h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

All excellent points, Tamberlaine. Making it even clearer that the 'Unborn Victims of Violence' act is very open to abuse and that pregnant women possibly stand to lose *their* right of choice in favour of the rights of the foetus.

az

"David Steel, the former Liberal leader who introduced Britain's modern abortion laws, has called for a dramatic reduction in the legal limit for most terminations from 24 to 12 weeks."

http://society.guardian.co.uk/health/news/0,8363,1254147,00.html


Opinions?

az

My immediate reaction was yeah, certainly for 'unwanted pregnancies' given that pregnancy can be verified so early these days. On the other hand, it is quite possible for people to be 12 weeks along & not realise.

So on reflection, I would welcome bringing the limit down to something like 20 weeks at least - before the date of a possibly viable live baby being born. I am assuming that induced early labour would still be an option at a later date in the case of medical need.

Yes, I agree, Teasswill. Not only can a woman be 12 weeks pregnant without realising it but in some cases there might be waiting lists that put her over the 12 week period before the termination can be performed.

Also, as you say, complications may arise later in the pregnancy that could put the woman's health at risk. So bringing it down to, say, 20 weeks seems reasonable.

az

It'd be good to know what people are discussing. I see that the article mentions the idea of abortion on demand for up to 12 weeks, and more stringent rules for after 12 weeks.

In NZ there is actually no such thing as abortion on demand - you have to see 2 certifying consultants to get any abortion at all, and for first trimester abortions they give permission on the basis (usually) of the mother's mental health.

So I'm not really sure what the article is talking about.

Can someone please clarify what the situation is in the UK? I know we've been through this before, I just can't remember the details.

~~~

I'm in favour of second trimester abortions needing more care in the decision making, but I don't think that viability of the foetus should be a factor in writing the law. It sets a dangerous precedent - what happens when medical science can save premature 12 week babies? Will abortion then be made harder to get too?

Personally I think that any medical abortion is the taking of a life and I prefer it if as a society we are honest about that. I'm not sure how keeping preterm babies artificially alive is relevant to ending an unwanted foetus' life.

I also think that keeping very premature babies artificially alive presents all sorts of ethical, medical, health etc dilemmas. I'm talking about at a policy level - obviously alot of parents of very preterm babies are going to say that the life of the child is the most important. I'm not sure that the science should be held up as some inherently beneficial thing though as there are major drawbacks.

<>

Yes, I do as well. Which is why I have always said that - for myself only - I am 'pro-life'. But I cannot, would never, place my own personal opinion above what others believe in this issue because it is far too complex. Which is why I am firmly pro-choice for other women.

The situation in the UK at the moment is that a woman can elect to have a termination up to 24 weeks.

The fact that someone now wants to cut this time factor in half seems rather extreme.

I wondered if this wasn't the beginning of attempting to take away all personal rights for women to choose to have a termination.

az

I'm just looking for some NZ abortion information and I came across this. I am quite surprised at the figures - that is such a low number of abortions in the early weeks. Are there medical reasons for that do you think, or is it solely down to how long it takes women to make the decision?

>>>
The latest data shows an increase in the number of pregnancies terminated within eight weeks gestation (1,280 terminations in 2003). The percentage of abortions where the duration of pregnancy was less than eight weeks increased from 6.5 percent in 2002 to 6.9 percent in 2003, and has more than doubled since 1996 when it was 2.4 percent.

Over the decade 1993–2003 more abortions were performed during the tenth week of gestation than at any other length of gestation. In 2003, about one in five abortions took place in the tenth week of gestation.
<<<

http://www.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/pasfull/pasfull.nsf/7cf46ae26dcb6800cc256a62000a2248/4c2567ef00247c6acc256eb40071404d?OpenDocument

>>The situation in the UK at the moment is that a woman can elect to have a termination up to 24 weeks.<<

So she doesn't need the permission of any doctors to get an abortion?

As far as I know about UK law, kea, I think the woman needs to have the agreement of one if not two doctors.

In my own case in Spain I just had a very brief interview with a doctor before my own termination. It seemed like more of a standard prerequisite, not that I would have ever not been allowed to have the procedure done.

az

Unfortunately in NZ there are areas that don't have any prochoice certifying consultants, which means that women have to travel to another area to access an abortion. That is if they happen to find the information they need on how to do this, because essentially you have to lie about where you live to get a free abortion in another area. They also have to pay for travel and accomodation, and often childcare.

Some conservative areas employ anti-abortion O and Gs in the hospital so that there are no pro choice doctors available.

This is why I am sceptical of the idea that women can get abortion on demand. I know that it can be very difficult for poorer women, women with kids, or women who's partners or parents don't know about the pregnancy to get an abortion if they live in a conservative area.

It wouldn't surprise me if there were similar problems in other countries with 'liberal' abortion laws. I know in the US women often can't get abortions because their medical insurance won't cover it and they can't afford to pay themselves.

It'd be good to know about the UK more specifically, because I can see that this new proposal would just make it even more difficult for some women.

hi kea,

Many many pages ago I posted a thing on global laws about elective terminations. I really don't know how far back on this thread they are now. At the time, talking with Della, as far as I can recall it seemed the UK and Australian/NZ laws were exactly the same. Up to 24 weeks.

My abortion was done at a private clinic in Spain. I had to travel to get to this city and also pay approx $400. Because I didn't have social security medical coverage at the time. So I don't know what it is like for a woman in Spain going through the social security health system. Though I think the main problem in this case would be the waiting list, not the fact that a woman would not be 'allowed' a termination.

For what most people consider to be a Catholic country - Spain - they are actually very liberal and practical in many areas. So I don't think elective terminations are any problem here (again, on the global info I posted before it was the same as most other places - before 24 weeks). So any problems encountered would mostly come down to dealing with social security medical availability.

Heck, front page news last week was that within three years Spain is going to allow same-sex marriages. Even the Cardinal in Seville has said he is in favour of this. So I can't see that the state would be in any way prohibiting elective terminations.

As I said here previously, I did have the very nasty experience of the first doctor I saw being anti-abortion and who lied to me about the very serious health risks my pregnancy presented. Luckily I had the sense to get a second and third opinion. And even the doctor performing the termination said to me - 'this would never have stood a chance'. Such was the mess of my uterus at the time.

The 'abortion laws' as they stand saved my life. Even though I believe it *is* killing a life I will not - cannot - ever say to another woman that her decision to terminate, for whatever reason, is wrong. Because I have no right to do that. And neither does anybody else.

az

I suspect the abortion rate is low in the early weeks because of "morning after pills," (how long after do they work? a week?) which would not be recorded as terminations, and because many people simply wouldn't realise they were pregnant or if they did it might take time to come to a decision.

I can't see the limit being cut to 12 weeks, and I think tying it to when babies are viable outside the womb is unjustified. I suspect that the law as it stands is close to the path of least harm.

kea
I think the situation in the UK is similar to NZ.
To get an abortion you have to get a doctors signature and it is supposed to be on health grounds. In practice it depends on the doctors in your area. In big cities it is effectively abortion on demand but not in rural areas, especially since doctors can decide they are not prepared to perform abortions.

az
I think you've summed up my views pretty well. Nobody is pro-abortion but I don't believe I have the right to decide for somebody else.

kea: "I'm just looking for some NZ abortion information... I am quite surprised at the figures "

I'd just like to register admiration for someone who can actually be bothered to do a little research, rather than simply spouting some figures they made up themselves to support their prejudices.

Bravo!

H.

Thanks H. It's not that unusual in this thread though for people to go and do research

Another interesting complication is that sometime soon Seasonale is going to be available in the UK (it came on the market in the US last year). This is a contraceptive pill that allows you to have only 4 periods a year. If menstrual suppression catches on, we might find that there are lots of women who get pregnant sometime during their pill use, and it isn't until some months later that they realize they've missed a period. That in itself may put them well past the 12 week deadline. This occurred to me because of a conversation I had recently with my doctor, though my issue is sort of the other way around--my doctor agreed that it might be wise for me to go back to the monthly period when I'm sexually active again since if the above happened to me, the disorder I have would have caused the baby harm and she wouldn't have begun being treated soon enough. But this might be an important consideration for policy makers as well. If we're going to have legalized abortion, I think 12 weeks really is going to make things more desperate than anything, and I'm not sure what the benefit is supposed to be.

The viability argument makes sense to me since a 24-week baby can be incubated and given up for adoption. Perhaps they could become wards of the state after a certain number of weeks, but what an unfair start for a child. On the other hand, how do we determine that a life is so unworthwhile that we end it just for that reason. If a fetus can survive outside the womb I just can't see how the mother should have any say over whether or not the child lives. But of course, it's that willingness to give live birth issue. I guess I soothe myself with the hope that women who abort that late really have no alternative. *supresses cynic in head* In any case, I wouldn't mind at all if they dropped the age to somewhere below viability. Has a baby ever survived before 23 weeks gestation? Last I checked that was the magic number, but perhaps there have been advances. If nothing else, perhaps everyone involved would benefit from knowing that when abortions are performed, there's no chance of the fetus surviving. I would think it would be very hard to perform or receive an elective abortion if there was...

OK in any case, I do think dropping the date to 12 weeks would be quite foolhardy. This is an issue in which people are going to be upset regardless. Playing compromise games in legislation is medically reckless, I think. Those who oppose abortion are just going to have to learn to live with the reality of the new status quo.

Yeah what she said

Menstrual suppression I'm willing to bet that there are going to be all sorts of complications from that if it becomes popular. Thanks for pointing out how this may impact on abortion rates.


I still don't get the viability argument.

Are you suggesting that if a woman is 24 week pregnant and wants an abortion she shouldn't be allowed one because of the possibility that if she went spontaneously into labour at that point the baby might survive thanks to medical intervention?


And if so are you willing to say that a woman who is 8 weeks pregnant shouldn't be allowed an abortion once science has the ability to keep a prematurely delivered 8 week old foetus alive?

And that the women in both those situations should be forced to carry the pregnancy to term? And if so why have any abortions other than life saving ones?

Or are you saying that women at 24 weeks could have a labour induction and that if the baby survives it can be put in an incubator and then be adopted out?

Like I said, I don't get it.

hi kea,

I agree that the viability argument is fraught with complications.

I'll have to do some googling to try and find out what the percentage is of women who have late-term elective terminations and why. I cannot see most women opting for this unless there is a serious health issue involved. Meaning, I doubt most women would decide six months into their pregnancy that they suddenly just don't want to have the baby.

Yes, medical science is a wonderful thing. If it can keep wanted premature babies alive from 23-24 weeks outside the womb then this is a blessing for the want-to-be parents who might otherwise end up childless. However, this same wonderful medical technology also makes it possible for a woman to have a late-term termination without so many health risks as previously.

I find the idea of forcing a woman to go full-term and give birth against her wishes quite appalling.


az

It's quite difficult to find 'abortion statistics' that aren't sponsored by anti-abortionists. This is one I found just now, though perhaps somewhat out-of-date:

http://www.abortionisprolife.com/statistics.htm

"How many third trimester abortions are performed?
"Fewer than 1% of abortions are performed after 20 weeks, and they are extremely rare after 26 weeks of pregnancy" [Ibid]. Typically abortions provided in the third trimester are limited to cases of severe fetal abnormalities."


az