Abortion Laws

[danieldemol]

Some women who fall pregnant will never consider a termination of pregnancy, but they also understand that they are unable to provide for them. In this case the government already takes responsibility for the child as a ward of the state, or ideally become adopted.

This sounds sort of like proposing a stolen generation in my view. If the woman wants the child but can't provide for them then if the state has the resources to provide for them as a ward, the state could provide those resources to the mother to care for the child.

A very small percentage of women will access termination services at 22 weeks and there are only a few scenarios I can think of.

(1) Allow for the termination to occur as is at 22 weeks onwards, accepting the fetus can feel pain

I believe this is more or less what we are stuck with in cases of health risk to the mother for example.

(2) Consider avenues in the procedure that will minimize pain, such as general anaesthesia

According to my understanding these have already been considered. Here is what I found by googling, perhaps you have alternative sources?;

'there is no known safe and effective fetal analgesia/anesthesia to offer in the context of abortion.'

Source: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...9cILegQIHxAA&usg=AOvVaw12IyxIWQEg2t7n8LeykeeQ

'For instance, general anesthesia increases abortion morbidity and mortality for women and substantially increases the cost of abortion. Although placental transfer of many opioids and sedative-hypnotics has been determined, the maternal dose required for fetal analgesia is unknown, as is the safety for women at such doses. Furthermore, no established protocols exist for administering anesthesia or analgesia directly to the fetus for minimally invasive fetal procedures or abortions. Experimental techniques, such as administration of fentanyl directly to the fetus and intra-amniotic injection of sufentanil in pregnant ewes, have not been shown to decrease fetal pain and are of unknown safety in humans.'

Source: Fetal Pain.

(3) Encourage the woman to carry the pregnancy for the remainder of the pregnancy, with the government providing some form of support to the woman until delivery

I believe the government should be able to continue support *after* delivery

What you are suggesting would be effective only IF all or most women who were accessing termination services at or after 22 weeks were unqualified and/or unemployed, AND they had intentions to become qualified and/or employed before they became pregnant.

Can you explain why it would not be effective for those cases where some of them were unqualified/unemployed?

And can you explain why it would matter if their intentions changed during the course of their pregnancy regarding getting qualifications/employment?

 

[GoodAttention]

This sounds sort of like proposing a stolen generation in my view. If the woman wants the child but can't provide for them then if the state has the resources to provide for them as a ward, the state could provide those resources to the mother to care for the child.

This is not a proposal, it is a fact some women will not undergo a termination AND they will willingly give their child up for adoption.

I believe this is more or less what we are stuck with in cases of health risk to the mother for example.

According to my understanding these have already been considered. Here is what I found by googling, perhaps you have alternative sources?;

'there is no known safe and effective fetal analgesia/anesthesia to offer in the context of abortion.'

Source: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...9cILegQIHxAA&usg=AOvVaw12IyxIWQEg2t7n8LeykeeQ

'For instance, general anesthesia increases abortion morbidity and mortality for women and substantially increases the cost of abortion. Although placental transfer of many opioids and sedative-hypnotics has been determined, the maternal dose required for fetal analgesia is unknown, as is the safety for women at such doses. Furthermore, no established protocols exist for administering anesthesia or analgesia directly to the fetus for minimally invasive fetal procedures or abortions. Experimental techniques, such as administration of fentanyl directly to the fetus and intra-amniotic injection of sufentanil in pregnant ewes, have not been shown to decrease fetal pain and are of unknown safety in humans.'

Source: Fetal Pain.

Fantastic source! I had a good read, and 22 weeks isn't even the gestation period to consider

It has been proposed that transient, functional thalamocortical circuits may form via subplate neurons around midgestation, but no human study has demonstrated this early functionality. Instead, constant SEPs appear at 29 weeks’ PCA, and EEG patterns denoting wakefulness appear around 30 weeks’ PCA. Both of these tests of cortical function suggest that conscious perception of pain does not begin before the third trimester.

Because pain perception probably does not function before the third trimester, discussions of fetal pain for abortions performed before the end of the second trimester should be noncompulsory

I believe the government should be able to continue support *after* delivery

Yes, your proposal of free childcare for 12 months so the unqualified/unemployed can become functional members of society.

Can you explain why it would not be effective for those cases where some of them were unqualified/unemployed?

I didn't say it would be ineffective, only that it would be insignificant in the context of your "22 weeks" deterent unless all or most of them were unqualified/unemployed.

And can you explain why it would matter if their intentions changed during the course of their pregnancy regarding getting qualifications/employment?

No, it doesn't matter, that is correct.

Ideally they had the intentions already, but if they were to become "responsible adults" during the course of the pregnancy then so be it.

I'm not saying what you are proposing isn't useful, but it is still a long bow to draw given what you are proposing is improving women's lives so they can become working mothers, and not specifically preventing 22 week terminations.

 

[danieldemol]

I didn't say it would be ineffective, only that it would be insignificant in the context of your "22 weeks" deterent unless all or most of them were unqualified/unemployed.

Well I don't have any statistics of why women get post-22 week abortions, so I can't judge it as insignificant without that knowledge in my view.

Also even if post22 week abortions due to lack of qualifications/employment is insignificant percentage wise in my view the cessation of unnecessary human suffering wherever practical is still highly desirable.

 

[GoodAttention]

Well I don't have any statistics of why women get post-22 week abortions, so I can't judge it as insignificant without that knowledge in my view.

Also even if post22 week abortions due to lack of qualifications/employment is insignificant percentage wise in my view the cessation of unnecessary human suffering wherever practical is still highly desirable.

I agree with what you are saying, and if we are to consider a falling birth-rate to be a negative phenomenon, then we should also have laws that would allow for unwanted pregnancies to be carried to term.

The fact that 22 weeks is 2 weeks shy of viability should be a reason for society to consider whether termination at that point is the only option for women.

 

[danieldemol]

I agree with what you are saying, and if we are to consider a falling birth-rate to be a negative phenomenon, then we should also have laws that would allow for unwanted pregnancies to be carried to term.

The fact that 22 weeks is 2 weeks shy of viability should be a reason for society to consider whether termination at that point is the only option for women.

Forgive me for quibbling your agreement, but I would prefer it to be in the hands of doctors and their patients rather than in the hands of a society a portion of which may be ignorant of medical necessities of the mother.

But I agree that mothers should be preferably informed of other options available to them at that point where applicable.

 

[GoodAttention]

Forgive me for quibbling your agreement, but I would prefer it to be in the hands of doctors and their patients rather than in the hands of a society a portion of which may be ignorant of medical necessities of the mother.

I sincerely doubt you would find much support within the medical community to want to have themselves front and centre of this debate.

Their collective opinion is important when the laws are not conducive, or prevent them from providing access to care, but you won’t find them lobbying to be in the middle of it.

But I agree that mothers should be preferably informed of other options available to them at that point where applicable.

Yes, as it stands post-22 week terminations require 2 professional opinions, but if there is no immediate risk to a woman’s life and the fetus is healthy, then society should consider whether termination of a viable pregnancy at 24 weeks should happen, and whether it is better to instead delivery these babies to the care of the state.

 

[Madsaac]

Abortion is safe for the fœtus?

I must admit I have trouble understanding why people care so much about something that is no where near developed, it doesn't care if its terminated, it just doesn't matter, does it?

Its the mothers choice, she's the one doing all the work and will have to do all the work, not the foetus.

I'm a father and if my wife said to me at 24 weeks I don't want this particular baby but we'll have another, I would have said, yeah no worries