[Closed] Halving abortions to 12 weeks

As a pro life person I find abortion a crude method of birth control.

Sorry to sound "one side of the fence" on this but its just me I guess.

In past times with limited access to birth control, education, morning after pill etc abortion was probably a viable option, however now with these option in place it should be lowered in terms of the cut off time.

Edit above

So, what's your informed opinion on her proposal then?

EDIT: @bwaarp

Ah, that lovely phrase "pro-life" - by implication, putting anyone who disagrees in the "anti-life" category.

My opinion is that in this one case, abortion should be allowed until the 187th trimester

It's his personal view rather than that of his party (I hope!) and will never become law.

He's a perfect example of how [url= http://theconversation.edu.au/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978 ]you're not entitled to your opinion if you're an idiot[/url].

Are they trying to divert attention from some bad news due out today?

I know they want to boost the opportunities for small business to flourish, but forcing abortions into the back streets seems like a crappy place to start. Like most pro lifers, Hunt is a tube, but sadly i believe in free speech, so I'll have to lump the shite they spout.

I think they should raise the limit to about eighteen years .It may help rid some estates of... umm, problems

Ah, that lovely phrase "pro-life" - by implication, putting anyone who disagrees in the "anti-life" category.

Der! Of course! If you're 'pro-life' then of course everyone else who is opposed to your position is 'anti-life', at least as far as the pro-life person sees it.

Halving to 12 weeks is a bad idea on the basis that there is no evidence that the individual is viable at that age.

Given a significant number of abortion services have been shown as [url= http://www.cqc.org.uk/media/findings-termination-pregnancy-inspections-published ]unable or unwilling to follow existing abortion laws [/url], that despite the leaps forward in contraception and safe sex, the number of abortions has increased tenfold since abortion was legalised, and that half the premature babies born at the current cut off point of 24 weeks survive, then perhaps looking again at the legal position is a good idea.

Also worth noting that the current limit was reduced form the previous limit of 28 weeks in 1990 due to advances in science that increased the survival rates of premature babies, and that there have been further improvements since then.

[i]As a pro life person I find abortion a crude method of birth control.

[/i]

And what about where its not used as 'birth control'?

While normally I'd wish that he kept his 'personal' opinions to himself, on this subject I'm glad he's made public his thoughts - so we know exactly where he stands 🙄 , not fit for office in a modern society.

12 Weeks is stupid as most issues would not be detected until at last that time point. I agree it project should be lowered due to the increase in life expectancy of very prem babies. But that low is stupid and its ironic that his name is accurate rhyming slang.,

Interesting how few abortions a change in the law to even twelve weeks would actually affect (2004 figures via wiki)

[img] [/img]

Which might be cause for his position, that the vast, vast majority of abortions take place prior to twelve weeks,

most issues would not be detected until at last that time point.

But abortions can and already take place outside the 'normal' 24 week limit for medical reasons, so I can't see why that would be any different for a 12 week limit for conditions detected after that point.

First off I will declare a personal interest here. I was born in the 60's and put up for adoption. Subsequently raised by lo0ving parents and now have a family of my own. If I had the misfortune to have been conceived 20 or 30 years later I would most likely (statistically) have been aborted. Gi9ven the choice I would rather not have been aborted.

Perhaps a few of you can reflect on that!

Aha... thats a little more interesting

This from the guardian just over a month ago:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/sep/04/jeremy-hunt-nhs-tribute-homeopathy?newsfeed=true

Diane Abbott, shadow health minister, also expressed concern at Hunt's stance on abortion after it emerged that in 2008 he voted for the time limit on abortion to be reduced from 24 to 12 weeks.

So, long held belief, which is interesting, [b]but you then wonder just why its made the news again this weekend... [/b]

For what its worth, I've had a couple of very good friends who have had abortions quite early in life as it was seen as 'not the right time' and very much regretted them later on, so I think anything that makes the process more robust and seen as less of an "easy way out" when people can be pressured into by family or partners, is a good thing.

Perhaps a few of you can reflect on that!

Before I was born, my mother had a miscarriage - my parents only wanted one child, so if medical care had been better maybe I wouldn't be here - reflect on that.

The problem is there's no fixed dividing line - now you're not a person, now you are. It's a sliding scale. And the people best placed to judge where on the sliding scale the cutoff should be are medical professionals and ethicists with a lot of experience in the area. Not some idiot who believes that magic water will cure diseases.

Zulu-Eleven - Member
Also worth noting that the current limit was reduced form the previous limit of 28 weeks in 1990 due to advances in science that increased the survival rates of premature babies, and that there have been further improvements since then.

So, long held belief, which is interesting, [b]but you then wonder just why its made the news again this weekend...[/b]

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9591047/Wards-in-a-fifth-of-NHS-hospitals-face-the-axe.html ]I don't know, but maybe distracting attention from this has something to do with it?[/url]

Perhaps a few of you can reflect on that!

I'm reflecting on it now, and failing to see what this has to do with anything.

Its just my view and I think anyone who has an view opposing has the same right to make their case.

I am not one for marching up and down with placards, attacking people who use abortion for what they view as a viable reason.

"Pro life" for me identifies the right of an unborn child's rights to life, its that simple.

I do not hold an "anti life" view point, that is for others to make the case for or reject that label as they see fit.

It would be interesting to record why women "choose" abortion, that is if it is a choice.

Records state that abortion has increased year on year (small drop in 2007 to 2010) and has over doubled since 1970.

We are a modern society where access to multiple forms of contraception are FREE, education is open to all, so why the massive increase in abortion rates.

In Sweden rates are massively lower, so why is that not the case here.

The rights of the unborn child should be considered, that is the only view I have.

I'm reflecting on it now, and failing to see what this has to do with anything.

I forget the term for it, but it's one of those things that looks different from either end. It's incredibly unlikely that [i]I[/i] will win the lottery*, but [i]someone[/i] wins every week.

Same thing here - I am the one out of millions of possibilities that got born, so what about all those eggs and sperm that didn't make it? Should we also mourn those people who aren't here?

*I'd need to buy a ticket, for a start

In Sweden rates are massively lower, so why is that not the case here.

I'm guessing much better sex education, and a government that doesn't think attacking women is a good way to get votes.

and perhaps women in other countries view abortion not a form of birth control as we do in the UK.

Its a complex topic but I think is riddled with education and what society sees as being appropriate.

Next ...............

Maybe they only view it as a form of birth control because no-one talked to them about the other kinds of birth control.

Abortions have always happened, always will, ban them and you go back to backstreet butchery. Go back a bit and to Romans Infanticide was normal. The idea of children being sacrosanct is a very Christian idea.

No ifs no buts, banning abortion will not end abortions. Rape, Incest, abnormalities etc. there will always be those who seek abortions. Take the Irish approach and you end up in UK clinics, ban it here and your going to have people seeking abortions in Holland or Germany etc.

Then there are economic issues with having children, is it right to have kids if you can not afford them? As for saying don't have sex until you can afford the kids that might result, that has never worked in the history of mankind and do you honestly think it can changee?

So from that standpoint the question is at what point is it reasonable to have the cut off.

Yes most abortions won't be affected with a 12 week cut. BUT why do abortions happen late? if you can address these then maybe bringing the age down is appropriate.

Maybe twelve weeks is to soon. But what are the reasons for waiting until 24 weeks?

Should there be an option to terminate if your told there is a chance that your baby may be less than perfect?

I never had much of an opinion until we were having a baby. I had an app on the phone that showed what your baby looks like each week. It starts to look like a baby way before 24 weeks.

When our son was born he spent 5 days in the special care unit. He was a big boy of nearly 10 pounds. Despite the wires stuck on his face and chest he looked like he didn't belong in there. There was 2 baby's born at 23 and 24 weeks there at the same time. All over the walls there were pictures of children of various ages who were all born around the 24 week time.

You have to be pro abortion to join the debate on how many weeks. If you are anti abortion then it doesn't matter if it's one week or 40 weeks, you're against it. That much is black and white.

I believe that a foetus has a heartbeat at about 12 weeks and at about 20 weeks independent life is sustainable and this appears to be the thinking behind the suggested 12 week and 24 week limits. I guess that for someone who isn't anti abortion, the limit is set by their conscience of when it's OK to take that life.

Bit of a cop out but, as a man, I find it very difficult to form a 100% definite opinion on the matter because I can accept that for a woman there can be many reasons why they may want to have a choice available to them (not just as a form of contraception).

I find it difficult to get my head around that anyone in our society does not understand what contraception is and where it can be obtained.

Perhaps there are cultural pressures from men who don't want contraception, it is indeed a complex issue.

But the facts are we have had a rising rate of abortions for many many years even with free provision of multiple forms of contraception as well as morning after pills.

Statistics also show that

The Department of Health data also indicate that the proportion of all abortions that are considered repeat abortions has increased from 30% to 34% since 2000. In absolute terms, this was estimated to equate to 52,663 repeat abortions in 2000 and 64,445 in 2010.

Simply bringing the time frame down is very blunt and wont work, the issues in our society run deeper and need to be addressed.

Simply bringing the time frame down is very blunt and wont work, the issues in our society run deeper and need to be addressed.

Well said.

I find it difficult to get my head around that anyone in our society does not understand what contraception is and where it can be obtained.

Then may i suggest going and mixing in wider circles.

There are many reasons, cultural, educational, health (mental and physical) why abortions have and will happen. Yes it is sad it happens but to think that there is no need is very naive and to try and ban it will have more negative results than positive.

The only real way forward is to stop being prudish about sex, like so many things, if you try and ban it, it only becomes more attractive.

Before I was born, my mother had a miscarriage - my parents only wanted one child, so if medical care had been better maybe I wouldn't be here - reflect on that.

Just have - completely different. If your mother hadn't had a miscarriage the process to bring you into the world wouldn't have started. In the case I cited it has started and is stopped - jsut pointing out that some of us are glad abortion wasn't so prevelent!

Why is it attacking women? With a few expections (rape) women willing start a process off. Why not see it through? There are plenty of couples who can't have children that would willingly adopt (if the process wasn't so tortuous - but that's another subject).

Maybe they only view it as a form of birth control because no-one talked to them about the other kinds of birth control.

Good to see we can agree on something - better all round to prevent the pregnancy in the first place.

 

Then how does the statistical increase year on year of abortion rates in the UK not mirrored in countries close to us, Sweden and Holland for instance

psling, the heartbeat is detectable before 8 weeks. Take it from someone who witnessed it.

Anyway, my current position of mrs deadly being 29 weeks pregnant possibly clouds my opinions on things but I think men should, in general, leave women to decide what they do and don't do with their bodies when it comes to having babies. Whether I am pro-life or not is nobody's business. But I'm certainly pro-choice.

But abortions can and already take place outside the 'normal' 24 week limit for medical reasons, so I can't see why that would be any different for a 12 week limit for conditions detected after that point.

As things stand, a 20wk scan is pretty much the norm; hard to detect defects much below that, I believe. You then might need further imaging, amniocentesis or whatever after than AND then you need to give parents time to make a considered decision.

Currently, decision to terminate after 24wk is (edit: only allowed for one of) several reasons, the "abnormality" side of things requiring a significant disability after birth. It's left to docs to decide what "significant" actually means - our local place don't, for example, do Downs etc after 24wk and would only terminate in circumstances where the paediatricians would be comfortable in not providing active medical care if a child were to be born in the same situation without prior warning. Other centrs might define downs as significant. What's definitely true is that amnio or other investigation are necessary to give a strong indication of presence of Downs.

It's unfair on parents (and hospitals) to force that investigative and decision-making process into a smaller window whilst expecting clinicians to define "significance" locally.

IMO

Also IMO: Bloke's a tit and I imagine already has pretty much discredited himself in the eyes of most of the health service

BUT why do abortions happen late?

Gender selection. Health reasons (baby). Health reasons (mother). Changes of circumstances (parent/s relationships). Changes of circumstances (parent/s lifestyle). Etc..

All you need to decide is which may be acceptable to you... 😯

Gender selection.

This is one i find interesting, there are in some communities pressures to have a child of a certain sex, which would suggest no one should be allowed to know the sex of the baby, But there are also certain genetic issues that can be weeded out by aborting certain sex embryos which suggests that you should have the option...

It's my understanding that health professionals and experts in the field agreed the 24 week limit based on the facts, those facts haven't changed. I think trying to force a woman to have a baby they don't want because you're "pro" life is an infringement of a persons rights and an attitude that belongs in the past. As the facts show most late term abortions are performed for medical reasons.

routine selection and abortion of a malformed fetus is a dark place to go.

Eugenics by a different name ?

Science is advancing without open public debate in my view.

How far are we away from pre selecting a fetus based on a parents "preferences"

Its a dark science in my view.

routine selection and abortion of a malformed fetus is a dark place to go.
Eugenics by a different name ?
Science is advancing without open public debate in my view.

[i]routine selection and abortion of a malformed fetus is a dark place to go.

[/i]

Maybe, and I hope you'll never have to go there - but if you do, please remember what you've been saying here...

Men pontificating about abortion is as ridiculous as celibate clergy preaching about contraception.

Let women decide.

I have a disabled sister and love the bones of her.

Also been involved with disability charities for years.

Eyes wide open here

mrmo - Member

Abortions have always happened, always will, ban them and you go back to backstreet butchery. Go back a bit and to Romans Infanticide was normal. The idea of children being sacrosanct is a very Christian idea.

I suspect you are right with respect to your first statement, mrmo, but that last sentence is just ignorant.

Although different religions offer different points at which they believe the foetus to be a person, killing a person is seen universally as wrong due to the idea of the sanctity of life.

Likewise Aristotle.

Likewise pre-Christian Roman law.

Rusty Spanner - Member

Men pontificating about abortion is as ridiculous as celibate clergy preaching about contraception.

Let women decide.

Of course women should be able to decide what happens with their own bodies. The question here, however, at least according to some, does not just involve a woman's own body. It involves the body of another person.

That is, if you believe that a foetus is a person. And surely, it is everyone's right to be part of the debate over the nature of personhood, isn't it?

montylikesbeer - Member
I find it difficult to get my head around that anyone in our society does not understand what contraception is and where it can be obtained.

Where can I find this 100% effective 100% of the time contraception?

My beliefs regarding childbirth and natural selection may offend so i won't go into them but I do belive that abortion is fine until the detection of brain activity. i have my reasons but that is my choice not yours. Just think about rape/Incest/other pregnancies where the child is not detected until the deadline has passed.

Although different religions offer different points at which they believe the foetus to be a person, killing a person is seen universally as wrong due to the idea of the sanctity of life.

you don't know how wrong you are on that. The idea of life being sacred is often right, which is part of the reason why many civilisations took to human sacrifice. Read the Old testament and understand why Abraham was asked to Sacrifice Isaac. As for new borns, if you lived in a world where most would die anyway...

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide ]Infanticide[/url]

This government are actually beginnings to make me political. I even thought of joining th Labour Party this morning. Now Cameron is back peddling like mad on this it just shows they are totally out of control as a government. They have no ideology and are prepared to say anything to stay in power. This and the crap coming out of Gove's mouth about education have really wound me up. They've got to go!

And I think abortion is very personal and the decision should be left totally to the people involved. No one wants to go through the trauma. And if you decide to abort your disabled baby then you definitely have good reasons.

montylikesbeer - Member
Eugenics by a different name ?

🙄

Who is in charge of this policy?

Its my view of how the "selection" of a new life is becoming more scientific and again in my view will become more and more about perceived perfection.

Its only my view of course and has no more relevance than a fart on a motor bike

I think that this is a subject that provokes opinions from many people, unfortunately the majority of opinions tend to come from well educated, well off people and not those for whom abortion is a reality.

Aren't abortions used when the sex of the baby is required to be male by certain religions (increasingly more in the UK)?

[i]Aren't abortions used when the sex of the baby is required to be male by certain religions (increasingly more in the UK)?[/i]

Do you want to think a little bit more about that?
Think, perhaps, what would happen in any group if 'the sex of the baby is required to be male' ?

Some [i]cultures[/i] see male children as desirable, and some [i]people[/i] have attempted to determine the sex of their baby and use abortion as a method of not having a child of the less desirable sex.

Aren't abortions used when the sex of the baby is required to be male by certain religions (increasingly more in the UK)?

Abortion solely on the basis of gender is illegal in the uk so no. It really does surprise me that people who can type comments on a forum can't use google to check stuff like this.

Abortion solely on the basis of gender is illegal in the uk so no. It really does surprise me that people who can type comments on a forum can't use google to check stuff like this.

It may be illegal, but like a good many illegal things it does happen, and after finding out the sex you might suddenly discover that you have a problem that means you want an abortion.

It may be illegal, but like a good many illegal things it does happen, and after finding out the sex you might suddenly discover that you have a problem that means you want an abortion.

Well I realise that illegal things occur in our society, but what do you propose make it very illegal?

Well I realise that illegal things occur in our society, but what do you propose make it very illegal?

I suppose the first question is should anyone be told the sex of the baby?

And that to disclose the sex becomes a crime in itself?

Your never going to stop gender based abortions completely, but there is currently nothing to stop you finding out the gender and then going and having an abortion for a different reason.

This thread will end badly. Is it too early or too late to close it?

No one has thought about the clinicians so far in this thread. As some have pointed out, premature babies can survive from 21 weeks or so now - so we are asking clinicians to sustain life at that age and also to take life knowing it could be sustained. For anyone being asked to do that on a routine basis that is a pretty big ask - I'm not sure I could do it and perhaps some consideration in the current debate should be given to those in the NHS that we make these requests of?

I suppose the first question is should anyone be told the sex of the baby?

And that to disclose the sex becomes a crime in itself?

When my mother was pregnant with each of her kids, the doctors refused to disclose the gender of the foetus as a matter of policy due to the fears about abortions and forced miscarriages (sometimes through beatings) of female foetuses.

In an ideal world, contraception would have a 100% success rate, everyone would be 100% educated on contraception, there would be no rape, no incest, and no pressure to have sex without contraception. But it's not an ideal world, and unwanted pregnancies still happen, and personally I'm more concerned about the living, breathing women (and girls) and their families than something that has the potential to be a human life. I know a few people who had abortions, but only one was after 18 weeks due to an extremely severe abnomality - the tragedy there being that the child was much wanted.

It's my understanding that health professionals and experts in the field agreed the 24 week limit based on the facts, those facts haven't changed.

Look at how [url= http://www.tommys.org/page.aspx?pid=387 ]Survival rates[/url] have increased. 42% @ 24 weeks is a huge issue for many.

It's not all that long ago that doctors were looking to agree that premature babies (pre-24 weeks) should not be resuscitated.

I assume nobody forces them to do it.

Nothing will change. Thankfully, women will continue to decide what they do with their pregnancies without deplorable shitheads like Hunt, Dorries and the half-baked pro-life brigade interfering. All this is mere talk.

anagallis_arvensis - Member
This thread will end badly. Is it too early or too late to close it?

Can't close it yet, we haven't had the 'hand of hope' photo yet.

SaxonRider - Member

Rusty Spanner - Member

Men pontificating about abortion is as ridiculous as celibate clergy preaching about contraception.

Let women decide.

Of course women should be able to decide what happens with their own bodies. The question here, however, at least according to some, does not just involve a woman's own body. It involves the body of another person.

Well, it primarily involves the woman's body - everything else springs from that.

And no man has the right to tell a woman whether to abort or not.

And surely, it is everyone's right to be part of the debate over the nature of personhood, isn't it?

tyger - Member

Aren't abortions used when the sex of the baby is required to be male by certain religions (increasingly more in the UK)?

at about 20 weeks independent life is sustainable

No - even with modern neonatology it's not. Even at 23-24 weeks, where survival is possible, it's usually accompanied by pretty severe disability.

Also IMO: Bloke's a tit and I imagine already has pretty much discredited himself in the eyes of most of the health service

Most of us at the sharp end thought it would be harder to find a more useless Health Secretary than Andrew Lansley (who managed the unique feat of alienating pretty much the entire medical profession). However, they seem to have succeeded.

Don't get me started on Hunt's sidekick, [url= http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/dr-dan-poulter-and-100-hour-weeks ]Dan '100 hour weeks' Poulter[/url], who appears to have been appointed as a junior minister because, as a doctor himself, he should have credibility with his fellow doctors. Unfortunately, he's gone out of his way to sabotage that before even getting settled in, and appears to be as worth of irrational hatred as that twunt Bonio.

Andy

ratherbeintobago - Member
"at about 20 weeks independent life is sustainable"
No - even with modern neonatology it's not. Even at 23-24 weeks, where survival is possible, it's usually accompanied by pretty severe disability.

You can prove anything with facts.

You can prove anything with facts.

Meaning?

Look at how Survival rates have increased. 42% @ 24 weeks is a huge issue for many.

It's not all that long ago that doctors were looking to agree that premature babies (pre-24 weeks) should not be resuscitated.

and from your link

When the surviving children born before 26 weeks in the 1995 EPICure study were followed up at age 6 years, a high level of disability was found:[xi]

22% had severe disability (defined as cerebral palsy but not walking, low cognitive scores, blindness, profound deafness) 24% had moderate disability (defined as cerebral palsy but walking, IQ/cognitive scores in the special needs range, a lesser degree of visual or hearing impairment) 34% had mild disability (defined as low IQ/cognitive score, squint, requiring glasses) 20% had no problems.

So yes science may well have moved on since this study, but if you say 40% survive and of those 80% will be disabled you have to ask is it the right thing to keep the premature baby alive?

ratherbeintobago - Member
"You can prove anything with facts."
Meaning?

@atherbeintobago, great story about Dr Dan and his 100 hours. He's not fooling anyone is he? 😆

fwiw, as a health professional I honestly thought it was some kind of send-up of the madness of cabinet reshuffles of the 80's/90's when I first heard that Hunt was the new health secretary. Seriously, if you had looked for someone even more willing to sell their soul off than Lansley, someone with an even worse record of being utterly in the pocket of private enterprise at the expense of the taxpayer and the voter, you couldn't have done better/worse than Hunt. 👿

And yes, all this does also whiff of "smokescreen" -I wonder what they hope to sneak past the meeja whilst we are all arguing about abortion?

Are all pro lifers also vegetarians? Its all life isn't it?

Anyway what's the point in all this if most terminations happen before the proposed date? Other than to try to prevent gender based terminations that is.

I'm a vegetarian and a pro-choicer fwiw. Does that make me a bad veggie? 😆

.

"Men pontificating about abortion is as ridiculous as celibate clergy preaching about contraception."

So I don't have a say in what happens to my child/foetus? My ex-girlfriend had an abortion without asking my opinion, without telling me and without considering that maybe I'd at least want to talk over the future of a child I helped create.

I got told afterwards, in a completely off hand casual way. If you ever experience similar, I'll bet you revisit the above statement.

As an athiest I think abortion is a human rights issue - if we can't tell when the foetus becomes "human" how can we get rid of "it"?

My experience of abortion was a very dehumanising one from all angles. If she had kept the baby I'd have been obliged (rightly) to contribute to my childs welfare, but I don't get a say in whether my child is born?

For a long time I hated my ex for that.

P8ddy if you could carry the foetus to term then maybe you would be entitled to more of a say. Until that happens we have to respect the wishes of the person doing the heavy lifting.

I would suggest that the foetus is not considered human until it is out of the host.

p8ddy, harsh though this might sound.

If your ex carried the child to term against what she wanted, do you think she wouldn't hate you? Having seen kids brought up where there is not so much indifference but hatred between parents it is not a good place to be. Kids always know the truth however much you try and hide it.

It really is a no win situation to be in.

I would suggest that the foetus is not considered human until it is out of the host.

I take it that isn't based on scientific fact ?

Presumably in your opinion something "magical" happens, and at the moment of birth the previously unhuman foetus suddenly and mysteriously becomes human ?

It's almost as if a miracle has taken place, in fact I can't think of any other way of describing it.

Given a significant number of abortion services have been shown as unable or unwilling to follow existing abortion laws , that despite the leaps forward in contraception and safe sex, the number of abortions has increased tenfold since abortion was legalised, and that half the premature babies born at the current cut off point of 24 weeks survive, then perhaps looking again at the legal position is a good idea.

Considering the British Isle's and perhaps the planet is already overpopulated are you suggesting we should take a route that would lead to an increase in the birth rate?