Having HUGE problems coming to some sort of decision with regard to this. I feel very strongly that women should be in charge of their own bodies, but on the other hand I can't bear the thought of a baby at say 23 weeks being aborted and put to one side to die. What do other people think? Is anyone else in the same dilema?

Yes! I am sure most people, especially the women involved, will be very unhappy at the though of any abortion once the foetus is recognisable as a miniature human being. That is not to say abortions should not be allowed, but every effort should be made to avoid the need for them by education and access to family planning advice.

I find the talk of 12 weeks very worrying, though. Nucal translucency tests are done after 12 weeks aren't they?

Yes.

And abortion at this stage very rare. There would have to be a very very good reason for such very late abortions these days I think - e.g. a scan revealed baby had massive heart defect or major organ missing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6560827.stm

Downs syndrome tends to be diagnosed a lot earlier these days. There must be a fair number of downs related abortions though - it is very noticeable in Ireland these days that there are a lot more young people with Downs there, compared to here.

It also seems muddled thinking when we are making a stand with regard to the end of life and the requests to be able to commit suicide, and yet able to kill a potentially viable foetus at the other end.

Perhaps there are more Downs babies because women are leaving it later to have a family when the chance of having a Downs baby is greater?

No I think it much more likely that the maternal age is younger in Ireland than here? So therefore there must be more potential for a Downs baby in the UK, and so more abortions?

Good article in The Times - either today or yesterday - making the point that at first a foetus is not viable outside the womb (which is the mother's) so abortion at this stage is a moral decision and as such the State should not have a role in an individual's moral choices. However, after 23/34 weeks, the foetus might live independently, thus becoming a citizen in its own right and therefore entitled to the protection that the State can provide.

Personally, would find it very difficult to take a decision about having an abortion, but do feel very strongly that bearing a child is MY decision and no-one else should be in a position to force me to do so if I do not choose to.

Now I'll duck so those who disagree can throw things!

MrsJamjam I too will be ducking. Abortion is a hot topic I know.

To reduce the time of terminations age to 12 weeks show a total lack of understanding of the social aspects involved. I suspect the women who get pregnant unwantedly and dont acknowledge they are pregnant until late on are often those with many difficulties in their lives.

To force them to have a child they really do not want could probably lead to a lot more problems when that child is brought up in a situation where it is not valued and supported.

It is easy to get carried away by the charms of a new baby and the unconditional love that baby gives to mum in its early years. When that child moves towards independance in the "terrible twos" is often when a vulnerable mother finds everything too much, and problems arise.

It is how you get unloved feral children with mothers who just cannot cope and those children run into major problems as they grow up.

From what I heard on ?Woman's Hour those applying very late for a termination other than on medical grounds are a tiny proportion of the total of terminations.

I am with you, Mrs.Jim.Jam. I thought your post was excellent.

Such an emotive subject. Last year I spent 9 weeks visiting the SCBU to see my twin grandaughters, born at 30 weeks. There were very sick babies born at 24 weeks on in other incubators, fighting for their lives. The thought of aborting babies who had reached that size of around 1 lb really struck home. I fully support the woman's right to choose, and perhaps as medical expertise advances, a week or so could be shaved off the limit, although in practice it would make little difference if the foetus was so sick and fragile that survival was remote.

Our little sugar bag size babies will be one on the 27th of this month. They are healthy little girls, scooting all over the place and playing with their toys.

No need to duck mrsjamjam.
I am not against a look at the limits as things have changed. Except that the anti abortion lobby would be trying to influence the outcome (down to no abortions), rather than let paediatricians make a cool judgement. But these are interesting figures from the Tommy charity website.

In a study of babies born before 27 weeks of gestation in the UK and Ireland in 2006 (the EPICure study), only 7% of those born at 22 weeks survived, 42% of those born at 24 weeks survived and 78% of those born at 26 weeks survived[x].

28 weeks used to be considered the tipping point for viability. Looks like it is about 26 weeks now. Chances (and probably life chances, because there may be damage) of babies born at 22 weeks very poor.

Me too, Greatnan and Mrs J J.

I find it interesting that an unborn child has no rights in law at any stage of the pregnancy.

In 1979 Sir George Baker, President of the Family Division of the High Court said:

“The foetus cannot, in English law, in my view, have a right of its own until it is born and has a separate existence from its mother. That permeates the whole of the civil law of this country.”

There has been case law since then which has, for example, prevented forced caesareans where the life of both the mother and baby were at risk, on the grounds that it would be a gross infringement of the mother's rights over her own body. There has been criticism of attempts to use the Mental Health Act to override this.

Time limits on abortion seem to contradict this. If the argument is followed to its logical conclusion, surely abortion should be permitted up to 40 weeks pregnancy. I am certainly not advocating this, merely pointing out what seems to be an inconsistency in the law.

I can see why this legal idea makes sense. Otherwise you would take away a woman's right to decide what happens to her own body e.g. should she have cancer treatment during pregnancy or not.
You could never give a foetus equal rights with the mother could you? The abortion law is trying to steer through muddy waters.

I completely agree Jess. I find law fascinating and have a great respect for those who have to interpret it. I believe that US law gives more rights to the unborn child and there have been forced caesareans. In one case the mother sued the hospital but lost. In another case the mother refused a caesarean and gave birth normally. One of her twins died and she was charged with murder. She was convicted of child endangerment and using drugs in pregnancy and went to prison. I find that very frightening.

Sorry to digress.

I agree, nightowl - absolutely terrifying.

Almost anything the American courts do frightens me. The anti-abortion lobby is very strong and has some powerful supporters. The ironic thing is that some 'pro-lifers' think it is O.K to murder the staff of clinics.
I think most women feel very traumatised if they have to decide on an abortion - I know there is a tiny percentage of feckless types who use it instead of contraception - and the last thing they need is to be persecuted by people with their own agenda.

I would guess that this thread has been started partly because of Jeremy Hunt's strange comments about life beginning at 12 weeks, so that's why he feels it should be the cut-off point for abortion. He also said that this had nothing to do with his religious beliefs. It certainly has nothing to do with science, so goodness knows where it came from. Also the new Culture Secretary who is Minister for Women or whatever, suggested a reduction from 24 weeks to 20, I think. She said this was based on new developments in neonatal care. A number of other MPs and pro-life figures have jumped on the bandwagon.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has stated that nothing has changed in terms of survival of 20–24-week foetuses since this was last discussed four years ago. No amount of speculation about the moment life begins or anecdotal evidence about premature babies alters this fact.

The other question that needs to be considered about survival after these specific periods of gestation 22, 24, 26 weeks. Is how many of the surviving babies at each of those age stages survive without any lasting physical or mental impairment.

Yes quite nellie .
Yes 4 years no time - don't need a review then do we.
I guess we are all old enough to remember the law being changed initially and the fact that illegal abortions claimed many women's lives before that.

I hate the thought of abortion, but hate the thought of unwanted babies, and women having dangerous illegal abortions much more. I have seen two women in the aftermath of illegal jobs, and would never be party to laws that cause that sort of thing.

As far as late abortions are concerned, I believe we should make the distinction between a sentient being and a non-sentient being. 20 week limit for a 'no questions asked' abortion seems fine to me, with a medical assessment mandatory after that date. If the foetus is handicapped, or the mother has mental or physical problems then these matters should help determine that the procedure is allowed.

As for the religion-based anti-abortion people, I agree with the sentiment 'Keep your rosaries away from my ovaries'.

Joan I like your "keep you rosaries away" remark" , but I think its often the extreme Evangelical bible belters that take the violent action these days.

I am surprised that Northern Ireland is still not in step with the rest of the UK on abortion law, so women are still having to travel to the mainland for an abortion.