Abortion limit time for change ?

[Guy Fawkes]

After several cases in which a premature baby has been born before the limit for abortion (24 weeks) the latest being the Burden twins at 23 weeks. Is it time for serious and sound debate on the case for reducing the limit ?

Not saying that its right or wrong but maybe this report below is part of the thinking behind the current time limit of 24 weeks and that stories like yours about a premature baby being born after just 23 week haven't sparked a change to reduce the time frame.

In the news recently, a report found that that the feotus wasn't developed enough at the 24 week stage to be able to feel pain or to be aware, comments were made that these findings meant that there was no need to reduce the current time restrictions as a result (However i don't know if this was in the findings of the report or just resulting from people / experts discussing the report and drawing their own conclusions)

-- From "Unborn baby cannot feel pain before abortion limit: report" by Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor, London Telegraph 6/26/10

Research from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists . . . findings mean there is no scientific reason to reduce the abortion limit from the current 24 weeks, experts said.

It was found that connections in the brain are not fully formed until after 24 weeks meaning that the feotus is unable to feel pain and has no awareness.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Abortion is a common day contraception now. A strain on the state.

But would an unwanted birth be a lesser strain on the state - there will be potential state education & healthcare costs amongst others. The child may need the help of Social Services (depending on the families circumstances) or may even need to be taken into care if deemed in the best interest, and so on.

To base the decision of whether abortions should happen on financial grounds alone is unreasonable imo.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

What if SHAKESPEARE had been aborted cos his mum didn't want him!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!

Think about that one.

Kids would find English lessons a lot easier

In all seriousness, that argument could also work the other way round - someone who had an abortion earlier in life may have contributed to the greater good of mankind in some way that would otherwise never have happened eg by making an important discovery / scientific breakthrough, or producing an invention, maybe as a result of their writing or maybe just something as simple as being in a particular job at the right time and acting to prevent an incident that may have otherwise have occured under someone else's stewardship.

The benefit to humanity may not have happened at all if they hadn't had the arbortion because their personal circumstances could have prevented them from making this contribution

(probably not very well explained but hopefully you understand what i'm getting at)

 

[John Bumlick]

i think the limit should be raised to 10 years. should have a fairly good idea it's going to be an annoying little shit by then...

 

[beorhthelm]

Abortion is a common day contraception now.

im not going argue whether it is or isnt. however, i'll venture that those that might do so would not wait until 20 odd weeks, they'd decide a lot earlier than that. so its not very relevent to the question about where the time limit should be.

 

[ROKERITE]

After several cases in which a premature baby has been born before the limit for abortion (24 weeks) the latest being the Burden twins at 23 weeks. Is it time for serious and sound debate on the case for reducing the limit ?

Ofcourse not; there's just been a report published by a group of top gynaecologists supporting the current time limit, and arguing that the claims of foetuses feeling pain is just propoganda put about by anti-abortionists.
I would never condemn a woman for having an abortion, it's those who give birth with no stable home or means of support other than the state, that I object to. When I read that 200,000 abortions take place each year my reaction is that's 200,000 fewer unwanted children in this overpopulated world. It would be better, obviously, if the women didn't conceive, but at least those who abort have shown some sense and responsibility.

 

[El Presidente]

However what about things like parasites etc,

I think Gwylan has the right answer in his signature, which says 'first thing, lets kill all the lawyers'

 

[readingstockport]

Stop being such a twit. It's a debate - he's put it out there, you're refuting it. No-one's trying to force anything.

Personally, I think there should be a limit. Any more than 3 abortions and the woman ought to have her fanny filled with polyfilla, the slag.

Except that almost always when people start these 'debates' they are coming from a pre-determined position, usually inspired by their belief in a book of fairy tales, and are no more interested in a debate on the subject than sarah palin is.

Edit to add.

Note I said usually, I know tedi is religious for example and holds a similar view on this subject to the one hold.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

But would an unwanted birth be a lesser strain on the state - there will be potential state education & healthcare costs amongst others. The child may need the help of Social Services (depending on the families circumstances) or may even need to be taken into care if deemed in the best interest, and so on.

To base the decision of whether abortions should happen on financial grounds alone is unreasonable imo.

That is not what I meant. I was pointing towards the fact that it is used as a contraceptive and people need to take more responsibility.