24 Week Abortions

[jebus]

That's your opinion, but why would you think you have the right to force your beliefs on someone else? No one's forcing a woman to terminate, it's their choice based on their belief. If you believe it's a life from conception, don't have an abortion, if you believe it's only a life when it can realistically survive outside the womb (which is what UK law is based on), then you can make the decision to have a termination. I don't believe it's ever an easy decision for a woman to make.

Exactly, the whole pro-choice, pro-life debate always seems to be taking away from the simple question of if you think it's right to force a person to do something they don't want to do. Whether you think the foetus is a baby or not, I don't believe in making someone go through with something they don't want to. As for the adoption issue, I still don't think it's right to make a female carry a child for 9 months, put that strain on her body and then have to go through the torment of giving it up. Sometimes I think pro-lifers think that all women who have abortions do so on a spur of the minute decision and they then go back to a care free life, where as in reality it's not.

[SeanDrog]

As people prob have guess I am firmly in the shantykelly camp.


That's your opinion, but why would you think you have the right to force your beliefs on someone else? No one's forcing a woman to terminate, it's their choice based on their belief. If you believe it's a life from conception, don't have an abortion, if you believe it's only a life when it can realistically survive outside the womb (which is what UK law is based on), then you can make the decision to have a termination. I don't believe it's ever an easy decision for a woman to make.

What if the baby has a low chance of survival to term or a matter of hours after birth? Is it more humane to make a woman carry to term, to have a still birth, to have everyone congratulating her and asking "when's it due" for months knowing it's not going to survive? Would people rather put the mother through that mental torture rather than allow a termination?

Euthanasia is a different debate, but I'd suggest we'd probably have the same pro choice, pro life split judging on postings above.

Given the level of abortions it is clear that most would statistically result in a healthy born baby if left to go full term. Of course there are difficult cases but the majority are lifestyle choices given the numbers. Fact is that the UK would have millions more citizens today if there was no abortion (I saw the figure recently but would have to look it up again but a serious number of abortions since the 60's) - wasn't really a Prochoice reality for those people.

So your point is why should prolife impose their belief that a mother cannot abort if she so wishes (correct me if I am wrong).

Lets take that a step further, what gives you (or anyone) the right to impose your belief that a mother with a born 1 year old cannot kill the child as a lifestyle choice, as she is finding it to difficult?

[anto1208]

Exactly, the whole pro-choice, pro-life debate always seems to be taking away from the simple question of if you think it's right to force a person to do something they don't want to do. Whether you think the foetus is a baby or not, I don't believe in making someone go through with something they don't want to. As for the adoption issue, I still don't think it's right to make a female carry a child for 9 months, put that strain on her body and then have to go through the torment of giving it up. Sometimes I think pro-lifers think that all women who have abortions do so on a spur of the minute decision and they then go back to a care free life, where as in reality it's not.

I would argue the torment of having an abortion could often out weight the torment of giving your child up for adoption, at least with adoption you can change your mind later.

And that this is more than just 1 woman’s choice when there are 2 and depending on how you view the fetus maybe 3 people involved. Its also the fathers child and to remove him for having any say in the matter is unsettling to me.





That's your opinion, but why would you think you have the right to force your beliefs on someone else? No one's forcing a woman to terminate, it's their choice based on their belief. If you believe it's a life from conception, don't have an abortion, if you believe it's only a life when it can realistically survive outside the womb (which is what UK law is based on), then you can make the decision to have a termination. I don't believe it's ever an easy decision for a woman to make.

What if the baby has a low chance of survival to term or a matter of hours after birth? Is it more humane to make a woman carry to term, to have a still birth, to have everyone congratulating her and asking "when's it due" for months knowing it's not going to survive? Would people rather put the mother through that mental torture rather than allow a termination?

Euthanasia is a different debate, but I'd suggest we'd probably have the same pro choice, pro life split judging on postings above.

I think with most right minded people on the "pro life/anti abortion" side understand that abortion in extreme circumstances like this is ok. I would also include if the birth would put the mothers life at risk and also if the mother was a victim of rape or was a child herself.

[Block G Raptor]

And that this is more than just 1 woman’s choice when there are 2 and depending on how you view the fetus maybe 3 people involved. Its also the fathers child and to remove him for having any say in the matter is unsettling to me.
Spot on. I know a couple of lad's who's girlfriends have had abortions and didn't even tell the father until after it had been done
That would absolutely wreck my head if it happened to me




I think with most right minded people on the "pro life/anti abortion" side understand that abortion in extreme circumstances like this is ok. I would also include if the birth would put the mothers life at risk and also if the mother was a victim of rape or was a child herself.

I agree with this 100% but it does raise the question of what constitutes putting the mothers life at risk ie. (if theres a 2% chance that the mother would die due to complications is that enough), it leads to very murky waters if you were to try and define what constitutes "a Clear and Present Danger" to the mother. in the case of Rape and or Incest then I think abortions should be legalised but discouraged and an excellent system of councilling etc set up to help a woman who decides to keep a child despite being raped by the childs "Father"

[Dodge]

Its also the fathers child and to remove him for having any say in the matter is unsettling to me.
As unsettling as carrying a child you don't want for 9 months, then having to give birth to a child you don't want, then having to raise a child you don't want, all because some bloke is unsettled at the thought of a woman having some control over her body?


That would absolutely wreck my head if it happened to me
Imagine having to look after a kid you didn't want witha girl you dind't even like anymore? headrecking or wha?



in the case of Rape and or Incest then I think abortions should be legalised but discouraged and an excellent system of councilling etc set up to help a woman who decides to keep a child despite being raped by the childs "Father"
by implication you'd encourage a woman who'd been impregnated while being raped by her own father to have his son/grandson. See we can all make illogical jumps

[Block G Raptor]

by implication you'd encourage a woman who'd been impregnated while being raped by her own father to have his son/grandson. See we can all make illogical jumps

Of course not. Where have I said that. what I've said is that the proper counselling and support networks should be in place to help a woman who does decide to keep the child, not to convince her to keep it but to provide her with viable option's

[shantykelly]

As unsettling as carrying a child you don't want for 9 months, then having to give birth to a child you don't want, then having to raise a child you don't want, all because some bloke is unsettled at the thought of a woman having some control over her body?


Imagine having to look after a kid you didn't want witha girl you dind't even like anymore? headrecking or wha?


This is where I think our personal freedoms have to be curtailed. my right to choose versus some one else's right to live? ultimately, we live in a civilised society, and must bear repsonsibility for our actions and choices and how they impact on others. this is where the view on 'when does life start' become all important. if you don't consider a foetus a human being in total, only in potential, then this choice will always be relatively easy for you if faced with this situation.

secondly, in my view if you have unprotected sex and the girl becomes pregnant, it doesnt really matter if you want the child or not. this is where you personally have to face up to the consequences of your actions, something that isnt happening very much in modern ireland, and deal with it. preferably not via the easy approach of getting an abortion. to me, all disagreements about the act of abortion aside, that is taking the cowards route out of a problem that you and the other person involved got yourselves into to. you made the decision to have unprotected sex, you have to face the consequences. as we say in derry, take your oil.

[anto1208]

As unsettling as carrying a child you don't want for 9 months, then having to give birth to a child you don't want, then having to raise a child you don't want, all because some bloke is unsettled at the thought of a woman having some control over her body?


Imagine having to look after a kid you didn't want witha girl you dind't even like anymore? headrecking or wha?



by implication you'd encourage a woman who'd been impregnated while being raped by her own father to have his son/grandson. See we can all make illogical jumps

1. she doesnt have to raise the child she doesnt want
2.do you think giving birth to a "child/fetous" at 6 months is all that different from giving birth to one at 9 months if so you should look into what actually happens its still pretty hard on the woman at any stage.

Its nothing to do with controll over a womans body im all for people doing what they like to themselves as long as it doesnt affect other people. As soon as you involve others then your rights are restricted this applies to Men and Women.With rights come responsibilities.

[jebus]

To opt me out of this discussion I'll say that I'm pro-choice, for the pure and simple reason that I don't think it's anyone's right to impose their will on someone else. Pro-lifers may think she's doing that to the aborted foetus, but I don't count that as a living being until it is able to live independently of it's host/mother/whatever. I think the 24 week rule should be brought down to 22 weeks with a view to bringing it down to 20 weeks pending more research, but thats about as low as I'd drop it.

As for abortion in Ireland, I really don't see the reasoning behind forcing women and sometimes girls, to travel to a different country to have a termination. The states main concern should be the mental and physical well being of it's citizens, and on that count a doctor should at least be able to look over a female before and after she has had the termination, and ideally she shouldn't be forced to leave the country at all

[SeanDrog]

Sometimes abortion is put forward, even taken for granted, as a 'solution' to the most difficult situations. But this approach ignores the fact that it involves the taking of the unborn life and the exposure of the women to emotional hurt and possible psychological harm. The reality is that our willingness to offer social support is the single most important factor influencing a better psychological outcome for women in crisis pregnancy.

A study by Sandra Mahkorn Pregnancy and Sexual Assault, showed that there is a better social and personal outcome for women who chose to continue a pregnancy, despite harrowing initial circumstances. Two recent Finnish studies show a better outcome for women who continue their pregnancy as compared with women who opted for abortion.

The reality is that abortion means social exclusion rather than real personal support for women facing unexpected pregnancy. It allows society to abdicate from its responsibility towards them.

There are many examples of women joining the pro-life movement offering contrasting testimonies to those of the pro-abortion lobby - some representing women hurt by abortion - others include people like Pam Stenzel (lecturer on teen pregnancy USA ) who was herself conceived as a result of rape.

We must recognise, however, that there are immensely difficult and agonising situations which test our true compassion and solidarity as a society. If what seems impossible initially has a better long-term outcome for both the woman and her unborn baby, we owe it to them to have supports in place to cope with these situations. Abortion is often the easy solution for everybody except the woman and her unborn child.

[Dodge]

secondly, in my view if you have unprotected sex and the girl becomes pregnant, it doesnt really matter if you want the child or not. this is where you personally have to face up to the consequences of your actions, something that isnt happening very much in modern ireland, and deal with it. preferably not via the easy approach of getting an abortion. to me, all disagreements about the act of abortion aside, that is taking the cowards route out of a problem that you and the other person involved got yourselves into to. you made the decision to have unprotected sex, you have to face the consequences. as we say in derry, take your oil.

Thats the most simplistic argument I've ever read on this forum.

Are you saying that it'd be OK to have an abortion if the man was wearing a condom and it slipped off or broke. You do realise that there isn't a single method of cntraception that is 100% fool proof don't you? if you really think that abortion is the easy answer, you obviously have not met anybody who's had to consider that as an option. Its a horrible process for any strong couple to go through, never mind some 16 year old girl who got drunk. Nobody, and I'll repeat for emphasis, NOBODY who decides to have an abortion does so on the basis thats its the easy option. They do so on the basis that at that monent and time they're not ready to look after a child.

Your language reads that you want to punish people for having unprotected sex. If you see a child as a punishment, then your opinion on children means nothing to me


1. she doesnt have to raise the child she doesnt want
So the other two points don't matter :rolleyes:


2.do you think giving birth to a "child/fetous" at 6 months is all that different from giving birth to one at 9 months if so you should look into what actually happens its still pretty hard on the woman at any stage.
There are marked differences


Its nothing to do with controll over a womans body im all for people doing what they like to themselves as long as it doesnt affect other people. As soon as you involve others then your rights are restricted this applies to Men and Women
Agreed. But if he wants her to have the baby, and she's adament that she's having the abortion, I'd side with her every single time. If you side with him, good luck forcing her to have the baby. Lets see how that works out

[jebus]

The reality is that abortion means social exclusion rather than real personal support for women facing unexpected pregnancy.

Social exclusion by who? The people who published this report and the fanatics shoving pictures of dead foetus' at children outside the GPO on a Saturday? Cause it's certainly not by me and people like me

[SeanDrog]

I don't think it's anyone's right to impose their will on someone else.

I know you are otping out but I need to reply to this - this logic means you have no problem with people doing what they want, so I can kill you if I want, I can turn up and kill you and eat you because I want to (in theory :) ) and you would oppose anyone who opposes my will to do so. You see its a bit of an attempted washing of the hands answer that does not hold water as it is an illogical position to take in a functioning society.

[SeanDrog]

Social exclusion by who? The people who published this report and the fanatics shoving pictures of dead foetus; at children outside the GPO on a Saturday? Cause it's certainly not by me and people like me

Socal exclusion of society as it gives it a way of washing it hands of supporting the mother through a difficult pregnacy. Not that the mother is social excluded after an abortion. On reading can see how yo may have taken it up as such - I hope I have clarified it.

PS Clam down.

[jebus]

I know you are otping out but I need to reply to this - this logic means you have no problem with people doing what they want, so I can kill you if I want, I can turn up and kill you and eat you because I want to (in theory :) ) and you would oppose anyone who opposes my will to do so.

Hard to debate with people who try and turn words to their advantage when they know thats not what was meant. Anyway to play your game then read my sentence again and ask if murdering me would be you imposing your will on me? So logically I'm against you doing that. Final word cause that's a nonsense point you just made in a thread that has been surprisingly mature



PS Clam down.

PS cut out the ridiculous internet tactics of trying to make someone something you want them to be, i.e. in a rage and illogical

[Block G Raptor]

Imagine having to look after a kid you didn't want witha girl you dind't even like anymore? headrecking or wha?

I have a 6 year old daughter from a previous relationship, I can't stand her mother and we've been apart for about three years, I live for the weekend when I get to spend time with my Daughter and would not change a single thing about my past or the relationship with her mother, I wouldn't give up my daughter for anything so no having a kid with someone you don't exactly like anymore is not at all headwrecking for me and is probably the single best thing that has ever happened to me, whats more her mother would say exactly the same thing we can't stand the sight of each other now but both of us adore our daughter

[Dodge]

Sometimes abortion is put forward, even taken for granted, as a 'solution' to the most difficult situations. But this approach ignores the fact that it involves the taking of the unborn life and the exposure of the women to emotional hurt and possible psychological harm.
How is bringing an unwanted child into the world a better solution? How can a child develop if it is not loved? Surely you can't be saying that "ah sure she'll love it hen it comes along"? You can't be seriously generalising that much?


The reality is that abortion means social exclusion rather than real personal support for women facing unexpected pregnancy.
perhaps because people like yourself attach such a stigma to the act of abortion. perhaps if you embraced it as a viable option, these women would not feel so much social exclusion. The fact that you point out that coupless and single women have abortions despite feeling such exclusion should indicate that they have not taken this decision as the easy way out.


We must recognise, however, that there are immensely difficult and agonising situations which test our true compassion and solidarity as a society. If what seems impossible initially has a better long-term outcome for both the woman and her unborn baby, we owe it to them to have supports in place to cope with these situations.
I agree 100%. What you don't point out is that abortion is sometimes the best option for all concerned


Abortion is often the easy solution for everybody except the woman and her unborn child.Abortion is never easy on anybody. As you say, its not easy on women, and some still choose to proceed. Why do you think they do this? They know its not easy, they know the implications, they know how some people will treat them. Yet some still go through with it. Unless you'r trying to saying that everybody who has an abortion does so on a whim? But you know thats ridiculous...

[Block G Raptor]

There are marked differences


Not really. Again personal experience, My Mother was 6 months pregnant when she gave birth to my sister, a sister who is now 32 married and has 2 boy's of her own.

[Dodge]

I have a 6 year old daughter from a previous relationship, I can't stand her mother and we've been apart for about three years, I live for the weekend when I get to spend time with my Daughter and would not change a single thing about my past or the relationship with her mother, I wouldn't give up my daughter for anything so no having a kid with someone you don't exactly like anymore is not at all headwrecking for me and is probably the single best thing that has ever happened to me, whats more her mother would say exactly the same thing we can't stand the sight of each other now but both of us adore our daughter
Good for you. but that wasn't the point I made. I made the point that some couples don't want children. Remember we're talking about a tiny, tiny minority of pregnancies here. In the vast majority of cases, the child will be born, and in the vast majority of those cases, the child will be loved by both parents.

However its not always that way, and rather than think of it from your perspective, why not let people decide based on their own circumstances

[Block G Raptor]

Good for you. but that wasn't the point I made. I made the point that some couples don't want children. Remember we're talking about a tiny, tiny minority of pregnancies here. In the vast majority of cases, the child will be born, and in the vast majority of those cases, the child will be loved by both parents.

However its not always that way, and rather than think of it from your perspective, why not let people decide based on their own circumstances

I know the point you were trying to make and I should have pointed out in my post that neither me nor the ex were exactly over the moon about the pregnancy and but for our beliefs I think abortion may have been seen as an option

[Dodge]

I know the point you were trying to make and I should have pointed out in my post that neither me nor the ex were exactly over the moon about the pregnancy and but for our beliefs I think abortion may have been seen as an option
Again, it worked for you. and I'm delighted.

It doesn't work for everyione else

[SeanDrog]

Hard to debate with people who try and turn words to their advantage when they know thats not what was meant. Anyway to play your game then read my sentence again and ask if murdering me would be you imposing your will on me? So logically I'm against you doing that. Final word cause that's a nonsense point you just made in a thread that has been surprisingly mature



PS cut out the ridiculous internet tactics of trying to make someone something you want them to be, i.e. in a rage and illogical

Actually I feel from the tone of the post that you were becoming heated.

In fact it is you trying to discredit my point, I was making the point that society always has to impose its will on others as their will, as there will be alway people with differing positions to society and society has to impose its will for the greaer good of its specific value system. (and that is the key of this debate - what value does society give the unborn human)

[Dodge]

In fact it is you trying to discredit my point, I was making the point that society always has to impose its will on others as their will, as there will be alway people with differing positions to society and society has to impose its will for the greaer good of its specific value system. (and that is the key of this debate - what value does society give the unborn human)

Wow, thats a preety big leap. Are you really siggesting that everybody should have the same beliefs and values? can you please list all values that society has decreed

[SeanDrog]

Dodge

I have been told that this debate should remain calm and rationale so stating the following "because people like yourself attach such a stigma to the act of abortion" is uncalled for personalisation. Feels like a case that if you dont like the message, so shoot the messanger.


Now onto your point: How is bringing an unwanted child into the world a better solution? How can a child develop if it is not loved? Surely you can't be saying that "ah sure she'll love it hen it comes along"? You can't be seriously generalising that much?

So does that also mean if the child is born and the mother decides she doesn't want it then it should be terminated? As you indicate that its is hampered as it will not be loved (assume you mean by the mother/parents) so it is better dead?

I would have thought that adoption was an option and I find your view strange to say the least. I also wold have thought that the resulting child/person would he seen life as a better option.

Anyhow, good debate and always a polarisng debate and I doubt anyone on either side have moved. I need to log off. Cheerio.

[anto1208]

Im calling it a day on this one too as its getting into a pro/anti abortion thread rather than a 24 week one. All ill say is 24 weeks is too long way too long.

I dont want kids now thats why i use condoms and the missus is on the pill if on the freak tiny tiny chance both of those dont work (in the case of a slip or split the morning after pill would be the next option )if after all that she still got pregnant then id step up and take care of the baby if she didnt want to raise it id would agree to raise it on my own, if she still went against all my wishes and did have an abortion it would be a deal breaker.

I think thats a pretty reasonable attitude to have.



It all boils down to you are better off just having a w**k.

[GavinZac]

I've been reading this Thread since it's inception and have been reluctant to post, however if I was to post I would have said pretty much exactly what ShantyKelly has said above. I would like to add that the Sterile language used by some posters on here is a little unsettling to say the least, I think the attitude to abortion from some sections of society is a sad indictment of the value that we put on human life today.I'd imagine you haven't read all my posts, I'm not going through why I use scientific language in this topic again.
from personal experience, My partner miscarried at 11 weeks and still to this day considers the mis-carraige a lost child, (even having the name we had chosen Tatooed on her back) Whilst I have to admit I was against her getting the tatoo as I thought it a little extreme I have seen how it was part of the grieving process and has helped her, so I'd like gavinzac to tell her that what she lost was an amphibious Parasite and see what her reaction would beI'm sorry for your loss, but:
Firstly, we all have stories like that, 2 women in my life have miscarried. If we are to allow emotions to dictate laws then they would be very different. Your situation is different from the next, and that from the next.

Secondly, what you were mourning was the loss of a potential child. Potential being the operative word; This isn't an attempt to trivialise your experience, but the fact of the matter is that some other people would be relieved to no longer carry a potential child at 11 weeks. The difference is purely personal and that is why we can't just legislate based on your experience. As jebus pointed out, at the heart of this debate is not whether we believe abortion is wrong or right, but whether it is right for me to tell you that it is or is not in your situation, or vice versa*.

edit: *of course, that isn't actually true; the topic is whether 24 weeks is too old; if we toss out the abortion right/wrong, legal/illegal debate and concentrate on the limit that it should be if it is to be legal, the debate would be much shorter - basically, a few links to scientific studies and declarations of agreement or disagreement. That is where my much maligned "amphibian" remark comes in; at an early duration, the foetus is unrecognisable as human and virtually indistinguishable from any other tetrapod foetus.

[SeanDrog]

Wow, thats a preety big leap. Are you really siggesting that everybody should have the same beliefs and values? can you please list all values that society has decreed

Clearly not them all, but the ones to allow society function like the following:

Murder is wrong
Incest in wrong
Child abuse is wrong

are these good enough examples

If you beleive that society doesn't need some set of rules then you an interesting character. Now some people will disagree with these rules and society needs to impose its will to allow it to function. Don't see the difficulty in understanding this point but again maybe ts just another attmept to discredit the messanger.

[SeanDrog]

Im calling it a day on this one too as its getting into a pro/anti abortion thread rather than a 24 week one. All ill say is 24 weeks is too long way too long.

I dont want kids now thats why i use condoms and the missus is on the pill if on the freak tiny tiny chance both of those dont work (in the case of a slip or split the morning after pill would be the next option )if after all that she still got pregnant then id step up and take care of the baby if she didnt want to raise it id would agree to raise it on my own, if she still went against all my wishes and did have an abortion it would be a deal breaker.

I think thats a pretty reasonable attitude to have.



It all boils down to you are better off just having a w**k.

cheerio anto - I'm signing off too - getting a little bit muddy now.

[osarusan]

If you beleive that society doesn't need some set of rules then you an interesting character. Now some people will disagree with these rules and society needs to impose its will to allow it to function. Don't see the difficulty in understanding this point
And if abortion were legal, that would be one rule to serve society. Just like now, some would disagree with it, but society would still function.

People who didnt want to have abortions wouldn't have them, and people who did wouldn't have to go abroad to get them.

Don't see the difficulty in understanding this point.

[Dodge]

Clearly not them all, but the ones to allow society function like the following:

Incest in wrong
Child abuse is wrong

are these good enough examples


Excellent examples. You think incest is bad but would allow a father be rewarded with a new child (and I think a child is a reward and a gift)

You're against child abuse but would force a women to bringa child into an abusive situation

You see my point? Nothing is cut and dried.

[GavinZac]

People who didnt want to have abortions wouldn't have them, and people who did wouldn't have to go abroad to get them.Thats pretty much it. Abortion isn't really illegal here, it just requires a waiting process just as it does in some states. Unfortunately, our waiting process isn't in a therapeutic clinic, but in a check in queue for Ryanair.

Credit card anyone?

[kingdom hoop]

If you beleive that society doesn't need some set of rules then you are an interesting character.

If I could twist that a little and disagree with your sentiment, society doesn't really function that much better because of rules, or at least, rules are far from imperative in allowing society to function. Rules are overly simplistic prescriptive attempts at regulating behaviour; more holistic and penetrating action is generally required. Basically, the importance of rules/laws of themselves can easily be overstated.

There're rules against littering, murder, speeding, polluting, acting the WUM, and so on. Do the rules eradicate the problems? Or more pointedly, if the rules didn't exist would the problems be much worse?

Societal and personal values, not the simple existence of rules, determine one's behaviour. Thus, would the mere removal of a ban on something as personal and emotive as abortion really change peoples' attitudes to the extent that society could no longer function, as you fear? Do people decide not have an abortion because it is illegal, or is it because of their personal belief system?

Balance: the improbability of the ban's removal leading to a worrying escalation in abortions in Ireland; increasingly liberal, individualistic mindsets amongst the young suggesting the law is out of line with those affected by it; continued increase in teenage sex; the availability of abortion abroad; the lack of personalised local after-care for those who opt for abortion; the broader quality of life issues for the many returning women owing to a stigma on abortion - removing the ban can influence paradigms here; a more open attitude to abortion and the correlative increase in advice available before and after can help women make the right decision for them to help them through the process; and so I think one might reasonably conclude that abortion's illegality in Ireland seems antiquated, unnecessary, and simply wrong.

[pete]

Any chance we can get back to the thread title?

As I mentioned above the UK arrived at 24 weeks based on medical evidence that the fetus/child cannot survive outside the womb before that period. The reason they said they did not reduce to 20 or 22 was because no new evidence presented.

Personally 24 weeks seems high but I am not a medical expert. Some people think life begins at conception which makes no sense either.

I have already posted link above that shows that almost no abortions in the UK done post 20 weeks and still very few post 15 or 16. I can only assume this is because women make the decision much earlier. Maybe the 24 week limit is kept for medical terminations? You cannot ban abortion as it will alwasy happen.

I don't think men should tell women what to do as lets face it thats their job. I also don't feel we need to tell people in general what to do unless of course a Moderator here ;)

[SkStu]

if nothing else, the title of the thread is a great new schoolyard slag.

"ye 24 week abortion, ye"

[Macy]

You cannot ban abortion as it will alwasy happen.
Indeed, the reason that Britain brought in the laws in the 1960's was because of the numbers of women being maimed and killed by back street abortions. Availability in Britain has no doubt saved many irish women similar outcomes. Regardless of when you believe it's a life, it isn't going to stop just because it's illegal - it'll just be in much more dangerous conditions.

[Cymro]

Just to go back to the original post, the motion a few weeks back to have the limit lowered failed. Which I was disappointed with. (along with some other aspects of the F&E Bill, but that's another argument)

I was in favour of seeing a reduction in the limit because it seems pretty clear that a 20 week old foetus does indeed have the ability to suffer and feel pain during an abortion, more or less just like a 24 week old foetus would (obviously, at 24 wks the foetus is more advanced, but as I understand the basic capacities of the two are relatively similar). The scientific community is almost completely agreed on this, so I really don't know why people are still bringing up the argument of validity to justify keeping the limit as it is. They argued that because the abortion debate had always been ultimately settled over the issue of validity that there should be no change, but back in the early '60s when abortion first became legal the fact is it was not even considered that a foetus could feel and the limit was set at 28 weeks on the basis that babies were not survivng before then.

I do not agree that validity is a good way of solving this debate. Mainly, because it's so malleable and depends on scientific advancement rather than pure ethics. Say, for example, that tomorrow a scientist invented a new type of incubator that could successfully nurse all foetuses to birth from say, 6 weeks onwards (not saying this will happen in the near future or ever, but still, it may happen at some point). Do you really think pro-choice activists would change their views and set the limit at 6 weeks? No, neither do I. That is why I think that validity is a silly way of settling the argument, and pro-choice activists are really just hiding behind it as an excuse to keep the limit at 24 weeks.

With that in mind, I think a reduction to at least 20 weeks would be appropriate, and this limit should be reduced as and when scientific advancements shows foetuses to be capable of basic human reactions, such as the ability to feel pain.

With regards to other earlier term abortions, such as the abortion of a 12-week foetus which does not have the capacity to suffer, I do not agree with them personally, but can accept that there may be genuine disagreement over the ethics of it, though I also do not think they should be done on a whim or used as birth control. (Related fact: in 2005, 50 of the ~ 200,000 abortions were by women who had already had at least 8 in the past, and additional thousands were on their third or more.)