General Chatter

Ria_Rose · May 21st, 2008, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Attempts to cut the upper limit for abortions from 24 to 22 weeks have been rejected by MPs after a free vote.

Tory MP Nadine Dorries, a former nurse who proposed a 20-week limit, said: "There comes a point when it has to be said this baby has a right to life."

But her plan was defeated by 332 votes to 190. A move to bring in a 22-week limit was opposed by 304 votes to 233.

Pro-choice campaigners said there was no scientific evidence to justify a cut in the limit.

Catholic cabinet ministers Ruth Kelly, Des Browne and Paul Murphy voted for cutting the limit to 12 weeks.

The votes followed two impassioned debates on the controversial Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill - the biggest shake-up of fertility law for early 20 years.

Earlier the government saw off another challenge to the bill when MPs rejected a cross-party move for doctors to consider the need for a "father and a mother" before allowing IVF treatment.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg voted for the 24-week limit to be maintained. Conservative leader David Cameron voted for the limit to be lowered to 22 weeks.

Health Minister Dawn Primarolo insisted there was no evidence requiring the abortion laws to be changed.

She said: "The upper gestational limit for termination of pregnancy was set by Parliament in 1990 at 24 weeks because the scientific evidence of the time was that the threshold of viability had increased and babies were increasingly surviving at 24 weeks and above ...That was the case in 1990 and it's certainly the case now."

Ex-minister Edward Leigh, a father-of-six, who pressed for a 12-week limit, said it would bring Britain into line with the rest of Europe. "In modern Britain the most dangerous place to be is in your mother's womb. It should be a place of sanctity," he said.

He said "98% of abortions are social - only 1.3% are for foetuses which are handicapped, 0.4% are for risk to mother's life" and added: "It is a bleak picture of modern Britain ...I believe we should give that silent child a voice." [source: news.bbc.co.uk]

Thought I should share same of the news reports on this, I've cut it down, for the full story and figures go to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7409696.stm

I have to say I'm not normally a suporter of the conservatives but the fact that David Cameron voted to lower it (even by 2 weeks) buts him up in my estimation.

sweetsammi · May 21st, 2008, 12:23 PM

I read in an issue of Your Pregnancy that the highest number of abortions is not on teens or from people with health probs or those carrying a baby with health probs...but for middle aged women who already have kids and just choose to have an abortion because they 'cant aford one more' or because there 'enjoying a career'. I think thats disgusting. When i fell pregs, i was at uni, skint living in halls of residence. Ewan and i had only been together 8months and he was and still is on an extremely low income- yes the timing was wrong and no we couldnt aford to have Oliver- but i would NEVER even consider aborting my child for those reasons! Its very sad indeed. x

rafwife · May 21st, 2008, 12:52 PM

Just so there's no confusion, I've updated the first post with what the law currently stands at.

Faerie · May 21st, 2008, 13:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linzi

On the other hand, my mum was told with my little brother that he had severe kidney problems and wouldn't survive past 30 weeks, let alone birth and my mum would probably have to have a still birth, but she could also have a termination. She'd been trying for 12 years to have a baby and decided to let nature take it's course.

Of course everything is fine now, he's a healthy happy 7 year old.

Its such a difficult discussion... doctors can't always predict correctly. Ive been thinking about what I posted before and then about my little brother and Im just completely confused now lol

I really dont know.

xxx

I know, that's what she was holding out for, the hope that they'd be wrong, because clearly in some cases they are. Either way an incredibly traumatic experience.

Blah11 · May 21st, 2008, 13:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mamafy

Just a short post from me but as a mum who has given birth to a premature child I dont think its right, If I found out at 20 weeks or beyond that my child had a disability I wouldnt terminate either but its up to the individual but it definitely shouldnt be allowed for social reasons beyond 12 weeks but thats my opinion.

There are different levels of disability. Like I said in previous posts there's a huge difference between a child with downs syndrome or cystic fibrosis and a child who can't talk, hear, walk or move.

BeckyBoo · May 21st, 2008, 13:09 PM

All I'm going to say is yes it should be. But that's my opinion. Because babies can survive as early as 21 weeks now. To me it's murder.

But this is my opinion. I have never judged anyone for having one and I never will.

Blob · May 21st, 2008, 14:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Faerie

Thanks for your help Blob, but does it mention anywhere what the abortion limit is for "social reasons"?

The first one is social reasons, they just call it mental reasons, cos you obv have to prove to the doctors that you cannot cope or deal with another child and to have one would be worse for you.

I dont much like abortions over 12weeks but if they are over 12 then there must be a serious reason for it. Though i too would never judge anyone for having one. Although i have met someone who has had 4 and pretty much just uses it as a form of contraception grrr..

I cant wait for my little bean

solly+podge · May 21st, 2008, 15:46 PM

I am a little diffa, i think that it should be kept at 24weeks, i dont like it being 24weeks but i think it should still be kept at 24 being this is the average time where babys can servive in most areas in the UK. I think that the mothers should be encouraged not to abort so late or think about adoption but still be allowed it other whys we are going to end up going backwards in time where mothers went to the backstreets to have it done by people who are not trained to do it and then you have the possability of not only the baby being killed but the mother too. I would rather have the mother give up her child and get the help to deal with all her emotions then end up in a backstreet dead, because after all that decision will be on her mind for the rest of her life isnt that a bad enough punishment?

And if you lower the time and then say well if you have this special reason or that special reason who it going to decide weather that child dies or lives, you? i wouldnt want to make that decision that is for the mother only.

I hate it being at 24 weeks when i had my scan at 16weeks my little one was def a little monster already causing trouble by not wanting to stay still for the scan! And i could not have it aborted, but i understand why the law is set at 24weeks and i dont like it but when has changing the law stopped people? does it stop drink driving and the deaths caused by that? does it stop the 13year olds from smoking and ultmately reducing thier lives? does it stop the murderer from killing someone? there will always be people who do not follow the law and this allows damage to happen.

I hate it but it is there for a reason, no matter how anyone likes or dislikes it.

solly+podge · May 21st, 2008, 15:47 PM

sorry for the long post!

Jazzy · May 21st, 2008, 21:23 PM

I don't agree with abortions except in extreme cases i.e rape etc, I think the time limit should be lowered, but thats just my opinion, I would never judge anybody who has had one

General Chatter

Should the abortion time limit be lowered?

Lounge Area