Should the law on abortion be changed?

This woman was given the pills without having a face to face consultation. This procedure obviously has to change. Her baby was born dead, but if it had been born alive, would she have killed it? It was 'viable', which means it had a good chance of surviving.
No, 16 weeks should be the absolute maximum. A mother feels the baby moving before then...she knows she has a living human inside her.

I believe that it is a woman´s choice.

NOT the government.

That’s the route to socially accepted child destruction.

Curtaintwitcher No, 16 weeks should be the absolute maximum. A mother feels the baby moving before then...she knows she has a living human inside her.

From the NHS website : When you'll feel your baby move. You should start to feel your baby move between around 16 to 24 weeks of pregnancy. If this is your first baby, you might not feel movements until after 20 weeks. If you have not felt your baby move by 24 weeks.

I think those of us who have been pregnant know when we first felt our babies move.

Germanshepherdsmum

A woman would rather kill a viable baby than have it adopted Blondiescot? And you think that’s acceptable?

I didn't say I found it acceptable, GSM - I don't, as it happens, I still stand by the fact that it's her choice at the end of the day. My feelings shouldn't have any bearing on what another woman decides to do.

Curtaintwitcher

This woman was given the pills without having a face to face consultation. This procedure obviously has to change. Her baby was born dead, but if it had been born alive, would she have killed it? It was 'viable', which means it had a good chance of surviving.
No, 16 weeks should be the absolute maximum. A mother feels the baby moving before then...she knows she has a living human inside her.

So how do you explain those situations where a women doesn't even know she's pregnant until she actually goes into labour? It does happen - ask any midwife. I don't necessarily understand it myself, but I know for a fact that it happens - there was a woman in the next room to me on the labour ward when I had my daughter who hadn't a clue she was pregnant until her waters broke.

margauxbordeaux

I believe that it is a woman´s choice.

NOT the government.

Then the woman should make her choice a long time before 32-34 weeks.
We cannot have viable babies murdered because the woman ‘chooses’ it. And I’m sorry, but my baby girl was born at 34 weeks, it’s simply not acceptable in a civilised society.
24 weeks is the legal limit, unless either mother or baby are too sick to continue the pregnancy. There’s plenty of time to decide on the need for a social abortion.

Blondiescot I don’t have any feelings at all about the behaviour of strangers but we live in a society with laws and regulations. We can choose which laws to keep and which to ignore and we should know what the possible consequences are. If we are then found guilty and given a jail term it’s not up to strangers to get emotionally involved in a case which doesn’t have a personal impact - or does it?

Blondiescot
I’ve already said, but you chose to rudely say I didn’t understand, but I assure you I understand only too well, that if a woman doesn’t know she is pregnant, and of course it happens, the baby will be born, usually at term, and it will be alive, not dead. Then the decision of what to do will be made, but I know the vast majority of such women, keep their babies and regard them as a blessing. Even the ones born to very young women, girls really, are then normally supported by their parents. If the woman truly does not want to keep her baby, adoption would be the best solution.

Then again, there’s always the morning after pill. If a person has sex, she knows there’s a possibility of pregnancy, so she should try to ensure she doesn’t become pregnant.

maddyone, I'm sorry but I don't think I've been rude in any of my posts. The point I'm trying to make is that if a woman can make it to full term without knowing she's pregnant, then it's also obvious that a woman may not know she's pregnant until after the legal limit for an abortion. And no form of contraception is 100% effective, not even the morning after pill. But as this thread is proving only too well, people have very strong views on abortion. I'm just saying that while I may not agree with late abortions, I would never judge another woman for having one. Her body, her decision.

What I find totally unacceptable is:

'if the baby has a disability, including Down's syndrome, cleft lip and club foot, abortion is legal right up to birth'

So, for the viable, but unborn, being less than 'perfect' can be a death sentence.

Hetty58

What I find totally unacceptable is:

'if the baby has a disability, including Down's syndrome, cleft lip and club foot, abortion is legal right up to birth'

So, for the viable, but unborn, being less than 'perfect' can be a death sentence.

Where is your evidence for that statement?

I believe in a woman's right to choose. It is very problematic when the baby is near to term, as the current case has shown, but I'm not sure that viability is a good way to judge when to set maximum dates. As medicine improves, younger and younger foetuses might be viable, until the right to decide is removed altogether.

It is the thought of having to make decisions such as this one that makes me pleased I am a nobody who doesn't have a say .

In Northern Ireland the law changed in 2019 allowing abortion in certain circumstances. This drama over 2 episodes tells the story of the people behind the controversial change in the law
I found it compelling.

Three Families, Series 1: Episode 1:

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000w0sl/three-families-series-1-episode-1

It's just using children with disabilities in an unpleasant way I am afraid. I have known families who have had to make that decision, it really is not about perfection.

Hetty please refer to the link I posted at 12.15 and consider what constitutes ‘severe foetal abnormality’. What you have stated is completely incorrect.

I believe it is absolutely a woman's right to choose. Childbirth is a horrendous enough process and no woman should be forced to go through that pain and degradation. Do you want to go back to the bad old days of illegal abortions?

I would make it an in/out pay at the door service like having a tooth out.

biglouis what are you talking about- pain and degradation? Have you not heard of epidurals? Perhaps you have forgotten/or just don’t know that having children is the best ever miracle. It’s the gift of life.
I hope you celebrate Mother’s Day and appreciate all the pain and degradation you caused your own mother.

Childbirth = pain and degradation?
Yes there is pain, but there is also pain relief, in particular epidural.
But degradation, no. The birth of a new life is a wonderful thing.

Anyway, back to the original question. No, I don’t think there should be a change in the law. The law changed a few years ago. The upper gestational age for legal abortion was at that stage 28 weeks I believe. That was because the foetus was considered viable at or after 28 weeks. However, as medical advances were made, and ever younger foetuses were able to be successfully treated, the gestational age was brought down to 24 weeks. In certain circumstances abortions are still allowed legally after 24 weeks though. It maybe that in the future, the gestational age might be lowered again, although it seems doubtful to me that it ever would be lower than 20 weeks as the foetus simply isn’t able to survive outside the womb at that stage. So it seems to me that 24 weeks is about right, as it respects the mother’s right to choose (and she has a whole 20 weeks to consider the situation) and balances that against the right to life for a viable, or treatable, baby.

I believe in a woman’s right to choose. Given the advances in care of premature babies I’ve long felt though, that 20 weeks could be the outer limit, unless circumstances convince the medics a late termination is needed.
Abortion is a subject that raises emotions for understandable reasons

It is the womans rights to choose up to the point that the baby can survive out of the womb. After that the child has rights as well.

Jackiest

It is the womans rights to choose up to the point that the baby can survive out of the womb. After that the child has rights as well.

So basically a woman is just a human incubator then?

Blondiescot When the child can live outside the womb we can not kill it just because it is still within us. So yes we are a human incubator for our child at first and then we look after them out of the womb.

I support the current law relating to abortion, but it could perhaps be reduced to 20 weeks as it’s so quick and easy to find out these days.
While late abortion happens which is regrettable-it is very rare.