Should the law on abortion be changed?

God forbid that anyone should make poor lifestyle choices. Must be great to be perfect...

Blondiescot

You simply don't know what circumstances a woman may find herself in. Consider this hypothetical scenario - a woman is raped and is so traumatised by the experience that she completely blanks it from her mind that she could be pregnant, until it's too late for her to have an abortion. What then?
And I'm sorry, but saying that the woman in this case 'had been having sex with more than one man' sounds incredibly judgemental. What's that got to do with it?
As I said earlier, abortion is such a divisive subject, but I stand by my view that no-one has a right to tell any woman what to do with her own body. You don't have to agree with my view - clearly many on here don't - but I would stand with any woman and defend her right to bodily autonomy.

Well she has been judged accordingly by the courts and we all judge others regularly. I don’t judge her for her sex life but that is HER reason for wanting to terminate the pregnancy so that has a lot to do with it. Women don’t have the right to kill babies that are viable outside of the womb, especially so when it’s because of their poor lifestyle choices.

So sorry Primrose. A devastating experience. 💐
I worked with a woman whose baby died in the womb at almost term. Not unnaturally, she was not herself for a long time but happily she already had one healthy child and went on to have another. Whether you ever really ‘get over’ such a terrible thing I don’t know. Certainly you don’t forget it or the loss.

I lost identical twin boys at 25 weeks and I can assure people that they are fully formed at that gestation, labour is normal and it is just the most dreadful experience. The law should stay exactly as it is. I cannot even imagine how anybody could get rid of a fully formed baby.

I’m pro abortion, but I think the gestation cut off point needs to be lowered now, because some babies are viable at 22 and 23 weeks, due to advances in neonatal care, and it’s at the point they become viable that they are killed rather than terminated to my mind. Obviously the earlier the better for termination is preferable.

I fully agree NanaDana.

tickingbird

^That baby could have been conceived under horrific circumstances, for instance. Nothing will ever convince me that a woman's decision to have an abortion is anything other than her business - and hers alone.^

No that’s not her decision anymore than it’s nobody else’s business if a woman kills her baby. If a child is conceived under horrific circumstances there’s plenty of time to have a termination. Late stage abortion is infanticide and this woman had been having sex with more than one man and didn’t know who the father was. She lied to get the medication and thought only of herself. I think the sentence is harsh but she killed a baby that, had it been born at that stage, would have lived. That’s wrong on so many levels.

You simply don't know what circumstances a woman may find herself in. Consider this hypothetical scenario - a woman is raped and is so traumatised by the experience that she completely blanks it from her mind that she could be pregnant, until it's too late for her to have an abortion. What then?
And I'm sorry, but saying that the woman in this case 'had been having sex with more than one man' sounds incredibly judgemental. What's that got to do with it?
As I said earlier, abortion is such a divisive subject, but I stand by my view that no-one has a right to tell any woman what to do with her own body. You don't have to agree with my view - clearly many on here don't - but I would stand with any woman and defend her right to bodily autonomy.

Blondie Scot. You say : "Nothing will ever convince me that a woman's decision to have an abortion is anything other than her business - and hers alone." If that were ever the case, we open the door to "social abortions" which simply become a lifestyle choice. I don't want to live in a society where that is considered "normal", thanks. So yes, I guess we are opposite ends of the spectrum on this one, and are probably going to remain there. Life is already cheap enough in many parts of the world without us, in a so-called "developed and civilised" society making it so much cheaper. That's all I have to say, otherwise I'm just going to start repeating myself.

If a baby is conceived under horrific circumstances a woman will surely seek a termination as soon as she discovers she is pregnant, unless as sometimes happens she wants to have the baby anyway.

That baby could have been conceived under horrific circumstances, for instance. Nothing will ever convince me that a woman's decision to have an abortion is anything other than her business - and hers alone.

No that’s not her decision anymore than it’s nobody else’s business if a woman kills her baby. If a child is conceived under horrific circumstances there’s plenty of time to have a termination. Late stage abortion is infanticide and this woman had been having sex with more than one man and didn’t know who the father was. She lied to get the medication and thought only of herself. I think the sentence is harsh but she killed a baby that, had it been born at that stage, would have lived. That’s wrong on so many levels.

Blondiescot, in talking about late abortion you say no woman should be forced to give birth to a baby she doesn’t want - but that’s exactly what she has to do in the case of a late abortion, knowing that she is going to give birth to a dead baby.

A friend of my daughter now in her mid fifties was the result of an unwanted pregnancy, was adopted by a lovely couple and had a happy childhood by people who chose her. Daughter says this friend shudders when she thinks that these days she would most probably been aborted. I guess it's how you view things, but a perfectly formed baby? No.

Washerwoman

No -and as someone who worked with premature babies -many of them surviving and thriving when born at 28 weeks onwards even 30 years ago the idea of such a late abortion sickens me.I am not anti abortion. But at least a dozen European countries have far lower cut off points so I absolutely see no reason to lower ours.

There is absolutely no reason to change the law. I agree totally with your comment.

NanaDana

Blondiescot. You say : "Late abortion is not something anyone would necessarily advocate, but I accept that in some cases, it is necessary, and frankly I find the idea of a woman being forced to give birth to a baby she does not want even more horrific."
Really? More horrific than killing a viable baby just because "she does not want it"? She may not, but there are plenty out there who do. There is an increasing shortage of babies and very young children for adoption, and a growing queue of childless couples and individuals who are desperate to adopt. So rather than opt for a late termination, with all the ongoing trauma which that can engender, why not go to full term and give up the child for immediate adoption? Win/win? That's the world I want to live in... not the one you describe. My approach certainly offers a better outcome than treating the unborn child as unwanted baggage, and opting for terminal disposal. That child's birth-right is then to grow and develop within a nurturing, loving parental relationship, rather than to simply be anonymously incinerated as clinical waste. Yes, that really does happen. Now THAT is truly horrifying...

I'm well aware of that. Abortion is one of those very divisive issues where often 'never the twain shall meet'. You have your view, I have mine. Would you force women to carry and give birth to a baby they did not want, just so they could give it up for adoption? And you have no idea why any woman might not 'want' a baby at any particular time in their lives. That baby could have been conceived under horrific circumstances, for instance. Nothing will ever convince me that a woman's decision to have an abortion is anything other than her business - and hers alone.

Blondiescot. You say : "Late abortion is not something anyone would necessarily advocate, but I accept that in some cases, it is necessary, and frankly I find the idea of a woman being forced to give birth to a baby she does not want even more horrific."
Really? More horrific than killing a viable baby just because "she does not want it"? She may not, but there are plenty out there who do. There is an increasing shortage of babies and very young children for adoption, and a growing queue of childless couples and individuals who are desperate to adopt. So rather than opt for a late termination, with all the ongoing trauma which that can engender, why not go to full term and give up the child for immediate adoption? Win/win? That's the world I want to live in... not the one you describe. My approach certainly offers a better outcome than treating the unborn child as unwanted baggage, and opting for terminal disposal. That child's birth-right is then to grow and develop within a nurturing, loving parental relationship, rather than to simply be anonymously incinerated as clinical waste. Yes, that really does happen. Now THAT is truly horrifying...

Oreo

Blondiescot

Grantanow

Yes because the present law requires medical approval. It should simply be a woman's choice.

I agree. It's always going to be an emotive subject, but women should have autonomy over their own bodies.

That means you think being able to kill a baby up to 40 weeks is ok then? Or not?
It’s not just a woman’s body there is another body in there, a baby.

In an ideal world, all woman who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy would find out early and be able to take the appropriate measures to deal with it. However, we don't live in an ideal world, and many women - for a whole raft of reasons - don't find out they are pregnant until later than 12 weeks. Late abortion is not something anyone would necessarily advocate, but I accept that in some cases, it is necessary, and frankly I find the idea of a woman being forced to give birth to a baby she does not want even more horrific.

I think that as it stands, two doctors must assess that continuation of the pregnancy would constitute a ‘ significant risk’ to the physical or mental health of the mother or her existing children.
I know women who had terminations, and, as far as I know, the two doctors’ assessments were simply a rubber stamping exercise.

It’s an emotive subject and I have to say babies do thrive when born very prematurely not all however some do. Therefore I am strongly against late abortion. I had an amniocentesis with my first and didn’t know how strongly I felt about any abortion until this was performed.

I see no reason to amend/change the dates, although the sooner it’s done the better. A medical termination in advanced pregnancy is an awful decision, certainly never taken lightly.
I was interested in Davina’s programme about contraception that she said 1 in 4 pregnancies results in termination.

My twins were born at 28wks gestation over 40years ago and survived. I do personally think legal abortion dates need to be reduced but is dependent on clinical recommendations and pregnant women having access easily to medical teams.

I agree Oreo,Damdee and Jaberwork 12 weeks in the absence of extenuating circumstances.

No -and as someone who worked with premature babies -many of them surviving and thriving when born at 28 weeks onwards even 30 years ago the idea of such a late abortion sickens me.I am not anti abortion. But at least a dozen European countries have far lower cut off points so I absolutely see no reason to lower ours.

I agree Jaberwok. Even if your cycle is irregular you have reason enough to suspect pregnancy within three months and, if you are so inclined, act accordingly without delay.

If I'm honest I agree Damdee. Surely three months is long enough for an unwanted pregnancy to be reversed, but 24 weeks? Oh No, unless there are serious medical reasons.

I feel that the present law goes far enough in protecting the rights of the unborn child. It isn't as simple as "a woman's right to choose", as there is another life to consider.. a life which becomes increasingly viable after the current 24 week limit. Yes, there may be medical reasons for intervention and termination after that stage, but I don't consider that qualifies to be described as "an abortion," which the Britannica defines as " the expulsion of a foetus from the uterus before it has reached the stage of viability". So let's be clear what we're talking about here. Beyond 24 weeks it is the termination of the life of a baby, more accurately described as legally and medically authorised infanticide. I would never be comfortable if that decision ever became nothing more than a lifestyle choice, or if "a woman's right to choose" ever became an over-riding and unchallengeable justification for late termination. Yes, women most certainly should have autonomy over their own bodies, but once that 24 week milestone is past, the current law quite rightly reflects that there is more than simply the "host" body to consider in terms of the right to life. I don't see any compelling reason to change that.