Abortion: is it time to change the law?

Mike Ion Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:49:51 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Whether the time limit on abortion should or should not be lowered is an important topic - far too important for it to ever become a party political issue. This is why Michael Howard's decision to introduce the issue into the 2005 election campaign was so disappointing and why I am hoping that David Cameron's announcement today is not an attempt to gain favour with the anti-abortion lobby.

I personally would welcome a reduction (either to 22 weeks or possibly even 20 weeks). My reasons are based on the fact that more babies born as early as 22 weeks are surviving with the right care. For example leading experts from the University College London Hospitals (UCLH) have found that while in 1983 just 32% of babies born at between 22 and 25 weeks survived, by 2000 their chances had improved to 71%.


What do others think?





tags: (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Abortion: is it time to change the law? | 9 comments (9 topical)

Re: Abortion: is it time to change the law? (#1)

by jkitleft on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:54:12 PM GMT

a mixture of tightening and liberalising the law: lower to 22 weeks, but expand this to N. Ireland.


Re: Abortion: is it time to change the law? (#2)

by GuardianReader on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:20:42 PM GMT

The current limit of 24 weeks is realistically around 20 weeks.The difficulty is that doctors cannot tell exactly how pregnant a woman is, so they err on the side of caution. This means that under the current legislation, if a doctor thinks you are more than 20 weeks pregnant s/he won't perform an abortion.

If the limit is lowered to 22 weeks, then abortions won't be performed after 18 weeks. Some procedural tests that detect abnormalities are completed until after this date, so putting the option beyond women's reach. There are already long waiting lists for abortion on the NHS, so even if you present to a doctor early on in pregnancy (less likely when teenagers are in denial, or their monthly cycles are not stabilised), you can wait a few weeks before you can get an abortion.

Women also need two doctors to certify that either she or the baby are at risk of physical or mental harm if the pregnancy continues. This can be difficult to get, particularly in rural areas, and is impossible in Northern Ireland - part of our country. 

What is really needed is safe abortion on demand with the need for only one doctor to agree, and without any condition of being at risk.

Cameron is attacking a woman's right to choose. If he realistically wanted to advance the debate he would demand more and better access to contraception and sexual health clinics,  decent sex and relationship education for all children and abortion on demand.

 

Some leaders are born women
[ Parent ]

Re: Abortion: is it time to change the law? (#3)

by Sensible Comrade on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:07:15 PM GMT

I think focusing the debate on timeframes disguises the fact that access to sex education, contraception, and abortion is still inadequate for too many people in modern Britain.

I would be concerned that changing the limit will only encourage the anti-choice lobby in their efforts to restrict a woman's right to choose.


I don't think it's right that a woman has to get the ok from two doctrors before being allowed an abortion. I also think it is wrong that NHS doctors are allowed to refuse to carry out a medical service if it contravenes their religious beliefs.


Re: Abortion: is it time to change the law? (#5)

by rwendland on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:23:44 PM GMT

I agree. Only 0.57% of abortions are at term 22-24 weeks, so reducing the time limit will only have a limited effect.

Much more important is that our abortion rate is 150% of our western European neighbours. For greater effect we should tackle this urgently. And I think better/earlier sex and contraceptive eductaion would be at the heart of the solution.


[ Parent ]

Re: Abortion: is it time to change the law? (#4)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:10:53 PM GMT

I would be very much opposed to lowering the time limit - it should stay at 24 weeks.

Mike, in response to your argument why you think it should be lowered to 22 weeks - I'd like to ask you a theoretical question: if in a hundred years time, science has evolved to such an advanced level that it is feasible for a foetus to survive at 12 weeks or 10 weeks after removal from the mother using the right care - would you continue to support lowering the time limit as a result? Because surely, this would make it more and more difficult for a mother to choose to have an abortion and eventually, you're going to see a big increase in backstreet abortions too.


There has to come a point when abortion and the right to choose becomes more of a social issue rather than a scientific issue. Lowering the limit now to 22 or 20 weeks will only bolster the anti-choice lobby (abhorrent people like Tory MP Nadine Dorries) and they will continue to push to lower the limit even more.


Also, whilst I'm against lowering the limit, I want to see the law extended to Northern Ireland (since abortion should not be a devolved matter) and want to see the out-dated 'socio-economic' restrictions removed so effectively you have abortion-on-demand for the 24 week period.


Re: Abortion: is it time to change the law? (#6)

by rwendland on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:47:53 PM GMT

The medical profession seems to be doing well at getting abortions done earlier. 3 - 9 week gestation abortions have gone up from 56% to 68% since 1997.

Only 1.5% of abortions were at 20+ weeks, and I suspect these are the most socially/medically necessary as 56% need overnight stays (compared to ~14% overnight otherwise).

I think it is best to rely on the medical profession to work at getting abortions done earlier, which seems to be working, rather than an inflexible legal requirement. 


Re: Abortion: is it time to change the law? (#7)

by jkitleft on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:42:17 PM GMT

What is needed, however, is a major expansion in funding into sex education, health clinics, contraception etc.


Re: Abortion: is it time to change the law? (#8)

by Limony on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:24:33 AM GMT

No.

There are two problems with the proposal as we learnt recently prior to a Lords (I think?) debate. (a) The statistics on survival are questionable and difficult to compare because (b) 'survival' is defined differently by the researchers. For example, some researchers use 'survive' to mean that the premature baby is still alive a matter of hours after birth.

A second problem is that if using 'survival' as a reason to change the law it should be spelt out for the undecided whether survival, however defined, overrides all other values or whether the considerations about quality of life which are applicable to humans at other stages of their lives are also applicable to premature babies. If so, the pro-change campaigners must show not just that  babies at 22 weeks have meaningful survival rates, however defined, but that the short lives are not filled with suffering and nothing but suffering.



Re: Abortion: is it time to change the law? (#9)

by bigpapi on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:09:49 PM GMT

Definitely not; no evidence was presented to the Science and Technology Select Committee that suggested a foetus survives under 24 weeks.


Sadly, despite accepting that evidence, I have discovered that on "faith grounds" my MP is intending to vote for a reduction, probably to 22 weeks.


Abortion: is it time to change the law? | 9 comments (9 topical)