Should the abortion limit be changed?

This is one debate that will be totally polarised. The status quo would be the best policy given the report.

As medical science improves, so will our knowledge of day to day practices. It's common sense that we should adapt and improve our laws to bring them up to date.

That said, reading the article, yes, I'm sure that Anti Abortionists are going to challenge the report. Why they seem to think they posses a higher understanding and subjective, unbiased knowledge of the subject than The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is beyond me. Let people make their own choices and stop giving these fools a voice.

If there is no evidence to support a change then it make sense not to change the limit.

Let the pro-lifers finance unwanted babies if that is their gripe about abortion.

As absolutely no-one commenting here will have the medical or neurological expertise to challenge this report, the only comments will be based on personal or religious beliefs. As such, they will be meaningless and entirely subjective, and have no effect whatsoever.

I would say that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists know far more about this than I do and therefore am happy to agree with them and for the law to stay as it is.

Personally I do support abortion and agree that the cut of time should be related to when the featus can feel pain.

I think it is far kinder to terminate a featus than have a child that isn't wanted.

I've never had children myself but I'm pretty set on abortion being wrong. In some circumstances such as rape or medical conditions then yes it should be an option. For people only wanting an abortion over a lifestyle choice is wrong. People take the risk of getting pregnant so they should deal with the consequences. If it doesn't fit their lifestyle well tough luck. Adoption is always an option, but I believe it is wrong to deny a child whether it is breathing or not a chance at life.
As for abortion being 24 weeks again I think that is far too late. I watched a video whilst I was in school of an abortion at 22 weeks, the child reached out and grabbed the doctors finger. I think whether the child is breathing or not it is still a person and should not be denied the right to live just like the rest of us.

A baby should be brought into the world that is going to be loved and wanted.
The prolifers should finance the upbringing of children if the limits are changed.
The time allowed gives the woman time to consider her options. A reduced time would remove that.
Why do pro lifers have to stick their noses into other people's lives as an abortion is a very difficult decision to make.

I am not a medic and as such it would be unwise to comment on this ticklish issue. As a layman I would go for the tried and the trusted limit of abortion. Changing the limit may not be painful for the foetus but certainly so for the mother.

2. At 09:30am on 25 Jun 2010, Pete Morley wrote:
"Let people make their own choices and stop giving these fools a voice."
Such attitudes are juvenile. When commentors like the above assume the high ground they fail to present the reality of a baby in a bucket of blood.
Science justifies the evil it does by the facts it presents, which are never complete nor present the entire picture. There is no moral high ground in Science since they have no morals. To kill a baby, whether it feels it or not is murder, plain and simple.

The elephant in the room is that 98 per cent of the nearly 200,000 foetuses aborted annually in the UK would have been born as healthy babies if allowed to proceed to full term. In that context it is irrelevant whether abortion occurs at 24 weeks or 20 or 16 or at all. It is just wrong that in practice we have abortion on demand when the law makes clear that it is only legal when strict criteria are met - those criteria are ignored daily for the sake of people avoiding the inconvenience of the child they have conceived. The 24 week debate is no more moral than a debate about which form of execution is better.

3. At 09:35am on 25 Jun 2010, in_the_uk wrote:
If there is no evidence to support a change then it make sense not to change the limit.

Thats it in a nutshell, could not be clearer.

"I watched a video whilst I was in school of an abortion at 22 weeks, the child reached out and grabbed the doctors finger"

I'm sorry. What? Are you insane?

A simple googl brought this up, first page
https://handfacts.wordpress.com/2010/06/13/holding-hands-with-a-21-week-old-fetus-the-famous-story-of-samuel-armas/

“The baby did not reach out,” Dr Bruner said. “The baby was anesthetized. The baby was not aware of what was going on.” He also stated, “Depending on your political point of view, this is either Samuel Armas reaching out of the uterus and touching the finger of a fellow human, or it’s me pulling his hand out of the uterus … which is what I did.”

The fact that the whole argument about abortion seem to revolve around finer scientific claims and counter-claims is an indication of how we as humans have lost the plot. We need to take a step back and take a fresh look at what we are doing.
What was introduced as a solution to protect a very small minority has now become a lifestyle 'choice' for the majority. If anyone has ever held a newborn baby in their arms, the simple awe and astonishing wonder of that little life, has a tendency to throw out all those arguments for abortion and makes us wonder how we could ever destroy such a beautiful creation.
Just because a 'foetus' is not yet a 'human' it doesn't mean they won't become one. An embryo has the natural potential to become a fully grown human being, which in my book, makes it a him or a her. Period.
Let's take a step back!

To those posting here that "pro-lifers" should pay for unwanted children - everyone should be pro-life because the alternative is being anti-life. You either respect life or you do not. A child is conceived by the act of two people and those people have the moral responsibility to follow that through. To justify abortion in the guise of acting in the best interests of babies who would only grow up unwanted (which is not the law anyway) is no different to justifying rounding up unwanted children after they have been born and killing them then. There are many people who were born into poverty or unwanted who have made a lasting contribution to the world and it is not for us to snuff out that life because we kid ourselves that "it's for the best". Only 1 or 2 per cent of abortions involve disability and the stigma of illegitimacy has gone. The focus should be on why the other elements of the present abortion laws are being flouted rather than the narrow focus on 24 weeks.

7. At 10:51am on 25 Jun 2010, BronnyV wrote:

I've never had children myself but I'm pretty set on abortion being wrong. In some circumstances such as rape or medical conditions then yes it should be an option. For people only wanting an abortion over a lifestyle choice is wrong. People take the risk of getting pregnant so they should deal with the consequences. If it doesn't fit their lifestyle well tough luck. Adoption is always an option, but I believe it is wrong to deny a child whether it is breathing or not a chance at life.
As for abortion being 24 weeks again I think that is far too late. I watched a video whilst I was in school of an abortion at 22 weeks, the child reached out and grabbed the doctors finger. I think whether the child is breathing or not it is still a person and should not be denied the right to live just like the rest of us.

-----------------------------------------

You talk of risk of pregnancy. That is sex then since no contraceptive is 100%. I am sure there are a lot of people who will disagree with such restriction.

Denying life is another interesting argument because in this country we deny death. People talking about a childs right to live also deny people the right to die. Personally its my life and so my choice.

Who gives these other people the right to dictate control over anothers life? Choosing for a person that they must have a child even if the situation is wrong will bring unnecessary hardship. It is as bad as the control exacted over a persons right to die by choice.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

As my dentist once said to me "I won't feel a thing" so too the unborn child - no voice - dehumanise - do what you like to? This is the trick of the old enemy as any prisoner of war will tell you. For goodness sake stop killing these innocent children - it is a crime whether you legalise it or not! The amount of 2 Dunblane school disasters every DAY! Think about it! It is really wrong!

I was absolutly horrified to read this article!!!

My sister is studying medicine and was taught this year that the neurological pathways for pain receptors begin at 19 weeks. From what i understand in this article they are arguing they are not "fully devloped" until 24 weeks.

In which case it is flawed.
Firstly, many people are often out by a few weeks either side on the age of their baby, EVEN with so called dating scans.
Secondly, there is no room for individual differences, we are very aware that once out of the womb different children develop at different speeds, and hit milestones at different ages, why do they think it is different in the womb?!

Plus, let us not forget that feotal research is still fairly young and scientists are continually proving themselves wrong generations later.

Finally, let us not get into the idea that "oh they cant feel pain so it doesn't matter". "pain" is completly beside the point, if they are correct that the CHILD will be unable to feel their murderer attacking them, does it change the act? NO. What they are doing is still interfering with nature and KILLING a human being.

I can feel my baby move now (21 weeks), and it horrifys me that for the next few weeks if i went to the doctor they would kill it on request. What also grates on my nerves is that noone takes into account the hormonal affect on the womans body and the possibilty that she would be unable to make a decision like that at that point. It is only my "catholic guilt" that saved my first child from murder, as i was so hormonally wraught.I thank God for that daily!

It always strikes me as strange that the most fanatic anti-abortionists are male... it's not like it's a decision they will ever have to face. But that will not stop the pro-lifers trotting out those same old highly emotive cliches - for example @ John Southworth "the reality of a baby in a bucket of blood"

That aside, if the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists believe the current limit of 24 weeks is OK, I am happy to defer to their expertise. Thankfully it is very rare that an abortion would be carried out at such a late stage of pregnancy.

I am intrigued, would the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists advocate removing medical care for those in hospitals who are in a coma or sedated? Just because the body seems to keep unborn babies in a sedated I don't quite see how that provides any justification for their abortion.

I don't see why whether the foetus feels pain should be a factor at all. If someone gassed me in my sleep with carbon monoxide I would feel no pain as I died, but that wouldn't mean it was acceptable. This report is therefore irrelevant.

I am not religious and I cannot support an abortion limit below which babies have survived. In what will inevitably always be a grey area, this "earliest survival" point, which changes as medicine advances, offers the chance for a definite and clearly understood limit to be placed on the number of weeks. Otherwise you might have doctors fighting (successfully) to save the life of a baby born at 23 1/2 weeks in one room, but legally terminating another equally developed foetus in the next. How can that be right?

Make it 22 weeks. It will only affect a very small number of pregnancies anyway.

The world is over populated.

Abortion is carried out for many reasons, some for reasons of serious deformities and others for somewhat trivial ones such as a cleft palate. A woman who has been raped might feel very strongly about giving birth to an unwanted child. Not every child is conceived out of love or for the right reasons.

If this research is absolutely correct then it does make sense to alter the limit.

A good deal of counselling goes on before any decision is reached in any case so what is the problem.

The youngest premature birth that has survived is at 21 weeks and 6 days. That's only just over halfway through the pregnancy! I think 16 weeks should be the limit. That's still plenty of time to assess whether the pregnancy is wanted or not. There has to be a point where the choice to abort should be cut off and 24 weeks is too late in my view.

15. At 11:22am on 25 Jun 2010, Steve wrote:

To those posting here that "pro-lifers" should pay for unwanted children - everyone should be pro-life because the alternative is being anti-life. You either respect life or you do not. A child is conceived by the act of two people and those people have the moral responsibility to follow that through. To justify abortion in the guise of acting in the best interests of babies who would only grow up unwanted (which is not the law anyway) is no different to justifying rounding up unwanted children after they have been born and killing them then. There are many people who were born into poverty or unwanted who have made a lasting contribution to the world and it is not for us to snuff out that life because we kid ourselves that "it's for the best". Only 1 or 2 per cent of abortions involve disability and the stigma of illegitimacy has gone. The focus should be on why the other elements of the present abortion laws are being flouted rather than the narrow focus on 24 weeks.

------------------------------

You claim that the only alternative to pro-life is to be anti-life. This is entertaining. Those who are totally pro-peace would have let hitler take over our country because fighting is wrong. Those who were not pro-peace but not pro-war defended peace by stopping the nazis.

Those who are not pro-life are not necessarily anti-life (those are probably criminals). The middle ground is realist. Someone who accepts that the subject isnt black and white and that selfish morals of a few should not be enforced on others (either way).

You say its kidding ourselves that its 'for the best' yet do you know the situation? Would you stop the lives of young people for an accident/life lesson? Would you put a mothers life at risk to potentially create a new life (no guarantees)? There are many situations where a child may be a bad idea.

In the end we all have morals which are subjective and based on your experiences. Trying to force your limited morals onto everyone is wrong because 1 size does not fit all.

I don't know. If there is no evidence that the foetus can feel pain up until 24 weeks is it simply because it cannot communicate that fact, or show signs that we would recognise - nature would not have set it up to do so because there would be little point, no one would normally see.

At what age do foetus show stress, such as when the mother smokes?

I do believe that abortions should be permitted, but I would err on the side of caution. Is there a reason for a delay to 24 weeks (not counting a risk to the mother)?

Taken from the heading of this HYS - 'The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists says foetuses are "undeveloped and sedated". Brain connections are not fully formed, and the environment of the womb creates a state of induced sleep, like unconsciousness.' - people undergoing surgery, and apparently unconscious, now report at times that although apparently sedated, they are fully conscious and in considerable pain.

Perhaps this should be looked into more deeply. We have only just become aware of the fact that the concentration span of a goldfish is considerably longer than we had believed to be the case, so we definitely don't know it all, even about something as simple as a fish.

8 said = Why do pro lifers have to stick their noses into other people's lives as an abortion is a very difficult decision to make.

What a ridiculous statement - in your wisdom anyone who is being treated unjustly should be ignored especially when its done in secret! the main reason for it being a difficult decision is because you are going against all that is good and right, your conscience, as we know killing is wrong no matter what the age, race he/she is a human being and should have the right to life like you and me. If Hitler was still operating would you say the same - prolifers don't stick your noses in? Just as well we don't all think like you. Where there's life there's hope. The pro death brigade should keep their noses out, I think.

I don't care for your arguments of rape, deformity or "I am just not ready to have kids!". Abortion is an abhorrent, vile and thoroughly uncivilized practice and not in keeping with anything to do with a civilized society, which we claim to be.

The vast, vast majority of abortions carried out in this country are for no other purpose than post-intercourse contraception and this is something to be deeply ashamed of. It has nothing to do with religion, atheism or any other belief or stand point

There are no ifs or buts on this subject, no emotive or scientific rhetoric or propaganda for the benefits of this disgusting practice.

Abortion is wrong!

It should be banned out right!

Don't want kids? Then don't have sex, it’s as simple as that, no ifs, no buts.

To me the issue is not a question of foetal pain but of viability.

And to those talking about "unwanted babies", I know it's trite but there aren't any, only unwanted pregnancies. There is a huge demand for adoptive babies that can't be met.

4. At 09:52am on 25 Jun 2010, ian cheese wrote:
Let the pro-lifers finance unwanted babies if that is their gripe about abortion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I could, I would.

Unlike you, I value human life in all its forms and choose to protect where I can instead of killing for the sake of convenience.

Must make you dizzy all the way up there in your ivory tower?

If a Babies life means nothing, then life means nothing, then lets abort the Sick,Disabled and Elderly in the same cruek inhumane way

20. At 11:32am on 25 Jun 2010, Green Tigeress wrote:
It always strikes me as strange that the most fanatic anti-abortionists are male... it's not like it's a decision they will ever have to face.

I'm a woman and I find that comment insulting, yes the man doesn't get pregnant but two people make a baby and to think that a termination would not have an emotional effect on the father as well as the mother is just incrediable sexist.

On a side point, for some oof the above posters, the debate is not whether abortion should be legal or not, but whether or not the current week limit is correct

Pro-lifers, put your money where your mouth is and get volunteering for research into foetal transplants. You could have a win-win situation: We get rid of an unwanted pregnancy as quickly and safely as possible, you allow a child to be born. What's not to like?

16. At 11:25am on 25 Jun 2010, in_the_uk wrote:

Denying life is another interesting argument because in this country we deny death. People talking about a childs right to live also deny people the right to die. Personally its my life and so my choice.

Who gives these other people the right to dictate control over anothers life? Choosing for a person that they must have a child even if the situation is wrong will bring unnecessary hardship. It is as bad as the control exacted over a persons right to die by choice.

===================================
What muddled thinking. Firstly, I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks an unborn but viable foetus has the right to live and also supports the right to euthanasia.

You say "it's your right" to die - I've got no problem with that. But then who stand up for the rights of the unborn baby? The are confusing the right to die with the right to kill.

Put it another way, if an unborn baby (let's use that term for a viable foetus rather than a non viable one) can be aborted at 24 weeks, why not at 28 or 32?.

And if 32 is acceptable, where is the line drawn? wIs it right to be able to abort at any time the baby is in the womb? But if that's the case what's the difference between that and "aborting", say five minutes after delivery? Or an hour or 2?

2. At 09:30am on 25 Jun 2010, Pete Morley wrote:
That said, reading the article, yes, I'm sure that Anti Abortionists are going to challenge the report. Why they seem to think they posses a higher understanding and subjective, unbiased knowledge of the subject than The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is beyond me. Let people make their own choices and stop giving these fools a voice.
===============================
Quite right. HOW DARE people who disagree with Mr Morley express an opinion.

The problem I have with the 24 week limit is that they can never be 100% certain that the conception date is correct. That coupled with the fact that every baby is different and develops at different rates I do believe that it should be reduced. My niece was born at 26 weeks. She has no medical problems and has recently celebrated her 15th birthday.

This limit means my sister could have, just 2 weeks earlier legally had her aborted if she wanted to? A child that may have lived had it been born right then. It doesnt sit well with me. Im not an anti abortionist at all but I do think what is essentially 6 months is way too late to take that decision! How many of you have patted your 6 month pregnant belly and described how it feels for your baby to kick. Obviously there needs to be a cut off point but 6 months is way too late unless you have a medical need for it.

The findings about the 24-week divide between pain and no-pain pathways may be so, but a. the brain itself is not 'mature' before the age of 20: on the basis of development of neural pathways, should other activities be permitted/prohibited before that age? and b. pain is a signal to the body to avoid certain potentially life-ending threats in the environment viz. move away, stop doing something, call for help and so on: does the foetus have no means of fighting for survival before 24 weeks simply because it is in the uterus?

The limit should be changed, based on this new scientific research. If people disagree with abortion, then the answer is simple - don't have one.

But for those women, and men, who do have to face the decision, let them decide. Whether it was due to medical issues, rape, or just an accident - why should anyone HAVE to give birth to an unwanted child? Should we really, in this over-populated world, force people to have unwanted children?

The choice is only ever the parents, and should only ever be that way.

11. At 11:05am on 25 Jun 2010, Steve wrote:

"The elephant in the room is that 98 per cent of the nearly 200,000 foetuses aborted annually in the UK would have been born as healthy babies if allowed to proceed to full term. In that context it is irrelevant whether abortion occurs at 24 weeks or 20 or 16 or at all. It is just wrong that in practice we have abortion on demand when the law makes clear that it is only legal when strict criteria are met - those criteria are ignored daily for the sake of people avoiding the inconvenience of the child they have conceived. The 24 week debate is no more moral than a debate about which form of execution is better."

So, you'd happily see the UK population swell by 200,000 a year with unwanted children? Are you going to finance this? I think we're already over crowded and I pay more than enough tax to bail out other people's poor life choices thank you very much.

Despite your views on abortion, I think we can all agree that it is truly mind boggling how many people find themselves in the position where they need an abortion in an age where contraception is available free at any family planning clinic. Mankind seems to have deluded itself into thinking we live in a consequence free world.

"15. At 11:22am on 25 Jun 2010, Steve wrote:
To those posting here that "pro-lifers" should pay for unwanted children - everyone should be pro-life because the alternative is being anti-life. You either respect life or you do not. A child is conceived by the act of two people and those people have the moral responsibility to follow that through."

Steve I truly admire your optimism but morality, responsibility and self control are concepts which are dying.

As I was an unwanted baby, (born sadly in a pre-PC, dark time where responsibility still existed) if any selfish "pro-lifers" want to contribute retrospectively to my adopted parents, (for the burden which was my birth) please contact me as I am sure they would appreciate the funding.

BronnyV wrote:
People take the risk of getting pregnant so they should deal with the consequences.


People take the risk of having an accident when driving but we still cut them out of their cars, treat their injuries and help them with rehabilitation after they've had an accident.

If we were to apply your logic then we'd end up shutting down our emergency response teams who deal with traffic accidents because drivers knew the risks when they stepped into their car and therefore should deal with the consequences.

In fact we'd never have bothered inventing seat belts, ABS systems, air bags, crumple zones or any of the other safety devices we have on modern cars because people know the risk they're taking and should just deal with the consequences.


The pill is only 99% effective so for every 100 women who use it 1 is at risk of becoming pregnant.
3,000,000 women use the pill in the UK so 30,000 of them are at risk of becoming pregnant even though they are taking adequate preventative measures.

NO, NO, NO! A Woman's right to choose!

Abortion is a personal choice and a very difficult one at that. People who decide to go through one will have thought through the actions and consequences thoroughly. Whichever side of the fence you're on, don't make it any harder for them than it already is please.

This is an attempt to dehumanise the human being in it's early developmental stages and is really an irresponsible disgrace.

Regardless of how much pain is felt by the human developing in the womb at any stage it is just as bad as murder at any age.
Would the scientists and pro abortion people mind being aborted at that young stage?
Maybe then the world could develop some ethical human rights for children in the womb.
It is the taking of innocent human life at whatever stage and is wrong. There is an adult disease which removes the feeling does this give doctors and secularists the right to kill them also?

Little is known by science about the nature and origin of consciousness and the child is conscious in the womb and responds to music and the external environment.
At any stage of development you are killing a human life, trying to dehumanise it is reckless and irresponsible.

Whether humans have fully developed all of their nervous system at that stage is neither here nor there, it is still the killing of innocent human life.
Also trying to dehumanise the child by calling it a foetus instead of a human is another ploy to dehumanise.

Human life should be sacred, valued from the moment of conception and human development. Human beings should have human rights from conception and not continue to be dehumanised and killed in the womb in brutal ways by the secular culture and ethos.

#28, to some extent I do agree.

People seem to think that abortion is another form of contraception, it isn't!! Instead of putting money into research as to whether or not a foetus can feel pain, maybe more money should be put into contraception and teaching teenagers that it's not "uncool" to use contraception.

As far as I am concerned, as soon as a foetus' heart begins beating it is murder after that. Someone may not "feel" being shot, that doesn't make it acceptable.

23. At 11:36am on 25 Jun 2010, Lynn from Sussex wrote:
The world is over populated.

err Lynn that's really a dangerous slope you're on...

Don't get me wong I love random statements of fact.

Here's another:

Atleast 7/10 cows have never seen themselves in the mirror. I can't prove it but I'm sure it's true as I have never seen a cow with a mirror.

30. At 11:46am on 25 Jun 2010, Phillip of England wrote:

If I could, I would.

Unlike you, I value human life in all its forms and choose to protect where I can instead of killing for the sake of convenience.

Must make you dizzy all the way up there in your ivory tower?

-------------------------------

And you can. Give your money to the adoption services who always have a surplus of children to care for. Adopt children regardless of the affect it will have on your lives, even if you have to sell your car, home and possessions because the life of the child is more important than your lives.

You getting dizzy at the thought of not affording your ivory tower?

Why do these stupid scientists assume that the experience of pain is the only morally significant fact in debates of this kind? There are complex ethical issues concerning living beings - and not just those associated with religious perspectives.Don't let the scientists fool you with their discussions of pain. Remember when a being is dead it feels no pain and that applies to all of us.If pain was what matters then euthanasia for all would be OK if the victims were suitably drugged.

I am sure that those who speak about the rights of an unborn baby, and those who dismiss such rights, are capable of reflecting on our moral duties to life at many stages - the entire debate about global warming is ultimately bound up with obligations to future unborn generations.

Yes the abortion limit should be changed to zero weeks and days. Abortion is a horrible thing and should never be advised or recommended by the authorities. Killing unborn humans is never a solution and will leave the mother with guilt and trauma either consciously or subconsciously.

When you secularise society and drain away the significance of human life and creation then gradually killing children in the womb becomes an acceptable form of contraception, the next step is eugenics and building a pure race.

This nation has the blood of millions of unborn human beings on it's hands.

This country shells out millions of pounds to doctors each day. When I workded in theatre as a nurse back in the 1980s doctors were being payed an extra £25 per abortion.

Abortion in this day and age is completely wrong! Yes people get themselves into unmanagable situations but on the other hand there are people who are spending a lot of money trying to get pregnant. So save money stop abortions and adopt, it's really that simple. It would cut out costs of the proceedures and the depression many women feel after aborting their child.

When I gave birth to my daughter in 1990 she had to go to the neo-natal unit and in a incubator beside her was a wee girl who was born at 23 weeks gestation.

Stop abortions full stop!

Very few abortions are carried out at 24 weeks. Most abortions (91 per cent in 2009) were carried out at under 13 weeks gestation. Only around 1.5% are after 20 weeks so changing the limit wouldn't make any difference.

People are not having late abortions as a 'life-style choice. Late abortions are usually for medical reasons where the baby wouldn't have survived or would have been severely disabled.

To state that a baby cannot feel pain before 24 weeks is complete rubbish. My eldest daughter was born at 23 weeks gestation and she could feel pain. Unless there is a genuine medical reason, then no abortions should be allowed

Let the limit stand at 24 weeks.

As has been said, the world is overpopulated and while we argue over a foetus, we willingly rape and pillage our planet and its animals. And the animals we kill, sometimes in horrific circumstances for our so-called pleasure can feel pain and do scream.

Are all pro-lifers vegans? If not then they have double standards and therefore should be ignored.

The Doctors are surely more expert on the Subject to express a firm opinion on the matter which requires utmost care not to inflict any harm to the carrying Mother anyway. There always remain a chance of our continuing to confront with the issue; so long we unable to withstand the uncontrollable desire for doing of an act of sex very much unprepared often ignoring the possibility of an unintended conceiving but getting rid of it at an early stage before the colliding eggs takes a form is always a better option than doing it late enough which might cause a damage to the ovary to an isolated one although no such damage is yet noticed by us. Nonetheless, it is worth taking the chance than allowing an unintended one joining us in an inappropriate time.

As far as forming of one’s life within the womb is concern, the forming of the body of the baby is the action of the all powerful invisible force inside to issue a call to those remaining assorted outside of it even beyond the surrounding to join together to form it correctively carrying an absolute order together. The more is the call remaining refiner, the more is the body become perfect and healthy.

(Dr.M.M.HAZARIKA, PhD)

Sick how the media and "scientists" keep referring to the unborn child as a foetus continually trying to dehumanise what is a developing human individual which should have human rights.

The human rights of the new unborn child should take precedence over womans right to kill it or secularists support of the killing.

QUOTE: "Abortion is wrong!
It should be banned out right!
Don't want kids? Then don't have sex, it’s as simple as that, no ifs, no buts."


How sensitive of you! So victims of rapists should be FORCED to have their babies? given the choice would Josef Fritzls daughter be free to decide about continuing her pregnancy after being raped by her own father?

Whilst this is a very emotive issue, it does come down to one thing - each womans right to decide for herself, and NO-ONE no matter what their positioning, be it legal, political or religious has a right to interfere with that womans right to decide.

You think abortion is wrong, that is your right to decide for YOU, it does not however give you the right to make this decision for anyone else!

34. At 11:51am on 25 Jun 2010, Steve Edwards wrote:

"What muddled thinking. Firstly, I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks an unborn but viable foetus has the right to live and also supports the right to euthanasia."

I was very accurately shooting pro-lifers with their own argument. Since you agree with both I guess you accept the right that because a child can have such a bad effect on a persons life they will want to die because the child destroys their life. All because of an accident. A lifes lesson.

"You say "it's your right" to die - I've got no problem with that. But then who stand up for the rights of the unborn baby? The are confusing the right to die with the right to kill."

What baby? It isnt a baby yet as it has to develop into a baby. I suppose you dont cut your hair at all because your terminating cells intentionally? What makes a collection of cells more important than another?

"Put it another way, if an unborn baby (let's use that term for a viable foetus rather than a non viable one) can be aborted at 24 weeks, why not at 28 or 32?."

Because it is terminating cells before becoming a life. Just as you cut your hair and kill cells. The cells are creating a factory. It isnt concious or feeling and yet it is somehow assigned this greatness of something it may or may not become.

"And if 32 is acceptable, where is the line drawn? Is it right to be able to abort at any time the baby is in the womb? But if that's the case what's the difference between that and "aborting", say five minutes after delivery? Or an hour or 2?"

Murder is different to removing a collection of cells. Otherwise I recomend you complain that people are not concieving every time because the collection of cells is dumped by the mother every month. Or is 1 collection of cells above another?

Hi there,
this is the first time i have commented on such a contravertial topic.
Im an 18 year old male and i belive that our generation has to many opertunities to shape their lives how they want, this can be good however it also can be a negitive thing for example when a human life comes into the situation. I know for well that males will never have to face this impossailbe dicsion directly however we still do face it, and in a way have a more dificult task as we dont have many rights.

The arguement that a HUMAN fetus doesnt feel pain so its ok to abort (or kill the baby), is absolutly insane. Just becusce one (the fetus in thisa case) does not know of the situation doesnt make it right. Take the holcust for example, the people in europe didnt know about what was happen to the jews but that didnt make what the nazis were doning any better. Effectively they are they same situation both are the taking of life weather you are not born yet or 100 years old the taking of someones live is killing.

Im not saying take abortion away compeletly busceuse that is completly irational and you can take rights that have been given in a democartic contry. What i am saying is to reduce that time in which one can have an abortion. I belive that people dont get enough information on abortion to make a rational decsion. Abortion is propoted to our generation as a good thing that will allow you to get on with your life, without giving the facts about how it can also destory as person self estiem and soul.

If the coalition want to make cuts in wasteful expenditure then sack these buffoons from the Royal College of Obstreticians and Gynacologists who cannot tell the difference between a scientific issue and a moral one. Their work has no value and any first year undergraduate could see this. Sack them immediately.

This is not a pro/anti abortion debate. It is merely a question of timing. Let the law reflect the facts as stated in the report.

25 = In the end we all have morals which are subjective and based on your experiences. Trying to force your limited morals onto everyone is wrong because 1 size does not fit all.

1 size Abortion kills definitely. I object to getting others immoralties forced onto us! If your morals are 'its ok to kill' - keep it. There is such a thing as right and wrong and I am afraid your are way off beam.

I am pro-abortion; I believe every unborn child has an absolute right to abort its mother....

42. At 12:04pm on 25 Jun 2010, Bibi wrote:
NO, NO, NO! A Woman's right to choose!

No it's not a woman's right to choose. Yes, she can consent to the act of procreation but once this is done and a baby has been conceived then it is both parents right to the imput and development of their pregnancy.

4. At 09:52am on 25 Jun 2010, ian cheese wrote:
"Let the pro-lifers finance unwanted babies if that is their gripe about abortion."

Money shouldn't be the issue with this debate. Otherwise we might as well get retirees to jump off cliffs, that would save us a fortune. Anyone who knows anything about the medical establishment knows that they are just that, an establishment. They do in their own way what Widgery and Hutton do in politics - preserve the status quo and serve vested interests. Babies can suck their thumbs at 15 weeks. One can speculate about the pain they feel at 24 weeks but as with the God or MMGW debates the absence of conclusive proof does not negate the possibility or probability of a given scenario being true and as such a safety first approach is surely sensible.

The arguments about the world being over-populated are ridiculous. Let's kill everyone when they reach 65 then shall we? Or the unemployed - what use are they?

Why should people have an unwanted baby? Well, why should they have an elderly or disabled relative who might cause them inconvenience? Because it is morally wrong to do otherwise! Children, unwanted by their parents, can be adopted by the hundreds of loving couples who are unable to have a child of their own and who would cherish them.

As others have said, the question of an absence of pain is irrelevent, even if it could be proven: new brain pathways are discovered all the time. A child dependent upon it's mothers body is still as much a child as one who is dependent upon a parents care after birth. They are neither independent or capable of adult thought but no one would advocate killing a toddler! Few people are capable of survival without depending upon society.

As Steve Edwards comments, unless we have some mystical belief, what is the difference 5 minutes before or 5 minutes after birth? A child is a human being at whatever stage they are.

The only times an abortion is morally acceptable are in the case of very severe disability, certainty of death anyway or the threat to the life of the mother.

What right do people have to comment? We all have a right to decide what is right and wrong in our society. If any are denied that right who will object when it is another vulnerable section of humanity?

I'm not sure why we are still having this debate. The idea that "life" exists from fertilisation onwards is an entirely religious conceit, based on personal belief and/or church doctrine. Thanks to several hundred years of religious bloodshed, we have established the principle of Freedom of Religion in Britain. The implication here being that no-one has the right to impose their religion on those who don't share it. Therefore abortion should be available on demand. I'm not sure why we still have to beg a pair of doctors for their approval either.

Just because a foetus cannot feel pain is no reason to deny it life. That logic means its fine to kill off adults who feel no pain because of nerve damage. Life is life and there is the right to life. All this debate is irrelevant to that.

If you don't like abortion then don't have one.

Or is this debate really about religious minorities trying to dictate their world view to the rest of us?

I'm neither Pro or Anti life. It's the decision of the woman concerned, not the Government or anyone else's. She will have to live with her conscious for the rest of her life.

28. At 11:40am on 25 Jun 2010, Phillip of England wrote:

Don't want kids? Then don't have sex, it’s as simple as that, no ifs, no buts.
----------------------------

Dont want speeding fines? Then dont drive.
Don't want to get fat? Then don't eat
Don't want to get poor? Then don't spend any money.

I could go on .....

Sorry all you have expressed is your opinion. And I'm afraid that doesn't count for much. I'm sure that there are things you do with your life that are wrong in the opinion of other people but it is over simplification just to say "Don't do it"

To those who want to stop abortions....what right do you have on this issue. It has been lawful since 1968. Do you really want to go back to back street abortions where women died because they could not seek out medical surgery. And at 24 weeks....yes it should stay the same.

48. At 12:14pm on 25 Jun 2010, Davidethics wrote:
Why do these stupid scientists assume that the experience of pain is the only morally significant fact in debates of this kind?


Always good to start your reasoned argument by calling you opponnents "stupid". This is a delicate matter for many, many women. Rant such as yours doesn't add clarity.

Cannot believe you haven't published my comment at No.17 (yet). The meaning was simple; If it's presumed OK to kill a foetus because it's supposed not to feel pain, then why is not possible to kill anyone -OF ANY AGE- providing you administer a pain killer first?
Some people are terminally ill, or suffer chronic pain, but they are not even allowed to give permission for their own lives to be taken.
The findings prove nothing whether you are pro or anti abortion!

There exists an enormous disparity between the laws governing abortion and euthanasia. in our society it's perfectly legal and largely socially accepted to be able to "dispose" of viable human beings up to 24 weeks. premature babies born around this stage can survive given the correct care, and will grow up leading normal lives. yet when we are dealing with the terminally ill who themselves do not wish to spend their last months in severe pain or sedated to the point of being comatose, the law treats those who euthanise pretty much as murderers. as a society we place a huge taboo on euthanasia, yet the termination of viable potential human life is somehow seen as OK by many.

my personal opinion is that abortion should be a last resort, and probably only available in extreme cases such as rape or with medical conditions. if it's down to a lifestyle choice, you should live with the consequences of your actions. there is still the adoption route - considering all the couples having IVF, lifestyle-driven abortions are simply not necessary. at the same time, laws governing euthanasia need to be rewritten from scratch. after all, we readily put our beloved pets out of their misery so they don't needlessly suffer. time we extended that compassion to ourselves.

Should the abortion limit be changed?
No, but…
I do think it’s important that expecting mother’s have good care during pregnancy, including the normal tests to show the status of the baby as well as the mother. Potential parents have a right to know – long before 24 weeks – that there is something wrong with mother or child. They should have the right to terminate for conditions that will cause undue suffering to either.
Do you agree with the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists?
I cannot disagree. I’m not an obstetrician or a gynaecologist.
I believe that healthy, but unwanted babies, should not be aborted; rather, the mother should be encouraged, supported to have the child and give this tremendous gift of new life to parents who cannot conceive.

Michael, did you actually just compare abortion to the Holocaust?

Let it stay at 24 weeks. Ive no time for pro-lifers almost all are hypocrits who in most cases support the death penalty and a majority are men who have no right at all to tell a women whats she does with her body..

38. At 12:00pm on 25 Jun 2010, Anaiya wrote:

"The limit should be changed, based on this new scientific research. If people disagree with abortion, then the answer is simple - don't have one."

Unfortunately, for many potential fathers they do not have that choice. A woman may destroy the unborn child even if it is wanted by the father.

49. At 12:16pm on 25 Jun 2010, Gold wrote:

Yes the abortion limit should be changed to zero weeks and days. Abortion is a horrible thing and should never be advised or recommended by the authorities. Killing unborn humans is never a solution and will leave the mother with guilt and trauma either consciously or subconsciously.

When you secularise society and drain away the significance of human life and creation then gradually killing children in the womb becomes an acceptable form of contraception, the next step is eugenics and building a pure race.

This nation has the blood of millions of unborn human beings on it's hands.

-------------------------------------

Impressive. Instead of trying to inflict your limited moral point of view onto everyone else (didnt the witch burning work the same way?). You extend to telling people how they feel. Do I assume your empathic and can feel what everyone is feeling at will? Or are you assuming under very limited experience that your marality is the only right morality? Shocking enough the religions try to tell people they are moral when facts show the opposite.

How do you know more on the subject than the scientists who have a great deal of experience and knowledge while working in this field regularly?

I have long been a pro-choice advocate. I've never had an abortion myself, but I would defend to the death any woman's right to have one.

That said, I would prefer the limit to be brought down to 20 weeks. The neurological pathways and pain receptors are not fully developed at 24 weeks but they have started to develop; therefore I feel it would be prudent for any abortion to take place as soon as possible.

Of course there will always be exceptions where the mother's life is at risk or maybe where the mother hasn't even realised she was pregnant; quite obviously this should be allowed for in any change of law.

It never ceases to amaze me what people will do and say to justify the unjustifiable. Foetal pain is a red herring, even if it were true it doesn't answer the question as to whether abortion justified. Imagine justifying the killing of a one day old child who was felt no pain due to a medical condition. If this couldn't be justified then why so in the womb? There is really only one question in the abortion debate and that is whether or not the foetus is a human being? Well, they are the by- product of two human parents and they exist. Therefore, how can the killing of an unborn child ever be justified, regardless of when it may or may not begin to feel pain.

"47. At 12:13pm on 25 Jun 2010, in_the_uk wrote:
And you can. Give your money to the adoption services who always have a surplus of children to care for. Adopt children regardless of the affect it will have on your lives, even if you have to sell your car, home and possessions because the life of the child is more important than your lives.

You getting dizzy at the thought of not affording your ivory tower?

After not being on here for weeks I'm learning so mand facts for example:"

Adoption services ALWAYS have a surplus of children
The world is over populated and abortion is the answer
Having a baby is similar to driving a car...I'm not quite sure how but it is...something about putting a key in err...nevermind
Abortion is always the womans decision
Abortion is the parents decisions (which is a bit of an oxymoron if you think about it)

But the "in the uk" you hit the nail on the head. Children do impact your life and means you must sacrifice money, free time and your lifestyle. If you can not accept these things there is a simple solution don't have sex. The problem of unwanted pregnancy and STD's instantly go away.

40. At 12:02pm on 25 Jun 2010, frank_grimes wrote:

"As I was an unwanted baby, (born sadly in a pre-PC, dark time where responsibility still existed) if any selfish "pro-lifers" want to contribute retrospectively to my adopted parents, (for the burden which was my birth) please contact me as I am sure they would appreciate the funding."


Would you rather have never been born?

28. At 11:40am on 25 Jun 2010, Phillip of England wrote:
I don't care for your arguments of rape, deformity or "I am just not ready to have kids!". Abortion is an abhorrent, vile and thoroughly uncivilized practice and not in keeping with anything to do with a civilized society, which we claim to be.

The vast, vast majority of abortions carried out in this country are for no other purpose than post-intercourse contraception and this is something to be deeply ashamed of. It has nothing to do with religion, atheism or any other belief or stand point

There are no ifs or buts on this subject, no emotive or scientific rhetoric or propaganda for the benefits of this disgusting practice.

Abortion is wrong!

It should be banned out right!

Don't want kids? Then don't have sex, it’s as simple as that, no ifs, no buts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right, wrong. Black, white. No ifs, no buts. No argument brooked.
And then you accuse others of living in ivory towers.
Irony's not your strong suit, is it ?

The abortion industry insists on the procedures to improve revenue. The money is invested in the stock market, corporate bonds, and property. The surgeons are profit-motivated and pathological liars. Clinics should be carefully regulated to reduce their eugenics argument.

The pain a foetus might or might not suffer, is not as relevant to the debate as some are proposing. If human life begins at conception, then abortion is still wrong whether a foetus suffers or not. It is also worth pointing out that the lastest research is 'inconclusive' which means there is still a possibility that a foetus does feel pain before 24 weeks. The same argument could be used to euthanise terminally ill adults who are under sedation. Just because a person doesn't know what's happening to them, doesn't mean it's ok to kill them. Abortion is simply wrong in principle, and the only circumstances which it could be morally justified is when a mother's life is threatened.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

My query is that unborn babies can not feel pain in the womb, so what happens when a woman has an abortion between 20 - 24 weeks? Babies aborted at this stage can in some instances be born alive - do they feel pain then?
I lost my son at 20 weeks and I say this relucatantly but thankfully he was stillborn, I know of others whose babies have been born before 24 weeks and because of the rules they have had to watch their babies suffer and fight for breath - surely they must feel pain? You have to also think of what happens with these babies afterwards, they are usually mass cremated or buried with other babies that have been terminated or lost.
I recall reading just after I lost my son about a mother who decided to abort at 22 weeks just because she didn't want another - could she not have done that much sooner? It's not just a simple process - you are effectively induced in order to give birth in the later stages.
For me, a standard termination it should be brought down to 12 weeks except in exceptional circumstances where an upper limit can be reviewed on a per case basis.

28. At 11:40am on 25 Jun 2010, Phillip of England wrote:

I don't care for your arguments of rape, deformity or "I am just not ready to have kids!". Abortion is an abhorrent, vile and thoroughly uncivilized practice and not in keeping with anything to do with a civilized society, which we claim to be.

--

Philip

If your sister/mother/wife/daughter was raped and became pregnant, would you really and truly support a law which forced her to have the baby? Would that be the 'civilized' thing to do?

61. At 12:25pm on 25 Jun 2010, prexiousMary wrote:

1 size Abortion kills definitely. I object to getting others immoralties forced onto us! If your morals are 'its ok to kill' - keep it. There is such a thing as right and wrong and I am afraid your are way off beam.

--------------------------------

Imorrality forced on you? So your forced to abort? Fact is its a choice, therefore not forced.

There is such thing as right or wrong. In your opinion I am wrong, in my opinion you are wrong. So where does your right and wrong stand? Subjective? In that case you cannot assume you are right and therefore cannot complain at the choice being available.

56. At 12:22pm on 25 Jun 2010, richard bown wrote:

"You think abortion is wrong, that is your right to decide for YOU, it does not however give you the right to make this decision for anyone else!"

And yet we make the decision that murder is wrong. If I thought that it was okay, so I sedated my victim and killed him without him feeling any pain, would that be okay? Would you then stand up for my "right to choose" to end a life?

As this debate is about timing rather than a total ban, why is pain the only thing being considered? Surely viability should play a part too. If a child born at 23 weeks can survive by itself, then why not simply deliver all unwanted foetuses at that stage and give them a chance to fight for their own life?

A Foetus is not definite 'Life'. It is a 'chance of life'. There is no guarantee that any unborn foetus will survive to become a child, even if carried to term and delivered.

People who become pregnant are advised not to announce the news until after 3 months because the risk of miscarriage prior to that point is significantly higher. Perhaps that, therefore, should be the limit for abortion. The level at which nature might take it's course and deny that chance of life anyway.

67. At 12:34pm on 25 Jun 2010, zergon wrote:

Just because a foetus cannot feel pain is no reason to deny it life. That logic means its fine to kill off adults who feel no pain because of nerve damage. Life is life and there is the right to life. All this debate is irrelevant to that.

------------------------------------

A foetus is a non concious collection of cells. Since your so against aborting it you are also against cutting your hair and not concieveing every month?

I also assume your vegetarian and dont consider fruit and veg as life? Never kill an insect?

It's really not about whether the foetus feels pain or not

A life is created upon fertilization...a foetus at 24 weeks is a life regardless of whether it can exist outside the womb or not..

I feel for those people who have handicapped children, it must be so hard but these children bring joy and happiness to their parents and family and people who come into contact with them...I sit on the side of 'reference to life', not 'quality of life' and really feel uncomfortable about screening followed by abortion in those select cases

And, emotive, though it is people who talk of abortion as murder I think have a point

I feel really uncomfortable about the abortion issue - I forget why it was introduced, but it seems to me now, based on what I read in papers and online, to be a substitute for contraception for some people and a filter enabling 'designer babies' for others...not widespread I know...

I don't talk about it in public as I don't know whether any my friends will have had one or know someone who has had one and I've never had to face this decision with a partner, I just know it's not the ideal we should be aiming for

There was no new evidence last week either, but we didn't make a discussion about it.

Doesn't take research to be "not any wiser".

#67. At 12:34pm on 25 Jun 2010, zergon wrote:
"Just because a foetus cannot feel pain is no reason to deny it life. That logic means its fine to kill off adults who feel no pain because of nerve damage. Life is life and there is the right to life. All this debate is irrelevant to that."

Cancer is life, is it wrong to kill cancer?

What if medical science doesn't have all the answers?
What if the experience of pain doesn't have to depend on nerves?

According to Buddhism, from the moment of conception the body and mind (from the previous life) are conjoined and thus there is a living being who experiences pain. All abortion, at whatever foetal age, is therefore painful. It's the mother's decision whether she has an abortion or not but surely she must consider the life inside her which is not just a bunch of cells to be disposed of but a living, feeling being?

I feel compassion for the mother and the child. Such decisions must be heart rending.

The thing that bothers me about the pro-lifers, is that they think they have the right to put their hands inside someone else's body and say what should happen to it.
They talk about people having abortions 'for convenience'. They must have a shallow view of humanity if they don't think this is a difficult decision for nearly all women. They seem to see it as if she thinks 'oh dear, bit busy this week, better abort'. What rubbish.
Pro-lifers go on about giving this foetus a chance of life, but what about the woman? Does she not have a chance of life too? You want to force her to have the child against her will, then you bring it up.
Some women are ill-educated, come from backgrounds where there is little or no sex education and do not understand completely the implications of some things they do.
And finally, I ask the pro-lifers, do you never make mistakes? Have you never done something stupid out of ignorance, a moment of madness, or peer pressure? Would you like your whole life to be ruined to pay for this moment?
This is why I support this ruling. The pro-lifers have not walked a mile in everyone's shoes so what gives them the right to say what is best for them? It's simply moral judgement, and your own morals are your own choice and nothing to do with the arrogant who like to spend their lives condemning others to make themselves feel more important.

"There is no evidence that..."

Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.

Personally its all too easy to have an abortion, how many abortions are a result of a drunken night out. If you cannot take responsiblity for your own body, should you really be allowed to bring a child into this world.

Its all too easy to get pregnant and live of the state. Sadly the reality is many young mothers suffer in silence.