Debate resumes over lowering abortion time limits

[Jon M]

I know this has been discussed many times and is a contentious issue to say the least, but within this article I found an interesting quote

Chief executive (British Pregnancy Advisory Service) Ann Furedi said: "If the time limit is lowered some women will be forced to become unwilling mothers."

Now, I might be reading more into that statement than I can justify logically, but doesn't that sound like a description of rape?
Words like "forced" and "unwilling" certainly trigger that association in my mind anyway.

I'm not trying to make any point on the time limit debate itself, but surely the "pro-choice" camp are doing themselves no favours if they use terminology like this in a context that makes the mothers position sound totally at odds with the reality of sex and pregnancy.

I can understand if it sounds a bit silly to suggest, but with the decision to have sex comes the added responsibility of possible pregnancy doesn't it?
No contraception is 100% effective after all.

I'm probably being totally non-politically correct to suggest that to have sex should bring the condition to understand what could happen as a result.
I'm not naive enough to suggest that it's a realistic expectation, but I do get annoyed when people use language that seems to assume that people can get pregnant in some "forced" or "unwilling" way other than being raped.

The image being painted by many people in this debate, is that the poor defenceless mother is pregnant against her will and we're utterly heartless to even suggest that someone may have a selfish or immoral motive when considering abortion.
The reality, in my opinion, is far from that.

Increasingly, people are being led into the belief that you can get as much sex as you can with as many people as you like. Have fun and don't worry about consequences.
If you get pregnant, it's an unfortunate, inconveinient side effect that can be cured with a pill or medical proceedure as if it's an infection/disease or something.
Buy a new car, have another baby... if the finances get a bit too stretched, just get rid of them, after all they're as expendable as each other aren't they?

Anyone else got an opinion on this side of things?

[Pierre]

They should leave it as it is.

Nothing is served by lowering the limit, aborting at 12, 16, 18, 26 weeks still ends in the same result.

I do not think anyone enters into that decision lightly.

[Jules]

I strongly believe that it should be lowered

[Roy MM]

ABORTION LIMIT STAYS THE SAME

Doctors have voted against reducing the upper time limit on abortions from 24 weeks to 20 weeks.

[Jules]

That makes me very sad

[danielf]

Originally Posted by whyme38

I strongly believe that it should be lowered

It wouldn't make much difference though:

Less than 1% of the 190,000 abortions a year in England and Wales are carried out after 22 weeks with 87% before 13 weeks.

There was some interesting discussion on R4 Today this morning from the BMA conference. The proponent was from a highly successful neonatal care unit where babies born at 23 weeks have a 50% survival rate, and 33% of survivors have no long-term illness. He advocates lowering the limit for the same reason it was lowered 15 years ago, and for the same reason the original limit was set: that you should not 'abort' a healthy baby once his/her life is 'viable'.

The opponent was a community consultant who works with women who are sometimes desparate for an abortion because (in her words) 'they simply cannot countenance having a baby'. Her agument was in favour of the woman's choice.

I am firmly in the pro-life camp and I find both arguments above difficult because for me they miss the point. I do not think 'viability' is a good measure because children born at 24 weeks are not viable except in a medical sense. Disconnect them from the ventilator and they will die. As a line in the sand, it is completely arbitrary. I do not think the woman's right to choose is a good measure because when I weigh the right of a woman to have a certain lifestyle against the right of a child to have any life at all, then I'm sorry but the woman comes a very poor second. And leaving to one side for a moment the incredibly small number of cases of women becoming pregnant as a result of rape, in response to the claim from the consultant that some women simply 'can't countenance' having a baby - well, those women should learn to keep their legs together. It is a simple biological fact that sex causes pregnancy and that abstenance is the only contraceptive that is 100% effective.

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by Chris T

It is a simple biological fact that sex causes pregnancy and that abstenance is the only contraceptive that is 100% effective.

And I thought you were a Christian

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

And I thought you were a Christian

A Christian, but not a priest ... and I have living proof that I've scored at least twice in my life.

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by Chris T

A Christian, but not a priest ... and I have living proof that I've scored at least twice in my life.

I was referring more to the 100% effective figure

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by whyme38

I strongly believe that it should be lowered

Me too.

I think that this should be the call of the doctors..They know more about how viable it is for a child to survive at 20-24 weeks than most..I think it should be a MEDICAL decision...and the law should support them.

[Jon M]

Regardless of your stance on abortion or the time limits involved.. this is a heart rending image (don't look if you can't watch operations on telly, it's quite graphic)

http://lartl.org/4a6d5340.jpg

The little boy (Samuel Armas) was 21 weeks old when the surgeon operated to correct spina bifida. The baby grabbed the doctors finger through the incision in the lining of the womb.

[Angua]

Whatever the time limits or reasons for having a termination I can see no reason whatsoever to return to the days of back street abortionists. As Coggy says

Originally Posted by Incognitas
I think that this should be the call of the doctors..They know more about how viable it is for a child to survive at 20-24 weeks than most..I think it should be a MEDICAL decision...and the law should support them.

A friend of mine fell pregnant within a couple of weeks of giving birth due to contraception failure. The doctor insited she have a termination for health reasons both emotional and physical. Until we can live someone elses life we have no right to say how they should react to any given situation. I would never condem anyone for making such a heart rending decision.

It's a strange world we live in.There will be the mother to be hoping and straining to get past the 24 th week of viability to get the much wanted child that she aches for and then there will be the mother whose life depends on the child not coming to full term because of a severe medical condition.Then there are those for whom the child is never going to be viable outside the uterus and have to face the heart rending decision to abort BEFORE the 24 week cut off or go through the process of induced labour AFTER the 24 week cut off(even with the life saving invitro surgery that is available as shown in s1lv3r's post).Then there are the young frightened women who feel terrible that they have to abort a child because they can't or don't want to have a child on their own(and how many suffer for this for years with the guilt and remorse).

Then there are those for whom abortion is just another form of contraception.

In the majority of cases however I would suggest that no one is a winner when it comes to abortion..