal.

There may be a very small number of women who have multiple abortions (it was common in the Soviet Union for example because there was no alternative available to women)

Your right it doesnt stop being murder from day one - at the end of the day its a human being no matter how far developed it is. Personally I believe along with Drewboy than an abortion should only be given on medical grounds or if theres exceptional circumstances (e.g rape/ abuse). I read that only 13 % of abortions are given over 24 weeks and most of these are for medical reasons BUT not all. Considering how far developed the baby is at 24 weeks I dont think abortion should be on the table if theres no medical reason at this stage.

I dont believe that you can get your dates that far out. They have so many tests now where they can see how far gone you are and you have all tests early in pregnancy. We saw our baby at 10 weeks and he was a proper baby. And we had a 4d scan yesterday and he acts like any baby, kicking yawning, sucking his thumb, itching himself, i am not 24 wks and the thought of killing that living baby makes me sick. Also at 24 weeks babies now have a good chance of living.

[quote="WormThatTurned I read that only 13 % of abortions are given over 24 weeks and most of these are for medical reasons BUT not all. Considering how far developed the baby is at 24 weeks I dont think abortion should be on the table if theres no medical reason at this stage.[/quote]

I am not sure about that statistic..precisely because I read another one only last week that stated somewhere between 88% and 90% of abortions are carried out within 13 weeks..

spoilt_little_brat wrote:

I dont believe that you can get your dates that far out. They have so many tests now where they can see how far gone you are and you have all tests early in pregnancy. We saw our baby at 10 weeks and he was a proper baby. And we had a 4d scan yesterday and he acts like any baby, kicking yawning, sucking his thumb, itching himself, i am not 24 wks and the thought of killing that living baby makes me sick. Also at 24 weeks babies now have a good chance of living.

Of course, not everyone knows they are pregnant early on..the majority do, but not all

I worked with a woman who thought she'd had her menopause and didn't know she was pregnant until five and a half months - she thought she had stomach cancer. That's not a naive 13 year old - this was an allegedly 'grown up' woman in a responsible job.

I'm not saying that anyone should have an abortion after 24 weeks - for one thing it's illegal (however the government is never seen to prosecute the boys who impregnate the 13 year old girls so the law is a bit of an ass when it comes to reproduction it would seem) and I would support a reduction.

BUT I still say that the 'abortion is murder' comments are off-side and whilst I've never been in the position to need such a thing, a lot of women fought long and hard for the right to safe abortion and I'd hate to see us go back to the dark ages of back street butchery.

koshkha wrote:

I worked with a woman who thought she'd had her menopause and didn't know she was pregnant until five and a half months - she thought she had stomach cancer. That's not a naive 13 year old - this was an allegedly 'grown up' woman in a responsible job.

Did she make this diognosis herself? Cause that's dangerous as it is. Did she have an abortion?

I just think that with so many couples looking to adopt, the morality of it makes it a no brainer for me.

No,she had the baby of course - my point was that people don't always know how pregnant they are - in this case she didn't even know she was pregnant at all.

Yes people want to adopt but why should another woman have to go through an unwanted pregnancy just to provide a baby for someone else? It reeks of the Margaret Atwood classic - the Handmaid's Tale - where women in a post apocalyptic society were forced to have babies for other women and to give up their own children for adoption.

Back in the pre-abortion days too many young girls were screwed up for life by being put through a pregnancy only to have their babies taken away from them. Abortion is very upsetting for many but not close (I would think) to the trauma of giving up a child.

People have some crazy idea these days that parenthood is a 'right' - hence the spending of collosal amounts on IVF and other treatments. It's not a right, it's a privilege and I believe that if people want IVF they should find the money themselves and leave the NHS pot of cash for people who are sick (let the debate commence on that one!)

However abortion IS a right under law and it's one that we have to defend against the church and ultra-conservative types (like George Bush and his cronies).

Under the NHS you can only have one treatment of IVF, then you have to pay for it yourself.

koshkha wrote:

No,she had the baby of course - my point was that people don't always know how pregnant they are - in this case she didn't even know she was pregnant at all.

Yes people want to adopt but why should another woman have to go through an unwanted pregnancy just to provide a baby for someone else? It reeks of the Margaret Atwood classic - the Handmaid's Tale - where women in a post apocalyptic society were forced to have babies for other women and to give up their own children for adoption.

Back in the pre-abortion days too many young girls were screwed up for life by being put through a pregnancy only to have their babies taken away from them. Abortion is very upsetting for many but not close (I would think) to the trauma of giving up a child.

However abortion IS a right under law and it's one that we have to defend against the church and ultra-conservative types (like George Bush and his cronies).

I'm a little worried and surprised at some of the attitudes expressed on this forum...

In an ideal world there would be no need for abortion but we don't live in such a world and going back to the the pre legal abortion times would be a huge mistake.

The idea that some women would choose to have abortions as a 'lifestyle' choice or means of contraception is insensitive at best. The vast majority of women I'm sure think long and hard before they undergo such a procedure and don't take the decision lightly.

We have to make sure that the religious right don't prevail on this issue.

koshkha wrote:

I worked with a woman who thought she'd had her menopause and didn't know she was pregnant until five and a half months - she thought she had stomach cancer. That's not a naive 13 year old - this was an allegedly 'grown up' woman in a responsible job.

Grown up ? What the hell did the put the kicking down to ?? Surely it must have gone through her mind she could have been pregnant.

Cross my heart this is a true story - she was a department manager in the shop I worked in when I was at school. She was utterly convinced she had stomach cancer and was just too scared to go to the doctor.

Every year the papers (admittedly, usually the Mail and press of similar 'quality') report about young girls not realising they are pregnant. If you think of all the people (men and women) who try to ignore lumps and bumps and medical issues because of embarassment, it's not hard to believe that a baby can be mistaken for indigestion.

Mauri wrote:

We have to make sure that the religious right don't prevail on this issue.

I do not believe for a second that this issue is as easily defined as to say its the religious right that are against, and the rest that are not.

Essexgirl wrote:

Under the NHS you can only have one treatment of IVF, then you have to pay for it yourself.

Is that fact or an urban myth?

It doesn't fit with my experience...and it is down to the old postcode lottery...isn't it?

My beliefs are not that extreme in this sense...nor are they based on religion..

I DO believe to an extent in the "right to choose" (as long as it is not being used as a form of contraception) and I definitely do not think we need to go back to the 1950s with undercover dangerous abortions. (The Vera Drake film was actually very disturbing..it made me feel physically uncomfortable... )

I also think it is possible to get dates wrong, but again, this is a minority we are talking to, the great portion of women know if they are late or not (but the teenagers and older mothers might not..)

Equally I think that while there is the right to choose, as a nation we seem to look at tests for Down's etc and link that to terminating a pregnancy just because a child has Down's or another disability seems to part of the "being pregnant" process, especially at women of my age..(my best friend is pregnant at 38, same as me, for first time, due on my birthday )

But when you look at people with Down's is it by itself a reason to terminate a pregnancy? I have worked with people with Down's syndrome in my career..of course this all gets grey as it depends on what people can cope with etc, and goes against the "right to choose" comment I just made.

And I understand that most women, when faced with a choice of having a baby and giving it up for adoption, or not having the baby, because there are health problems, then neither option is the easy route, and as hard as it sounds, abortion is probably easier than giving your baby away (which is why there are practically no babies available for adoption anywhere now - the only ones will be where there are other kids who are the subject of a care order and the mother then gets pregnant again..rare)

Like people have said in an ideal world there would be need for abortion.

I am for the right to choose. I use contraception and so does my sister. She was on the pill when she first got pregnant and wasn't in a position to bring up a child. She chose to have the pregnancy aborted.

She faced a very tough choice and was very emotional for months afterwards however, she still believes that she did the right thing because there was no way she could have given the child everything that it should have had or the quality of life that it should have enjoyed.

She was also emotionally unstable at that point and so bringing a child into the world was not the best thing to be doing in that emotional state - that was her view. She had the pregnancy aborted at 8 weeks. She wanted to make sure the choice she made was the right one for herself, the baby and her partner and they made this decision together.

She now has 2 healthy children - 8 miscarriages separated their births and in her more emotional moments she has said that she wonders if this is how god has punished her for the abortion.

helencbradshaw wrote:

Essexgirl wrote:

Under the NHS you can only have one treatment of IVF, then you have to pay for it yourself.

Is that fact or an urban myth?

It doesn't fit with my experience...and it is down to the old postcode lottery...isn't it?

The only person I know who has tried it was in Aberdeen. Checking the BBC website, this has been the case since 2004.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3516941.stm