Don't abort babies over 13 weeks, say seven in 10 women

[Honey]

Seven out of ten women want the 24-week upper limit for abortion to be halved, according to a poll yesterday.


It also found nine out of ten want doctors to be legally obliged to offer counselling and alternatives to abortion for pregnant women seeking a termination.
Around eight out of ten said there should be a compulsory cooling-off period between the point when a woman learns she is pregnant and an abortion.
Read more...

• AMANDA PLATELL: Why I, as a feminist, abhor how the abortion law has been so abused

The huge majority among women in favour of tighter curbs on abortion comes in the wake of evidence that foetuses in the womb are recognisable even at an early stage of pregnancy.
Medical breakthroughs also mean doctors can regularly keep alive babies born at 23 weeks.
There were a record 200,000 abortions in Britain last year and both anti- and proabortion groups are preparing for a major political fight this autumn as the Abortion Act, the law which first allowed legal terminations, reaches its 40th anniversary.
The opportunity for a parliamentary battle which will either tighten or liberalise the law has been thrown up by the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill, which will be open to amendments applying to abortion when it comes before MPs in coming weeks.
The survey for the anti-abortion campaign group Life pointed to growing unease at both the number of abortions and the stage of pregnancy at which they can be performed.
According to the poll, 68 per cent would like to see the upper time limit cut back to 13 weeks, the European average.
Support for a cut in the time limit breaks down as 72 per cent of women and 65 per cent of men.
Around two thirds of those who are content with the level of 200,000 abortions a year still support a cut in the time limit.
The poll found that more than half - 55 per cent - say there are too many abortions and numbers should be reduced.
Women, young people aged under 24, and pensioners are most likely to back abortion reductions, the survey of 1001 people by the respected polling group ComRes found.
Eight out of ten said abortion law should be regularly reviewed to keep up with changes in our understanding of how babies develop.
Seven in ten support a rule which would allow doctors, nurses and other health work-ers the right to refuse to sign abortion forms or assist abortions where doing so offends their ethical views.
At present, a doctor who refuses on grounds of principle to approve an abortion is required to pass their patient on to another doctor who does not have ethical objections.
There are no rights of refusal for other health workers.
The run-up to the 40th anniversary of the Abortion Act on 27 October has already produced political fall-out.
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, leader of Roman Catholics in England and Wales, has told MPs that those who support abortion rights should not have the right to call themselves Catholics.
That has put immense pressure on 70 Catholic MPs.
Two senior Catholic bishops have also publicly resigned from the human rights pressure group Amnesty International over its recent decision to back abortion rights.
Pro-abortion groups hope to use the debates this autumn for liberalisation of the law. Possibilities include removing the need for each abortion to be approved by two doctors or making abortion available on demand. At present, the law says abortion can only be performed to meet the physical or mental health needs of the pregnant woman or her other children.

Don't abort babies over 13 weeks, say seven in 10 women | the Daily Mail

[sweet and sexy]

Originally Posted by Honey

Seven in ten support a rule which would allow doctors, nurses and other health work-ers the right to refuse to sign abortion forms or assist abortions where doing so offends their ethical views.

I don't know about this. What do you guys think?

[Grimmlok]

Ethical views have no place in medicine, do your fucking job OR GET OUT OF THE MEDICAL FIELD.

Holy fuck.

[A*O]

I agree that 24 weeks is way too late unless there are very exceptional circumstances. 12 weeks is plenty long enough to decide whether to terminate or not. I made the decision in about 10 seconds flat.

And if medical professionals have strong moral or ethical objections to performing abortions then I don't think they should be obliged to do so. There are plenty who will. Then again, remember the Melbourne pharmacist I talked about who refuses to dispense birth control pills on moral grounds? Now I DO have a problem with that. Hypocrite, moi?

[McJag]

Originally Posted by Grimmlok

Ethical views have no place in medicine, do your fucking job OR GET OUT OF THE MEDICAL FIELD.

Holy fuck.

Sometimes you think like a great woman! This is exactly how I feel.

[Honey]

Originally Posted by Grimmlok

Ethical views have no place in medicine, do your fucking job OR GET OUT OF THE MEDICAL FIELD.

Holy fuck.

I totally agree!

[MrsMarsters]

Yeah..24 weeks is too far along..for the WOMAN..honestly doctors are not paid to get their opinions about those type of things..so why in the hell do they even bother mentioning that shit to begin with....

[A*O]

Well I guess if the docs have to perform extremely distressing and unpleasant late abortions (see the late abortion thread) and all it entails they are entitled to an opinion about leaving it that late. Apart from anything else, many preterm babies born around 22-23 weeks actually survive these days so allowing abortions so late isn't consistant with the technology or even the legality. Basically, abortion law is out of date.

[nwgirl]

I would have less issue with ethical claims if there weren't so many instances of hypocrisy. Like AO mentioned with the pharmacist. Doles out the little blue pill like it's going out of style, but not birth control? To me, I expect a doctor to be as unbiased as humanly possible. Don't know how realistic that expectation is, but it's there nonetheless.

[Laxmobster]

Originally Posted by Grimmlok

Ethical views have no place in medicine, do your fucking job OR GET OUT OF THE MEDICAL FIELD.

Holy fuck.

This is the fucking truth!

[Ravenna]

Originally Posted by Grimmlok

Ethical views have no place in medicine, do your fucking job OR GET OUT OF THE MEDICAL FIELD.

That is an extreme statement. A doctor is not allowed to draw an ethical line anywhere?

Telling a woman she can't get an abortion at 24 weeks is not a whole lot different than forcing a doctor to perform abortions when he finds it unethical. In both cases you are letting the state dictate morality.

[Grimmlok]

No, you're letting medical standards dictate ethics.. not the random whims of various individuals.

Do your job as medical standards dictate, or if you are incapable of that, leave the profession.

Medical professionals are supposed to be utterly impartial. How in the hell would triage work if every doctor let his or her personal feelings, morals or ethics come into play? Pick and choose who they thought should live or die based on some fucktarded whim of religion, or personal prejudice? Let's let the jew die, or maybe the chinese guy, cuz hey jews dont believe in jesus and chinese people aren't really people..

What about pharmacists who refuse to give medicines or contraception to people because of their "moral" views, when those views are not shared by the people they are refusing?

Where do you draw the line?

You draw it right at the beginning. Adhere to standards or find a new job. Period.

If you start letting medical professionals make decisions based on their religion or personal qualms, you open a fucking shitstorm of quackery, discrimination, prejudice and everything else.

[Ravenna]

Originally Posted by Grimmlok

Pick and choose who they thought should live or die based on some fucktarded whim of religion, or personal prejudice? Let's let the jew die, or maybe the chinese guy, cuz hey jews dont believe in jesus and chinese people aren't really people...

I hardly think refusing to abort a late-term, viable fetus can be equated with "letting someone die".

Otherwise you have made some good points and given me some things to think about.

However, you are talking mostly of practicality and not of principal. You are probably right that it would create "shitstorm of quackery, discrimination, prejudice and everything else." But on principal, I feel uncomfortable with the idea of following orders regardless of one's own moral code.

[sweetrebel]

The only problem I forsee is the woman who doesn't know she is pregnant until 12+ weeks.

[Grimmlok]

Originally Posted by Ravenna

I hardly think refusing to abort a late-term, viable fetus can be equated with "letting someone die".

Otherwise you have made some good points and given me some things to think about.

However, you are talking mostly of practicality and not of principal. You are probably right that it would create "shitstorm of quackery, discrimination, prejudice and everything else." But on principal, I feel uncomfortable with the idea of following orders regardless of one's own moral code.

Medicine isn't about principle, morality, or personal ethics. It's about treatment.

it sucks, and yeah.. aborting a late term fetus is a hideous thing to have to do and is all kinds of unpleasant.. but apparently so is giving contraception to someone, to some people.

That's the crux: it's either you do it all, or you don't do ANYTHING. You can't cherry pick.

I mean, who are you (or who would I be) to decide, based on our whims, prejudices or religious beliefs, that someone cannot get the proper treatment for their condition even though the procedure is to do it because it's the medical course of action?

That's why a lot of people are not cut out to be impartial. Any one of these quacks would fall apart on a battlefield triage situation trying to figure out who gets what after they check their 'moral' or 'religious' compass to make sure it's alright.