Abortion at 24 weeks

[grahamthomson]

What did people think of the decision to keep the legal limit for abortion at 24 weeks?

[Grand Moff Muffin]

I'd prefer it to be 20 or 22, since some few babies have been born at under 24 weeks and survived to lead normal lives, which says to me that they are human beings by that point.

The current system - or society - is certainly broken one way or another (and reducing the time limit by a few weeks won't fix that), with the number of abortions having increased steadily over the last few decades, and many women having 3 or 4 abortions. One unwanted pregnancy could be down to carelessness, lack of education or bad luck, but 3 or 4 suggests to me a casual disregard for the gift of life, which should not be treated so lightly.

In general (and this goes beyond the topic of abortion), people in my view care too much about their rights and not enough about their responsibilities.

Martin

[Philip Ayres]

I'll start by reminding people that I'm adopted so obviously I have some strong views on this matter.

I would rather the laws were tightened up. In the years since I was born the number of healthy babies being put up for adoption has come down massively - most kids up for adoption these days are generally older ones with physical/emotional problems.

Making abortion a less socialy acceptable option would then hopefully lead to an increase in the number of children up for adoption. This in turn *should* reduce the burden on the NHS for IVF etc.

Lots of ifs and shoulds there. and I'm aware that things in reality don't work quite like that.

I will concede there is a need for abortion in cases of medical necessity (and possibly in cases of mental health issues / outcome of rape ?) but strongly feel like it needs to be discouraged as an option for conveniance sake. Sadly it isn't the easy option that it's presented to be in some ways - all the people I know who've had terminations have got scars to this day from what happened.

[legios]

May 21, 2008 21:14:46 GMT Philip Ayres said:

I will concede there is a need for abortion in cases of medical necessity (and possibly in cases of mental health issues / outcome of rape ?)

I'm not going to weigh in too much on this issue - being a bloke means that I am only really entitled to half a view on this matter in the abstract. What I will say is that I feel that a termination _has_ to be an option with a post-rape pregnancy. Not that it should always be the first option, but I do feel that given the traumatic nature of the situation then it always has to be a possibility.

Karl

[karla]

It is difficult to group all abortions into one catagory, and that no matter the circumstances they have to follow those guidelines.
But I don't think it, when describing it, it should be deemed as evil that kind of taboo can turn women away. That does annoy me a bit, I mean sure you are killing something or other and having it ripped out of you (not literally lol) but life can be alot crueller than death at times....and I'm going off point here! It's tricky as people have different views about EVERYTHING grouping it isn't easy.

There are always back steet abortions too, which do usually attract teenage girls as there are no questions asked but it's extremally dangerous for them as you may well guess. And after all that jabber, I would like to see it moved down from 24 to 22!

[Bogatan]

I have no problem with abortions in theory ( and I wont address the 24 week part as I dont know enough) but I do think abortions take a big fear from young girls. I was friends with a group of girls a few years older than me when I was 13 or 14 and I know most of them had had at least one abortion and one of them at least had had three and might have had a forth. All of them were under 16. Yes they were for lack of better term "slappers". I dread to think what STDs they were exposed to.

Ever since then Ive always felt there should be a legal limit to how many abortions a woman can have (barring rape/medical grounds) It might at least encourage the use of protection. Though more likely it would just cause a new wave of council estates to be built.

Andy

[The Doctor]

I believe in a woman's right to choose. As a man, I don't think I have any right to say what women should do with their bodies. It's a position that hasn't had to be challenged though, as I have not been personally affected by the issue, so I can't say I'll never change my mind.

I do think abortion should always be offered as an option to a woman in the case of a sexual assualt.

-Ralph

[dyrl]

This is a tough issue. So please don't flip out at me until you read the entire post (then you can flip out at me if you want:) )....

I am very much pro-life; to the point of believing that even in cases of rape, incest etc - there should not be a termination of a pregnancy because it is another human being.

Karla's point about life being bad in many ways is not, in my opinion, a valid reason for one human being to decide to terminate another human being. According to this kind of reasoning, we might as well terminate old folks, crippled folks, and anyone else that "we" deem to be a drag - until perhaps one of us ends up on the "to be extinguished" list.

Even in the case of rape - the unborn child should not pay the price for the evil of adults. Aborting the child just because he or she is the result of rape is still an abortion.

Furthermore, I think the question of when life begins is far too delicate to take the chance that when an embryo is 23.9999 weeks old then it is just flotsam, but miraculously the second in turns 24 weeks old it is a human being.

This is just wrong.

What makes us human is our potential rational faculty and our volition: yet even these traits develop in (already born) humans over time. A new born baby has only the potential for reason and volition - it is not reasonable and does not make conscious choices.

So this is why I say that it is our potential rational faculty and our volition which make us human, which essential define human life.

In this case - the embryo in the womb - at conception - is a human being because it has the potential to grow into a rational conscious being who thinks, feels, and is capable of choice. Furthrmore, unlike we outside of the womb - the embryo is completely an innocent life.

To me then, abortion at any stage is wrong; it is the killing of a beautiful life.

This does no mean that I treat rape lightly, nor am I ignorant of the fact that sometimes a pregnancy can put the mother's life or health in jeapordy - especially if the mother has already had one or more children.

This is why I am fully in favor of sex education, condoms, birth control pills and the whole nine yards - everything that can possibly stave off conception.

Though of course, someone will no doubt accuse me of hypocracy since often times these anti-conceptive devices are "pseudo-abortions" - since the argument could be made that they are preventing the development of the "potential human" I spoke of earlier.

I am aware of this - I do not mean to demagogue the issue; and I certainly don't mean to come across as a calous pro-life person who demonizes those who disagree.

What I would like to point out is that when there is doubt about something as fundamental as human life - I believe the only moral and reasonable course of action is to err on the side of life.

Having said all that - I am fully OPPOSED to government bans on abortion.

I oppose government bans on abortion because the idea of anti-abortion law is just too broad and completely un-executable.

There is no way that a court of law can fairly judge whether a pregnancy was terminated due to a real threat to the life of the mother or not. For every doctor who says there was a threat, another can be found to state the opposite position. For every statistic that says there was a threat, a different one could be found. Essentially, life is not a game of numbers - it is a question of principle. Yet no human being has the right to judge one life supreme and another one expendible. No state then can make the judgement that the mother's life was either supreme or expendible -

The only person who can judge is the mother herself, along with her family and the doctors she trusts. Their judgement may be flawed; but any sensible human being will no doubt be devastated if they mistakenly terminate their pregnancy. It is a sad thing for a mother-to-be to have to decide.

Those cases where abortions are performed "casually" are... almost hard to believe for me. This is because to the extent that I understand anything about abortion - it is not a pleasant process. In any case - as with anything in life - the individual bears the emotional burden of their actions...

I think the best solution to the abortion question would be to hand it back to the local community; make it a matter of the family, the church, the community - it is such a personal and intimate problematic that there is no reason why the government should be involved in such a matter.

So I guess in short; I am personally pro-life, politically pro-choice, generally against the politicization of such a delicate subject.

dyrl

[karla]

I don't think its a delicate issue at all, it's just difficult because people make it so especially when they get so serious about it! Making life can be as wreckless as killing it. Distressing as it is where some women would happily have an abortion over and over again and do not think about what is actually happening, where as another would kill herself over what she did. You just can't win...or even lose for that matter

[Shockprowl]

Phew, though issue. I think the option of termination should exist, but I can't put a time scale on it 'cos I do fundamentally believe that life is life the moment the little swimmer crosses the finishing line. But it certainly should be an option for sexual assult/ massive medical problems as already discussed.

I believe that society is in a real critical state. Please keep in mind I'm typing this at work so don't have time to be as articulate as some of the other posts in this thread. Young men and women from all parts of society throw themselves into sex with no disregard for the consequences, as they do with many other aspects of life. It's quite easy to enjoy a liberal sex-life if one uses the correct protections. For young women to be having multipul terminations is a terrible state of affairs (that's not to forget the bloke's role in all this!), and it's this lack of respect for life/society/self that needs, somehow, to be addressed.

[Grand Moff Muffin]

May 22, 2008 17:32:06 GMT The Doctor said:

I believe in a woman's right to choose. As a man, I don't think I have any right to say what women should do with their bodies.

That would sound like an indisputable position / open-and-shut case if it were only the woman's body we were talking about - e.g. right to donate organs, right to commit suicide, right to sex-change, whatever. But this isn't like that - this is about the woman's right to kill another person who - through an act of choice already made by the woman and a man for personal gratification - is now living inside her.

After the point at which the baby becomes a human being, the question can no longer be settled purely in terms of a woman's rights over her own body. Indeed, half of the babies aborted are women. If men have the moral right/duty to protect others from murder, they have the moral right/duty to express views on this.

You could maintain that the baby is a part of the woman's body and has no rights to life until the umbilical cord is cut at 9 months, but I doubt this is your view (?). If not, the law has to set a cut-off date at a certain number of weeks, so that people know where abortion ends and murder begins (i.e. the foetus becomes a human baby living in the womb) from a legal standpoint.

Because (except in cases of rape) the woman makes a choice when she has sex, and the baby makes no choice, I err on the side of caution when forming my opinion on where that cut-off date should be set, and hence think 20 weeks would be better/safer than 24.

Martin

[The Doctor]

All interesting points, Martin. As I said, I do concede my current viewpoint on the issue errs more on the abstract side as I have not as yet been in a position where I (or anyone close to me) has been directly affected by it. It is one of the many issues I'm having to devote more thought to as a result of my current training.

-Ralph

[Andy Turnbull]

Given that we've had some children surviving when they've been delivered around the week 24 I'd say it would be a good thing to lower the limit to twenty weeks.

I am glad that in the UK we can have a debate over this and it all be done in a relatively sensible fashion (yes America I am looking at you).

Andy

[karla]

May 23, 2008 6:53:37 GMT Grand Moff Muffin said:

That would sound like an indisputable position / open-and-shut case if it were only the woman's body we were talking about - e.g. right to donate organs, right to commit suicide, right to sex-change, whatever. But this isn't like that - this is about the woman's right to kill another person who - through an act of choice already made by the woman and a man for personal gratification - is now living inside her.

After the point at which the baby becomes a human being, the question can no longer be settled purely in terms of a woman's rights over her own body. Indeed, half of the babies aborted are women. If men have the moral right/duty to protect others from murder, they have the moral right/duty to express views on this.

You could maintain that the baby is a part of the woman's body and has no rights to life until the umbilical cord is cut at 9 months, but I doubt this is your view (?). If not, the law has to set a cut-off date at a certain number of weeks, so that people know where abortion ends and murder begins (i.e. the foetus becomes a human baby living in the womb) from a legal standpoint.

Because (except in cases of rape) the woman makes a choice when she has sex, and the baby makes no choice, I err on the side of caution when forming my opinion on where that cut-off date should be set, and hence think 20 weeks would be better/safer than 24.

Martin

We have a womb man, and a bloodied lining! what more do you want lol!!!!!

It must be tricky for men to get involved in this huh? you would be seen as to have no right in this matter after all "you don't understand" ai yai yai! terrible!

maybe they should lower the price of the morning after pill a tad £25 for the one pill *ouch*! course you can get it free at sex clinics, but then you have to plan your wreckless one night stands as most of them are open at really random times of the week!