Abortion law changing?
- Thread starter Cakes
- Start date
Sweaty Betty
Hemo rising!
_angel_ said:
choice words angel
subversplat
writer of wrongs
I think we should extend abortion to the 15th trimester.
pennimania
still dre and drooling
Interesting about many of the later terminations being teenage pregnacies. I supposed that many of them would be women who had turned up foetal abnormalities.
As happened to a friend of mine. I have posted about this before. She was pregnant with a much longed and planned for baby. She was 40, and had never been pregnant before.
A scan at about 18 weeks ( this was 25 years ago mind) showed the baby to be anacephalic and thus totally non viable beyond the uterus.
She had 2 choices, go to term and have a baby that might last a day or so or have a termination. After much heartwrenching, she had an abortion (at about 20 weeks}, which was very unpleasant involving going through labour etc.
Luckily she became pregnant again quite soon and had twins who were healthy
but it taught me a lot about abortion. I reckon anyone who thinks it's 'an easy way out' is seriously deluded.
On the other hand, I do think 'choice' is the operative word. I would not want to think that a woman might be pressured into having a termination she did not want. And I can think of situations where that might happen.
As happened to a friend of mine. I have posted about this before. She was pregnant with a much longed and planned for baby. She was 40, and had never been pregnant before.
A scan at about 18 weeks ( this was 25 years ago mind) showed the baby to be anacephalic and thus totally non viable beyond the uterus.
She had 2 choices, go to term and have a baby that might last a day or so or have a termination. After much heartwrenching, she had an abortion (at about 20 weeks}, which was very unpleasant involving going through labour etc.
Luckily she became pregnant again quite soon and had twins who were healthy
but it taught me a lot about abortion. I reckon anyone who thinks it's 'an easy way out' is seriously deluded.On the other hand, I do think 'choice' is the operative word. I would not want to think that a woman might be pressured into having a termination she did not want. And I can think of situations where that might happen.
SpookyFrank
Don't swallow the cap
_angel_ said:
Not that simple I'm afraid, 'live birth' is a pretty flexible definition. A 23 week old baby might be alive when born but it stands practically no chance of actualy surviving. With the best treatment possible a 24 week old baby might have a 50/50 chance of long term survival, and even then with a high risk of chronic health problems.
Chairman Meow
Perth, WA
SpookyFrank said:
I think your stats are a bit out of date - survival rates of 22-24 weekers have gone up quite a lot in the last few years.
chinchillazilla
New Member
pennimania said:
what I've never (and still don't) understand is why they don't do late terminations by c-section. Whatever the reason for the termination, it would seem so much more humane for the woman to be allowed to elect to be under a general anaesthetic.
Skim
Well-Known Member
chinchillazilla said:what I've never (and still don't) understand is why they don't do late terminations by c-section. Whatever the reason for the termination, it would seem so much more humane for the woman to be allowed to elect to be under a general anaesthetic.
But most women don't have a general anaesthetic when they have a c-section. And is there anything more humane about having to go through major abdominal surgery, which takes weeks to recover from?
It must be a pretty awful thing to go through, whatever route you take
chinchillazilla
New Member
Skim said:
no, I know, but the reason in part for not having a GA when you are having a baby is so that you can be awake to meet your baby and "be there" at the birth, as well as avoiding the risks of a GA. Lots of emergency c-sections are carried out under GA - it is done.
Apologies if I didn't set it out properly, I don't mean for a second that c-section should be the only method of late termination, just that it would seem humane to offer that as an option, if the woman prefered it.
In the same way with stillbirths, when they know that the baby has died in utero - I have two friends who have been through the horrific experience of having to deliver their stillborn child vaginally, and as far as I know neither was offered the option of an elected c-section instead, whether under GA or not.
I'm not saying that a c-section is an easy option - far from it.
Chairman Meow
Perth, WA
Skim said:
Oh I totally agree!
A c-section is serious surgery, unpleasant as the alternative is, that would be worse. I've had a c-section under a general, and it was horrendous and terrifying, and it took ages to recover.
Skim
Well-Known Member
chinchillazilla said:
Your poor friends, that must be the most gruesome experience, physically and emotionally
I don't really know much about the reasons for having to deliver vaginally rather than a c-section. Wikipedia just says...
... but doesn't really explain more. I guess experiences like Chairman Meow's are the main reason – it just takes too long to recover.
Geri
wasn't born to follow
_angel_ said:
Well, clearly you can, or that wouldn't be the case in Canada.
In any event, it is very rare for abortions to take place after 20 weeks even with no upper limit in place.
If we remove as many obstacles from the woman's right to chose that we can, more abortions will take place earlier (or should I see 'even more' as most are early anyway).
_angel_
.
Geri said:
Terminations for non medical reasons up to 40 weeks?
AFAIK a termination can be carried out very late if the mothers health/ life is threatened by the pregnancy.
If they scrapped the need for two docs and stopped women having to wait between referral and appointment (this really is bad) then there prob wouldn't be very many post 20 week abortions.
I still think lowering the upper limit for any case other than strict medical need should occur. Babies being born at 24 weeks are standing much better chance of life than they used to. It is that question again : when does the foetus stop being a foetus and is a baby?
Skim
Well-Known Member
For anyone interested, I came across this map showing the world's abortion laws:
From reproductiverights.org
Sadly, the UK has yet to fall into the "without restriction as to reason" category.
From reproductiverights.org
Sadly, the UK has yet to fall into the "without restriction as to reason" category.
Chairman Meow
Perth, WA
That map shows NI as allowing abortion for mental health reasons. If that is correct, why has every woman I know gone to England to get it done?
And of course in the south its even worse.
And of course in the south its even worse.
Chairman Meow
Perth, WA
_angel_ said:
Well I have never heard of any woman getting an abortion in NI, and I'm from there. I know dozens who went to England for it though, many of whom were pretty traumatised by the trip.
pennimania
still dre and drooling
chinchillazilla In the same way with stillbirths said:Yes - this has happened to a neighbour's daughter very recently - and she had to go on for a few days knowing the baby was dead.
Apparently there is some reason why it is better to wait for spontaneous onset of labour, but I cannot for the life of me see why this should be so.
_angel_
.
pennimania said:Yes - this has happened to a neighbour's daughter very recently - and she had to go on for a few days knowing the baby was dead.
Apparently there is some reason why it is better to wait for spontaneous onset of labour, but I cannot for the life of me see why this should be so.
Must be horrible. Am surprised they don't induce.
heartof gold
New Member
its nothing to do with anyone else if a woman and man decide to have sex and a pregnancy occurs its a private thing and a personal decision and those who take to the streets have clearly nothing better to do its nothing to do with them would they like other people interefering in their personal decisions. The media shouldnt even give the silly people airtime.
Cakes
back in town
As my op states, the scientific medical consensus is that viability has in fact not improved significantly.Chairman Meow said:
Although some extreme pre-term infants are born alive, or showing signs of life, sadly the survival rate to discharge is still only about 10-15% rather than the 50/50 chance SpookyFrank gives.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Echoing Cakes post, the 'miracle' prem babies that get so many column inches, in the long term, are less healthy, more prone to infection, have severe respiratory problems, often have growth problems as well as cognitive impairment. Most of these children would not survive outside the medical environments they are placed in.
trashpony
Hag
Skim said:Your poor friends, that must be the most gruesome experience, physically and emotionally
I don't really know much about the reasons for having to deliver vaginally rather than a c-section.
Basically, it's much more dangerous for the mother to have a cs than a vaginal delivery. So if the foetus is not at risk, they won't do a cs. My friend who had a stillbirth recently (I started a thread about it) had a 20 hour labour after she found out the baby had died. Absolutely awful.
I've said this before, but the problem is that by basing the law on the moving target of what is medically possible is a bit odd - not long ago it would be unfeasible to imagine that babies could survive at 23-24 weeks. I suspect at some point in the future we will be able to mimic conditions in the womb in order that much earlier foetuses can go on to survive. What then?
Personally I think the law should be based on either/both a combination of the developmental stage of the foetus and the likelihood of survival without medical intervention.
_angel_
.
beeboo said:
That could start up the whole issue of 'what is medical intervention'. For all the horror stories of childbirth, more babies are surviving thanks to medical knowledge (and mothers too!!)
If you took all 'medical intervention' away from 'normal' deliveries infant mortality rates would shoot up again.
_angel_ said:
Of course this medical intervention is a good thing!
However I don't think the chance that in a small proportion of cases a baby born at 24 weeks can survive is necessarily a reason that abortion at this stage should not be allowed, as I suspect the number of weeks after which a foetus can feasibly survive is going to keep getting pushed back and pushed back with medical advances, and then the window for abortion will get smaller and smaller until it's possible to stick a few cells in a petridish. Just because something is medically possible doesn't make it grounds for making a legal judgement.
Cakes
back in town
Another aspect of the Abortion Law which I think is in desperate need of amendment is its application to Northern Ireland. NI has one of the harshest abortion laws in Europe allowing abortion only to save the life of the woman or for foetal abnormality or if the women has learning disabilities, and these often only occur after court appeal. In ROI abortion is completely illegal, unless to save a woman's life.
Far from preventing women from needing or indeed accessing abortions, these obstructive laws force thousands of Irish women and girls to travel to England at great financial and emotional cost.
Women can be prevented from leaving the country if it is discovered that they are seeking abortion. In 1992 there was that famous case of a 14 year old rape victim being detained. Even if Irish women are able to get to England and access abortion services, they could still face prosecution under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act.
Here is a snippet from Thomas Buchanan of the DUP in a recent Northern Ireland Assembly debate. Can you believe this kind of language is being used in the 21st Century by politicians?
Although that [abortion] law was passed at Westminster, we give thanks to almighty God that, thus far, this Province has been spared from becoming home to such ungodly legislation, which legitimises the murder of the unborn child, on demand.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ni/?id=2007-10-22.11.1&s=abortion#g11.40
Far from preventing women from needing or indeed accessing abortions, these obstructive laws force thousands of Irish women and girls to travel to England at great financial and emotional cost.
Women can be prevented from leaving the country if it is discovered that they are seeking abortion. In 1992 there was that famous case of a 14 year old rape victim being detained. Even if Irish women are able to get to England and access abortion services, they could still face prosecution under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act.
Here is a snippet from Thomas Buchanan of the DUP in a recent Northern Ireland Assembly debate. Can you believe this kind of language is being used in the 21st Century by politicians?
Although that [abortion] law was passed at Westminster, we give thanks to almighty God that, thus far, this Province has been spared from becoming home to such ungodly legislation, which legitimises the murder of the unborn child, on demand.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ni/?id=2007-10-22.11.1&s=abortion#g11.40
Similar threads
