Abortion Limit in the UK up to Six Months?

[sixsmith]

Yes, why argue that viability rather than, say, self-awareness is the prime reason for refusing abortion?

The argument against abortion appears to unfold like this:

1. It is wrong to kill an innocent human being;
2. A baby is an innocent human being;
3. Therefore, abortion is wrong.

Most of the abortion debate, and certainly the debate thus far in this thread, has focused on proposition 2: that is, when does human life begin? And, to that end Gladys, I think your question is essentially the one that needs answering. There's no use simply trotting out 'viability' as though that alone carries the day. As you allude to, 'viability' is simply one of several positions that have formed the very substance of this debate at least since Roe v Wade.

[OrphanPip]

The argument against abortion appears to unfold like this:

1. It is wrong to kill an innocent human being;
2. A baby is an innocent human being;
3. Therefore, abortion is wrong.

Most of the abortion debate, and certainly the debate thus far in this thread, has focused on proposition 2: that is, when does human life begin? And, to that end Gladys, I think your question is essentially the one that needs answering. There's no use simply trotting 'viability' as though that alone carries the day. As you allude to, 'viability' is simply one of several positions that have formed the very substance of this debate at least since Roe v Wade.

Actually, what I thought was the issue was whether or not the mother has the right to refuse medical treatment of a viable aborted baby. I have a hard time distinguishing between a viable baby at 6 months and a viable baby at 9 months, what exactly is the significant difference that would, conceivably, make infanticide at one point wrong.

Is this really an abortion at this point, or is it an induced birth?

[TheFifthElement]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7409696.stm

I'm really trying to figure out what I feel about this. By six months, the foetus isn't just a little conglomeration of cells like it is at less than three (the law in Canada).

24 weeks isn't 6 months. It's more like 5 1/2. Some months have 5 weeks, some have 4. Taking a strict 4 week in a month calculation would mean that women would be pregnant for 10 months (40 weeks).

24 weeks is considered, medically, to be the 'point of viability' for the unborn child, meaning that this is the point at which the child has a chance of survival if born. The abortion law in UK permits optional abortion up to 24 weeks providing that the abortion is approved by 2 doctors and providing that the risk to a woman’s physical or mental health or the risk to her child(ren)’s physical or mental health will be greater if she continues with the pregnancy than if she ends it. It is up to doctors' discretion, though many doctors would argue that it is medically safer for a woman not to be pregnant, compared to the inherent risks to a woman's health involved in carrying a baby to full term.

There is no time limit on abortion where two doctors agree that a woman’s health or life is gravely threatened by continuing with the pregnancy or that the foetus is likely to be born with severe physical or mental abnormalities. However, abortions after 24 weeks can not be done electively at the mother's request.

The tipping point for abortion seems reasonable. I suspect it may be changed if medical technology improves to the point that a foetus has a meaningful chance of survival prior to 24 weeks, though that in itself does raise sticky ethical questions e.g. at what point do you not try to save the child, given the suffering the child will experience after birth (as a result of medical interventions and/or physical and/or mental disability), if it even survives at all. You can read a bit more about babies' chances of survival prior to 24 weeks here http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ed-to-die.html

Is abortion at 26 weeks reasonable? My only answer to that can be that as 26 weeks is a perfectly viable baby and therefore no, it is not reasonable. The business of "the mother didn't know" should not be a valid defence. Ignorance is no defence in law, so why should stupid women get a free pass?

2 things Athiest. For one, if you read both my post and follow the link on JuniperWoolf's original post the legal limit is 24 weeks. So discussing what might happen at 26 weeks is...stupid

Secondly, unless you've experienced pregnancy you're really talking from a position of ignorance so it's hard to take any of your comments seriously. There are a multitude of reasons why a woman may not realise she's pregnant, pregnancy does not follow a neat, mechanical, universally experienced pattern. I've been pregnant twice, and both pregnancies were different. In both cases my early lethargy could be passed of as just tiredness, or a low grade virus. I didn't experience morning sickness. I did bleed during the first trimester, bleeding is not uncommon during pregnancy and that's assuming you have regular periods anyway which I reckon about 90% of women don't. When I was around 5ish months pregnant my Mum's friends visited from Australia and their only comment was on what a lovely 'hourglass figure' I had, they didn't realise I was pregnant. I had no bump. As to feeling the baby 'move', well until it's crammed in it doesn't feel anything like what you'd expect. It's kind of like having butterflies, or wind. Easily mistaken.

It was different for me because I was expecting it, watching for it. But I can well understand how a woman might mistake the signs and not realise until much later on. If they realise after the child has a meaningful chance of survival then they're stuck with it whether they want the child or not. If they realise at a point when the child has no significant chance of survival then it's their choice. I don't think that's unreasonable. Neither do I think it's a choice any woman makes easily.

I can accept that you may find the nuances of actual pregnancy difficult to comprehend, but as you say ignorance is no defence. Your condemnation here is both inappropriate and rude, not to mention ill-informed.

[OrphanPip]

I agree with you Fifth, the distinction does seem fairly reasonable. While I believe wholeheartedly in a woman's right to autonomy over her body. I question why a life needs to be stopped at a point where it can be removed from her body and still live a normal life. I feel differently for a pack of cells that is not in any substantial way human, but I think for most people the issue becomes more troubling as it progresses to something more closely resembling an infant.

[The Atheist]

Yes, but apart from expressing your indignation, you've offered no reason as to why abortion should not be allowed at 26 weeks.

Don't be silly, of course I've given reasons, two of them - the baby is viable and is extremely likely to live if it is born rather than killed, and it can be adopted out. That is an identical result for the mother as having an abortion - no responsibility, no kid, no nothing.

@Atheist:

You are a man, right? Obviously you do not know about all the women who are pregnant and still have a kind of period?

Yes, I am a man but I do know exactly what you're talking about.

Those would be the rare instances I mentioned, but having no period is not the only sign of pregnancy by that stage - there are some really obvious changes to a woman's body, as I'm sure you're aware.

From the numbers I can vouch for, I'm quite happy to stick with terminal stupidity for most of them. Fat too, usually, which is a kind of stupidity in itself.

2 things Athiest. For one, if you read both my post and follow the link on JuniperWoolf's original post the legal limit is 24 weeks. So discussing what might happen at 26 weeks is...stupid

Mea maxima culpa - you're absolutely right!

I must have got the 26 weeks stuck from a link. 24 isn't the same at all.

Your condemnation here is both inappropriate and rude, not to mention ill-informed.

It was intended to be rude, but it certainly isn't ill-informed. I noted "rare medical instances".

It's probably helpful if I add in here that this is a subject I'm pretty well involved in, as one of our companies sells newborn products to intending parents and every customer is a pregnant woman, so these are people I deal with on a daily basis. Trust me, they're stupid.

Apart from anything else, the huge point you're missing is that these women are having unprotected sex.

That is usually the prime indicator for pregnancy and any female engaging in unportected sex and not watching for signs of pregnancy would be classed as terminally stupid on several fronts. You can test yourself for pregnancy with a pack from the supermarket for about ten bucks.

I'm still quite happy to stick with the terminology.

[Gladys]

Don't be silly, of course I've given reasons, two of them - the baby is viable and is extremely likely to live if it is born rather than killed, and it can be adopted out.

The baby is viable? Without medical science, in the distant past, a baby born at six months would be extremely unlikely to live, let alone thrive. As the medical science advances, an aborted foetus may be viable at three months or, eventually, 1 week.

On the basis of viability, are you proposing that, one day in the not too distant future, all elective abortion should be unacceptable?

[Scheherazade]

W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your arguments.

If you find yourself unable to show the required sensitivity especially while discussing a topic as sensitive as abortion, please feel free to refrain from taking part.

~

[JuniperWoolf]

I question why a life needs to be stopped at a point where it can be removed from her body and still live a normal life.

Should the law allow labour to be induced on request because it's the woman's body and she has the right to decide what to do with it, or should she be legally forced to keep the baby inside of her until it reaches developmental maturity? Even though it's likely that medical technology would be able to keep the baby alive in an incubator, removing it from it's mother that early does put it at risk.

Also, the main argument in favour of abortion whether you believe that a foetus is a life or not is that if it were outlawed it's been proven time and again that women will find some way to do it anyway if they're desperate enough (and there are many, many situations which would drive women to such desperation). If a woman were to find out that she was pregnant in her late second trimester, and she were absolutely desperate not to have a baby, she'll hurt or kill herself in an effort to terminate the pregnancy (again, there are a lot of reasons why someone might be led to do this). I wonder if late second trimester abortions should be allowed in cases like this (I think this would fall under the terms of what Fifth said when she specified "psychological harm" to the mother), but on the other hand such a system would be very open to abuse. It'd be really easy to say "if you don't give me an abortion, I'll find some way to do it myself," even if you don't intend to. It'd be really difficult to regulate a system in which late second-term abortions are "sort of" legal, it's really either one way or the other: either they're legal, or they're not.

Fat too, usually, which is a kind of stupidity in itself.

It's probably helpful if I add in here that this is a subject I'm pretty well involved in, as one of our companies sells newborn products to intending parents and every customer is a pregnant woman, so these are people I deal with on a daily basis. Trust me, they're stupid.

Oh boy... even I find that offensive.

[The Atheist]

The baby is viable? Without medical science, in the distant past, a baby born at six months would be extremely unlikely to live, let alone thrive. As the medical science advances, an aborted foetus may be viable at three months or, eventually, 1 week.

On the basis of viability, are you proposing that, one day in the not too distant future, all elective abortion should be unacceptable?

No, I'm pretty happy to use that 24-26 week time span as when a baby becomes viable. Sure, we might one day be able to breed them from test tubes a la Brave New World, but I don't think that matters. At 26 weeks, the intervention is only minor in the scheme of medical science.

Should the law allow labour to be induced on request because it's the woman's body and she has the right to decide what to do with it, or should she be legally forced to keep the baby inside of her until it reaches developmental maturity? Even though it's likely that medical technology would be able to keep the baby alive in an incubator, removing it from it's mother that early does put it at risk.

Sure it does, but we are looking at risk vs certain death.

Just curious, at 24 weeks, do the doctors kill the baby first, or just suck it out as they do at 18 weeks?

...but on the other hand such a system would be very open to abuse. It'd be really easy to say "if you don't give me an abortion, I'll find some way to do it myself," even if you don't intend to.

Bingo!

Oh boy... even I find that offensive.

I'm not known for being polite, either in person or in writing.

Seriously, though, being obese is bloody stupid. It opens up a huge range of medical problems that are usually paid for by taxes on people who aren't obscenely obese, because most obscenely obese people cannot work.

I will note that I have a family member who is "critically obese", unable to leave the house - I doubt she'd get through the door anyway - suffers from type 2 diabetes and is going blind. All because she's been unable to stop eating! No medical issues exist other than uncontrolled eating which has led to enormousness.

That's pretty stupid.

[Cunninglinguist]

I think abortions ought to be accessible for up to 2 years.

..oh, wait, serious discussion...3 years then.

[qimissung]

Apart from anything else, the huge point you're missing is that these women are having unprotected sex.

That is usually the prime indicator for pregnancy and any female engaging in unportected sex and not watching for signs of pregnancy would be classed as terminally stupid on several fronts. You can test yourself for pregnancy with a pack from the supermarket for about ten bucks.

I'm still quite happy to stick with the terminology.

Perhaps they are, Atheist, and I can't really speak to the issue at hand, but I work in a high school, and we have quite a large number of young mothers. You'd think they'd have an idea, but they don't seem too. I spoke to a student of mine and I asked her why, and she-a tiny little thing, maybe 5 feet tall, but a senior-said, "I didn't know..."

Somehow merely calling them stupid doesn't seem to be much of a problem solver.

[OrphanPip]

Perhaps they are, Atheist, and I can't really speak to the issue at hand, but I work in a high school, and we have quite a large number of young mothers. You'd think they'd have an idea, but they don't seem too. I spoke to a student of mine and I asked her why, and she-a tiny little thing, maybe 5 feet tall, but a senior-said, "I didn't know..."

Somehow merely calling them stupid doesn't seem to be much of a problem solver.

It's a good point qimi. We like to think that every teenage girl is going to learn properly by word of mouth, or that their parents will actually bother to teach them, and the school system itself doesn't really push the issue too much.

Denial is a powerful point as well, if the girls don't really have an outlet to go to the discuss concerns of pregnancy they are likely to put off dealing with it. A teenage girl is in a different position from an adult.

[1n50mn14]

part from anything else, the huge point you're missing is that these women are having unprotected sex.

That's a pretty broad assumption, too. Women can get pregnant even when measures are taken- my old boss was on birth control and conceived THREE children while on it- and using it properly! It just wasn't effective for her. Who knows why?

I can't use birth control due to a blood clotting disorder. Condoms can break, slip off, etc.

Rapists aren't really well known for carrying around condoms before raping somebody, either, so there's that argument.

(This has nothing to do with the 24 weeks argument, but just the fact that not all women who need abortions are having unprotected sex.)

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

So, you're boss was on birth control, and when it didn't work for the first time she continued using it. Then, she had another kid while on it and still decided to continue using it... and then had another kid?

I think there's something to Atheist's "stupidity" argument.

[Delta40]

Everyone needs to be responsible for their own sexual health. Girls and boys. Schools do not have a nationally or internationally agreed upon curriculum when it comes to sex education and neither, I suspect, do parents. Who is responsible for this? Individuals? Society?

I agree with Qim that to call people stupid does nothing to remedy the situation. As medical technology advances, the moral dilemma of aborting late in the pregnancy increases but it is available to the public nonetheless. The person who judges can have the satisfaction of ruling right or wrong according to their own sense of disgust with the human population (often, themselves excluded) while other people make their own decisions to employ medical technologies available to them in tune with their circumstance. Frankly, I see less of a problem with aborting this far into a pregnancy than I do with the total lack of education and responsibility society has failed to foster and instil in the next generation (judges included!)