Abortion at 32 Weeks

[imokit]

@Toothfairy yes abortion is free in the England, Wales & Scotland on the NHS, though as in most circumstances the law regulates when its legal.  At its essence - free abortion on demand until 24 weeks, then free abortion for foetal abnormility or for severe maternal health issues up until birth.Northern Ireland while part of the UK has different abortion and its illegal there.  Someone in either part of Ireland who wants an abortion will have to go abroad (normally to main land UK) and pay for one privately.  One of them (I think Northern Ireland) tried to a try a woman who did this (in the 1990s I think) and failed.  Thus they now have legal protections and can't be prosecuted for getting an abortion elsewhere.  The other Ireland I don't think has specific legal protections, but they don't prosecute anyway.

Thus as

@Criscat is concerned about, you can get technically get an abortion at 40 weeks.  Despite this being legal, I've never heard of it happening (and I'm in a field, where I'd expect to hear of it).  I have heard of an abortion at 32/34 weeks, because the baby developed a condition in incompatible with life.  By this point the life of the mother rarely comes into play, because once viability has been reached, they'd deliver the baby as a preemie to give them both a chance (and I've seen this done too at 34 weeks).

Abortions beyond 20 weeks are rare, and normally for a serious reason.  Personally I'm really proud of the exceptions to the viabilty 24 week standard we have.  Many foetal abnormalities aren't detected until 20 week scan, others only develop even later.  Having an unlimited exception time means families aren't being rushed into decisions in order to make deadlines.  Nearly of these babies being aborted after the viability time, are being aborted because they are nonviable.  I can't imagine many things worse than being pregnant with a baby I knew wasn't going to survive, but having to continue the pregnancy because it wasn't discovered until too late for an abortion.  Essentially you're looking pregnant, being treated differently in public because of this, while waiting to birth and then loose your child.

[Criscat]

5 hours ago, Toothfairy said:

Exactly. Why won't idiots like antichoicers realize this. Banning abortion and closing down PP only affects poor and middle class women. Rich women can still get safe abortions. Even politicians take their daughters to get abortions. People against abortion have abortions.

Newborns can survive outside the womb. Most late term abortions are due to health of the fetus or mother. A 20 week old cannot survive on its own. I never heard one at 40 weeks.

First...my feeling is, if you are pro-life, you should follow this logic throughout lifespan. I drives me nuts that a some prolife people are really just anti-abortion. What I mean by that, is that they will tell and scream against abortion, but crickets (or completely for) the death penalty. 

To the bolded, partial birth abortions are up to 40 weeks. Illegal but pretty sure still happens. NORMAL people wouldn't do this...or worse. But I'm not talking about normal people. I've heard the argument from fringe people questioning whether newborns had a right to life...its just this slippery slope. Does this actually happen now? No. Could it in the future? possibly. And the idea is a terrifying one. Do I hope it never becomes reality? Of course! But I'm getting away from the topic at hand. 

[Cleopatra7]

48 minutes ago, Criscat said:

First...my feeling is, if you are pro-life, you should follow this logic throughout lifespan. I drives me nuts that a some prolife people are really just anti-abortion. What I mean by that, is that they will tell and scream against abortion, but crickets (or completely for) the death penalty. 

To the bolded, partial birth abortions are up to 40 weeks. Illegal but pretty sure still happens. NORMAL people wouldn't do this...or worse. But I'm not talking about normal people. I've heard the argument from fringe people questioning whether newborns had a right to life...its just this slippery slope. Does this actually happen now? No. Could it in the future? possibly. And the idea is a terrifying one. Do I hope it never becomes reality? Of course! But I'm getting away from the topic at hand. 

Fundies seem to think that late-term abortions are happening all over the place, even though there are probably less than five doctors in the whole country who do them. I tried to explain this when I was discussing the topic on a Catholic blog, and I keep getting responses that it was really happening 24/7, like late-term abortion is a secret menu option that you can get at any hospital if you just know the the right words or hand signals. It's depressing how so many Americans just make up their own facts when it comes to contraception and abortion, and these made-up facts influence our laws.

[formergothardite]

Late term abortions being a slippery slope to killing newborns is right up there with gay marriage leading to child marriage. In other words it is a pretty bullshit argument against abortion. 

 

[Smash!]

Lurking here like forever, but first time poster. Hi!
Very interesting Topic. I wanna give you an insight how the regulation is in Switzerland: Before 2002 abortion was illegal. But the practice changed over the years so by 2002 you could get an abortion without the practicing doctor being fined. In 2002 there was a vote to officially legalize abortion. And even though legal abortion was already a reality just not in the law, there was the usual arguments between the pro-choice and pro-life parties. In the end it was voted for the legal abortion. Abortion is now allowed in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and after that only if its a threat to the mother's physical or mental health. And health insurances have to cover it.

[treehugger]

Canada has no criminal laws restricting abortion at any stage (http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/canada.shtml).  Technically, a person could have one at any stage for any reason - although, late-term abortions are rare - about 0.4% after 20 weeks gestation (http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/about_abortion.html).  The biggest problems facing women requesting abortions in Canada is lack of access to a clinic.  With the exception of the largely populated areas in Southern Ontario and BC coastline, most of the country is very remote, and there are not enough clinics to serve the population.  Funding is another issue.  

As an aside - anti-choicers in Canada find our lax abortion laws appalling, often claiming that Canada is no better than North Korea... yes, I know .  However, they still get way more up in arms over PP in the US, mostly, I think, because most Canadians are not willing to revisit the abortion issue.  

[Toothfairy]

On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 7:58 AM, Smash! said:

Lurking here like forever, but first time poster. Hi!
Very interesting Topic. I wanna give you an insight how the regulation is in Switzerland: Before 2002 abortion was illegal. But the practice changed over the years so by 2002 you could get an abortion without the practicing doctor being fined. In 2002 there was a vote to officially legalize abortion. And even though legal abortion was already a reality just not in the law, there was the usual arguments between the pro-choice and pro-life parties. In the end it was voted for the legal abortion. Abortion is now allowed in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and after that only if its a threat to the mother's physical or mental health. And health insurances have to cover it.

Why the first 12 weeks only? Here it's the first 24 weeks with the majority aborting within 12 weeks.

On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 11:13 PM, Criscat said:

First...my feeling is, if you are pro-life, you should follow this logic throughout lifespan. I drives me nuts that a some prolife people are really just anti-abortion. What I mean by that, is that they will tell and scream against abortion, but crickets (or completely for) the death penalty. 

To the bolded, partial birth abortions are up to 40 weeks. Illegal but pretty sure still happens. NORMAL people wouldn't do this...or worse. But I'm not talking about normal people. I've heard the argument from fringe people questioning whether newborns had a right to life...its just this slippery slope. Does this actually happen now? No. Could it in the future? possibly. And the idea is a terrifying one. Do I hope it never becomes reality? Of course! But I'm getting away from the topic at hand. 

The prolife movement is failing for a reason. Their minds are just like the fetus. Underdeveloped. 

[Smash!]

Because in my country it is all about compromise I actually think it's a good regulation. You can abort without any reason in the time where the most abortions take place. After that you still can abort at anytime with proof of threat of severe physical or psychological damage to the woman.

[treehugger]

Honestly, I don't get why restrictions are so necessary.  Most women who are going to abort, would do it in the first 12 weeks if the availability was there.  Abortions then are much simpler procedures.  No one goes through 7+ months of pregnancy, with all the discomfort and pain, and randomly decides one morning, "yeah, I don't want to be pregnant anymore.  I'm going to waltz into a clinic and demand a highly invasive procedure (one that I could have had done quickly and easily 4 months ago) and have an abortion."  It just doesn't work that way.  

[Smash!]

Honestly, I don't get why restrictions are so necessary.  Most women who are going to abort, would do it in the first 12 weeks if the availability was there.  Abortions then are much simpler procedures.  No one goes through 7+ months of pregnancy, with all the discomfort and pain, and randomly decides one morning, "yeah, I don't want to be pregnant anymore.  I'm going to waltz into a clinic and demand a highly invasive procedure (one that I could have had done quickly and easily 4 months ago) and have an abortion."  It just doesn't work that way.  

I agree with you. But such a law has go go through the parliament and convince the more conservative people to vote for (at least that was the case where I live). That's why I prefer a regulation with higher barriers towards the end of pregnancy. It won't affect that many people and you still can get an abortion when your or your babys health is in danger. At the same time such a regulation is more acceptable for the pro lifers than to say abortion is unrestricted until 24 weeks (to use your example).

[treehugger]

I know.  The reasons those laws are in place is appease a certain group of people.  But it still makes no sense either way.  

The thing that always blows my mind, is how anti-choicers want so many restrictions on abortion - because they absolutely do not trust a woman to make a smart choice regarding both her life, and the potential life of the fetus.  So they regulate the shit out of it.  These same people, once the baby is born, are suddenly all about parental rights over children's rights.  No, they can't trust a woman to make a smart choice about her life or the fetus she is carrying - but the minute that baby pops out, that same woman is suddenly responsible enough to parent her baby for 18 years with almost no oversight?

I should add - the same thing with the men.  I've heard a lot of anti-choice people say that all those regulations are in place to prevent men from forcing their wives/daughters/gf's to have abortions - but again... the minute that baby is born, they are all "well, parents always want what is best for their kids - we just need to let parents be".   Like, it seriously makes no sense, either way, any way.  

[lascuba]

On 6/29/2016 at 11:13 PM, Criscat said:

First...my feeling is, if you are pro-life, you should follow this logic throughout lifespan. I drives me nuts that a some prolife people are really just anti-abortion. What I mean by that, is that they will tell and scream against abortion, but crickets (or completely for) the death penalty. 

To the bolded, partial birth abortions are up to 40 weeks. Illegal but pretty sure still happens. NORMAL people wouldn't do this...or worse. But I'm not talking about normal people. I've heard the argument from fringe people questioning whether newborns had a right to life...its just this slippery slope. Does this actually happen now? No. Could it in the future? possibly. And the idea is a terrifying one. Do I hope it never becomes reality? Of course! But I'm getting away from the topic at hand. 

Are they? I'm just trying to figure out the actual mechanics of it with a fetus that large and can't imagine how that would be done without physically harming women. All the very late-term abortions I know of from work (the oldest I've seen was 38 weeks) were done the same way as in that jezebel article--KCL injection, followed by induction of labor. 

[hilee]

I've said before that I worked in a high risk clinic, and this story is very, very real. I've met women faced with that horrible decision, having to travel to Colorado or Kansas I think it is for a late term termination. 

It's hard but honoring when a mother chooses to show you their baby that didn't make it. 

Some choose to interrupt the unviable pregnancy, others choose to carry to term. It's a hard decision either way. 

The money issue is just horrible. I've worked in healthcare administration for 10 years, I've had my life threatened many times (pain clinic), but these people are really putting their lives on the line, I shudder to think what will happen when Dr. Hern is unable to practice, people like him don't retire to play golf, he cares and knows these families are left without choices without him. 

[Toothfairy]

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 11:06 AM, treehugger said:

I know.  The reasons those laws are in place is appease a certain group of people.  But it still makes no sense either way.  

The thing that always blows my mind, is how anti-choicers want so many restrictions on abortion - because they absolutely do not trust a woman to make a smart choice regarding both her life, and the potential life of the fetus.  So they regulate the shit out of it.  These same people, once the baby is born, are suddenly all about parental rights over children's rights.  No, they can't trust a woman to make a smart choice about her life or the fetus she is carrying - but the minute that baby pops out, that same woman is suddenly responsible enough to parent her baby for 18 years with almost no oversight?

I should add - the same thing with the men.  I've heard a lot of anti-choice people say that all those regulations are in place to prevent men from forcing their wives/daughters/gf's to have abortions - but again... the minute that baby is born, they are all "well, parents always want what is best for their kids - we just need to let parents be".   Like, it seriously makes no sense, either way, any way.  

Republicans goal is to keep poor women poor. Antichoicers just want to punish women for fucking. Like I said before if I could get pregnant right now,  I could go to the abortion clinic in rich neighborhoods and get one. No questions asked. 

[illinigal]

Abortion is a subject that I am very conflicted with because I do believe that it is a baby.  At the same time, I do not want to tell other women what to do with their bodies.  

One thing that concerns me is the idea of designer babies and aborting fetuses with Down Syndrome, cleft palates, etc.  I do not know how widespread this is but I have a few friends who have told me they would abort a child with abnormalities.  These are professional women in their 30s who were definitely could definitely care for a disable child.  It was a hypothetical;  they just had a very consumerist attitude toward children.  I do have some Christian liberal friends who are against abortion and use this argument specifically.  What say you guys?

[nausicaa]

31 minutes ago, illinigal said:

Abortion is a subject that I am very conflicted with because I do believe that it is a baby.  At the same time, I do not want to tell other women what to do with their bodies.  

One thing that concerns me is the idea of designer babies and aborting fetuses with Down Syndrome, cleft palates, etc.  I do not know how widespread this is but I have a few friends who have told me they would abort a child with abnormalities.  These are professional women in their 30s who were definitely could definitely care for a disable child.  It was a hypothetical;  they just had a very consumerist attitude toward children.  I do have some Christian liberal friends who are against abortion and use this argument specifically.  What say you guys?

To me there's a difference between disagreeing with something and thinking something should be illegal.

I think abortion should be legal for any reason, because if we start parsing reasons, we are stating society gets a say in women's bodies and their health choices. I know it's controversial, but I can understand women who abort because the fetus has Down's or another disability. I can understand feeling overwhelmed by that or not feeling like you have the temperament to deal with the challenges. But i'm also sympathetic to the parents of special needs children who feel personally offended by those abortions. 

Aborting because of a cleft palate seems a bit much to me, especially since surgeries in the developed world can so easily repair those. 

[Kailash]

3 hours ago, illinigal said:

Abortion is a subject that I am very conflicted with because I do believe that it is a baby.  At the same time, I do not want to tell other women what to do with their bodies.  

One thing that concerns me is the idea of designer babies and aborting fetuses with Down Syndrome, cleft palates, etc.  I do not know how widespread this is but I have a few friends who have told me they would abort a child with abnormalities.  These are professional women in their 30s who were definitely could definitely care for a disable child.  It was a hypothetical;  they just had a very consumerist attitude toward children.  I do have some Christian liberal friends who are against abortion and use this argument specifically.  What say you guys?

I think it is important to note that just because a woman could financially care for a disabled child does not mean she could handle the emotional aspects of it. Therefore, I do not judge anyone who might choose to abort, no matter what the reason. My opinion of what another woman can deal with means nothing to her.  Either it's her body, her choice, or it's her body, someone's else's choice. Clearly, the first is the only reasonable option to me.

 

[illinigal]

26 minutes ago, Kailash said:

I think it is important to note that just because a woman could financially care for a disabled child does not mean she could handle the emotional aspects of it. Therefore, I do not judge anyone who might choose to abort, no matter what the reason. My opinion of what another woman can deal with means nothing to her.  Either it's her body, her choice, or it's her body, someone's else's choice. Clearly, the first is the only reasonable option to me.

 

If you aren't prepared for a child with disabilities, then why are you getting pregnant in the first place?  One thing that really frustrates me is that I have really spent time thinking within myself and have realized that children aren't for me in general.  I come from a very screwed up background and it is just not good in general.  I have dealt with that. 

My friends just want designer children like they want to be able to remodel their kitchen.  When you are in your 30s, there is a higher chance that you will have a disabled child.  In my opinion, you deal with that.   Children shouldn't be like color options for your walls. It just really frustrates me because I've sacrificed this due to my own personal issues.  And yet I know vapid people who think that having kids is like Build A Bear.  

 

 

[Kailash]

16 minutes ago, illinigal said:

If you aren't prepared for a child with disabilities, then why are you getting pregnant in the first place?  One thing that really frustrates me is that I have really spent time thinking within myself and have realized that children aren't for me in general.  I come from a very screwed up background and it is just not good in general.  I have dealt with that. 

My friends just want designer children like they want to be able to remodel their kitchen.  When you are in your 30s, there is a higher chance that you will have a disabled child.  In my opinion, you deal with that.   Children shouldn't be like color options for your walls. It just really frustrates me because I've sacrificed this due to my own personal issues.  And yet I know vapid people who think that having kids is like Build A Bear.  

 

 

What if the pregnancy were accidental? It doesn't change my opinion. It is true that there are many unknowns when pregnant, and even after birth. The difference is that, given the option, some people would choose not to deal with certain disabilities and medical conditions when informed before birth. This is often not selfish. I have a friend who has a brother who is mentally disabled. When she got pregnant with a very wanted child, she was 100% prepared to terminate the pregnancy (if the child had the same condition) because she did not want another child to have to suffer like her brother does. There are so many reasons why a woman might choose to abort. I refuse to judge any of them. (For instance, what if a mother does not have friends and family to rely on, and decides to give birth to a disabled child, and then passes away? What will happen to the child? Even if the mother desperately wants that child, she may decide to abort if informed that the child will have a medical condition that would put the child at more risk if something were to happen to her.)

I've seen too many horrific stories of abuse of disabled children to ever think it would be a good idea to force anyone to parent a child that they don't want. And sadly, it's not always just the biological parents who abuse. Often it's adopted or foster parents too.

I wish I could say I understand your frustration with your own sacrifice, but I don't. I admire your decision, but I don't think it's fair to judge other's who are not willing to make the same sacrifice.

 

[Jana814]

I honestly do not think I could handle a disabled child. My friend has a son with CP.  She's lucky that her father has a ton of money & he can help pay for therapy and he does. I don't know how she does it.  I hate to say this but are relationship has changed and we are not as close as we once were. I feel bad she is in a situation like this and it's hard for me to see it.  

[formergothardite]

13 hours ago, illinigal said:

I do have some Christian liberal friends who are against abortion and use this argument specifically.  What say you guys?

I don't think it is a designer baby attitude for someone to admit that they don't knowingly want a child with disabilities. I'm a mother to a child with pretty severe disabilities and I'm not going to judge anyone who says that they can't handle this life and decides to abort. It isn't just the finances, it is the entire emotional aspect. The daily care of a child with disabilities will absolutely wear you down. And, guess what? It doesn't stop. Many times these children aren't ever going to grow up and leave home. And then you are left with the choice of trying to care for an adult with special needs and lots of medical problems as you age or trying to find a home to put them in, and that comes with an entirely different set of problems. 

9 hours ago, illinigal said:

If you aren't prepared for a child with disabilities, then why are you getting pregnant in the first place? 

Because they want a child. Yes, there is a risk that a child can become disabled after birth, but it really, really,REALLY isn't a designer baby or acting like a trip to build a bear for a pregnant woman to admit that she doesn't want a baby who she knows is going to have disabilities. 

Children are people and a woman shouldn't bring a disabled child into the world that she knows from the start she isn't able to care for. I have spent a lot of time around parents with disabled children and there really are some people who should have aborted instead of having the child because you can tell they resent the hell out of these kids. You can tell the people who knew they were going to have a special needs child and were okay with it and the ones who knew, but only had the child because they were guilted into it by their beliefs. 

[kettlingur]

In a hypothetical situation where accidental pregnancies don't happen and people think purely rationally and logically about whether or not they are prepared to raise whatever child they give birth to, I think a lot less people would have children because coping with a disabled child/adult can be very challenging (massive understatement), and that's not even cosidering the myriad issues that can occur in childhood. Real life does not in any way resemble that situation though, does it?

Whilst I am uncomfortable with the idea of aborting a child due to a disability (becacuse many people with those disabilities lead happy and fulfilling lives/or don't I guess, but who am I to decide who lives and who dies?), my experience working in care homes and with chaotic families dealing with children with profound and multiple disabilities tells me that many people just cannot cope with what life throws at them in this regard which can result in hellish situations, especially since the support available is wholly inadequate. Also I don't think my discomfort should affect anyone else's decision, it's not exactly thought out. I guess if I get to a point in later life when I want children, then that is something I'll have to figure out for myself because I know I personally can't imagine considering having a child unless I'd decided I could deal. Which isn't really something you can know until you're already dealing, I think...

Basically, what I'm trying to get at is that I'm glad I live in the UK where abortions are free and relatively easy to access and that I won't judge people for making incredibly difficult decisions with regard to foetal abnormalities that I hope I never have to face.

[Toothfairy]

On Wednesday, August 03, 2016 at 9:55 PM, illinigal said:

If you aren't prepared for a child with disabilities, then why are you getting pregnant in the first place?  One thing that really frustrates me is that I have really spent time thinking within myself and have realized that children aren't for me in general.  I come from a very screwed up background and it is just not good in general.  I have dealt with that. 

My friends just want designer children like they want to be able to remodel their kitchen.  When you are in your 30s, there is a higher chance that you will have a disabled child.  In my opinion, you deal with that.   Children shouldn't be like color options for your walls. It just really frustrates me because I've sacrificed this due to my own personal issues.  And yet I know vapid people who think that having kids is like Build A Bear.  

 

 

Do you know how hard it is to raise a disabled child? Insurance is a bitch and doesn't cover everything. Yes most people want a healthy pregnancy. Parents have a right to determine what they can and cannot handle. 

I'm a foster parent. I did respite care for disabled kids. It was very hard. Imagine a 11 yo acting like a two year old. Or a teen throwing a tantrum in public. Imagine trying to get services but being rejected because insurance doesn't cover that. Imagine at 18 that child will have no place to go. Taking care if a disabled child is serious business. 

[Cleopatra7]

Even if all fetuses with disabilities were aborted, there would still be disabled children, teens, and adults in this world. Disability can be the result of an illness, of neurological wiring, or an accident, not simply from congenital disorders. If nothing else, many people will be disabled by the natural process of old age. Anti-abortion activists who claim to be against eugenics focus on congenital disorders to the exclusion of other forms of disability, ones that are probably much more common than even the more common ones like Down Syndrome or spinal bifida. They also tend to use very condescending rhetoric towards the disabled, like they are "precious gifts" who only exist to make their "normal" caregivers feel good about themselves. I suppose anti-abortion activists think abortion is the worst kind of discrimination against the disabled, much like how they think Planned Parenthood clinics in minority neighborhoods are the worst kind of racism, which absolves them of the need to fight for real disability rights that empower already born disabled people.

[JesSky03]

My heart truly breaks for this woman. I don't call myself pro-choice or pro-life because I fall somewhere in the middle, but I wouldn't call what this woman went through an abortion per the social or politician definition. This to me is a necessary medical procedure. Unfortunately it is one where the baby loses his life, but would that not be the outcome anyway if he was carried to term? What if carrying to term meant that both baby and mom lost their lives? Women shouldn't have to go to the end's of the earth and burn through all their cash (and family's cash) to have a necessary, possibly life saving, medical procedure.