20 week abortion limit?

Do you think it is a good idea to lower the limit for abortion to twenty weeks? I do since babies can relatively often survive at twenty-four weeks with few if any ill effects.

I am very much pro-life.

I read last week that there is something like 500 abortions per day, to me that shows that abortions are being used as birth control, which to me is wrong.

While I understand that banning abortion would be a huge step back for us as a country and could be putting womens lives in danger, there does need to be a serious re-think of the limits in place at the moment.

I think that 20 weeks is still too high though.

At 20 weeks you are half way through your pregnancy, your body is already producing milk, you can feel your baby kicking (I could from 16 weeks), you can already tell the sex, muscular and nervous systems are developed, and a week later at 21 weeks gestation a baby has been known to survive

I can understand why abortions are in place for medical reasons, but if you are having sex then you should understand you are at risk of getting pregnant. Abortion is not a quick fix.

http://www.aliveandkickingcampaign.org/

In short, no. Unless they change the point at which you receive the abnormality scan 20 weeks is too early. In our area your FIRST and only scan (assuming everything is OK) is at 20 weeks... if you need to make a decision whether or not to terninate that cannot and should not be rushed.

I hate the idea of people using abortion as a form of birth control and think it far to easy to get the 2 Drs to sign off on the procedure BUT there are pleanty for whom the right to choose is very, very important. The rape victim, the person whose birth control failed and for whom a child would be inappropriate and those unfortunate enough to find that they might have a seriously disabled child for whom they could not properly care.

CareBear wrote:

In short, no. Unless they change the point at which you receive the abnormality scan 20 weeks is too early. In our area your FIRST and only scan (assuming everything is OK) is at 20 weeks... if you need to make a decision whether or not to terninate that cannot and should not be rushed.

I hate the idea of people using abortion as a form of birth control and think it far to easy to get the 2 Drs to sign off on the procedure BUT there are pleanty for whom the right to choose is very, very important. The rape victim, the person whose birth control failed and for whom a child would be inappropriate and those unfortunate enough to find that they might have a seriously disabled child for whom they could not properly care.

Was not aware of that. I would have the scan earlier and go for twenty weeks as the limit though if that was a feasible change in the law.

It does vary from health authority to health authority but I recall from when I was expecting that our LHA was not alone in its tardiness to scan. The money's not there for more scans and so they do them when they KNOW that they should be able to tell that all is OK etc. You can pick up on some things earlier on but not all.

CareBear wrote:

It does vary from health authority to health authority but I recall from when I was expecting that our LHA was not alone in its tardiness to scan. The money's not there for more scans and so they do them when they KNOW that they should be able to tell that all is OK etc. You can pick up on some things earlier on but not all.

I think the problem I have is that the survival rates are really quite good for babies born within that twenty to twenty-four week period.

I had one at 10 weeks at one at 20 weeks. The first was a dating scan and the second an abnormality scan.

CareBear wrote:

In short, no. Unless they change the point at which you receive the abnormality scan 20 weeks is too early. In our area your FIRST and only scan (assuming everything is OK) is at 20 weeks... if you need to make a decision whether or not to terninate that cannot and should not be rushed.

I hate the idea of people using abortion as a form of birth control and think it far to easy to get the 2 Drs to sign off on the procedure BUT there are pleanty for whom the right to choose is very, very important. The rape victim, the person whose birth control failed and for whom a child would be inappropriate and those unfortunate enough to find that they might have a seriously disabled child for whom they could not properly care.

For rape victims and for medical reasons I can understand the limits being as they are.

As for birth control and a child being inappropriate, I don't buy that at all.

No birth control is 100% effective, but if you really don't want a child, there are ways in which you can protect yourself more (i.e- use 2 forms of contraception).

And if you are that scared of getting pregnant because it is inappropriate then don't have sex; simple.

The earliest known baby to survive was 21 weeks. Aborting after a time when babies have been known to survive and when theres no medical reason is plain wrong to me. Id support it being reduced to 20 weeks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7409696.stm#graphic



Not good news at all IMO.

Just found this, a picture I had at 20 weeks gestation. How you could abort that I will never understand.

I totally agree that if you don't want a kid you don't have sex but then again I was a virgin on marriage (rather rare these days!). However, I have known people take double precautions and still get pregnant (least that's what they tell me). They've kept the babies but I do think there are circumstances where it would be inappropriate to do so and where the unborn child's welfare is bound to suffer.

I so wish our LHA would do dating scans as a matter of routine. I know that I'm tempted, if I ever fall pregnant again, to say I have no idea when my last period was just to get one!

Personally I would vote against abortio full stop but would have preferred them to have approved the 16 week rule if nothing else.