Blog-Ed

Man that's really sick, makes me feel so uneducated. Is that type of abortion legal in the UK?, bloody hope not!

Personally I think abortion has it's place - if it's done early on. It's not a situation I agree with people getting into in the first place, but life aint ideal, these things happen. Burst condom, morning after pill, no problem with that. Girl gets pregnant by some fluke and doesn't know for a month or so, perhaps an abortion is best. Tragic death/break up of family, again perhaps better to abort than bring the child into the world. Personally i'd preffer to have it adopted than aborted. Perhaps carrying a child is a threat to the mums life.

I was chatting to a midwife on my leadership training course and found out something that really shocked me. Babies have been born premature in the UK and have survived , but they have been born well before the latest date you are allowed to have them aborted.

To me this is wrong, once the child can be born/delivered and survive then it is a life in it's own right. All the time that it can't I see it as a part of the parents body and so (if it's appropriate) then abortion is an option.

That's my take on it anyway. If it can live then it is a life, hence it should have the same rights as anyone else. You can't 'abort' an old person who relies on machines (consious) to live and can't communicate, so why should you be able to abort a baby that is in the same situation but has a whole life ahead of it?

Urm... what Adam said. At one point the child is just a small collection of cells which is totally dependent on the mother. At the other end of the scale, those cells have become a life capable of self-sustanance. Somewhere in there is the line. I lay claim to very little knowledge in this area so far be it from be to place the line, but the procedure outlined there seems to me to be on the wrong side.

However... if carrying the baby is going to threaten the mother's life and that procedure is the safest way of saving her, then what should be done?

On your last point Joe, yeah it is indeed a difficult thing! Apparantly only 2200 of the above types of abortion occured in the US last year, and it's only meant for things where the mother is at risk, but I'm sure it's not hard to pay the doctor to 'put' you at risk...

Wow, an intellectual debate on Blog-Ed. How novel.

I am in favour of abortion, a big supporter in fact. Abortion, apart from preventing a huge number of deaths and disabilities, has stopped a lot of women from ruining their lives, and prevented a lot of unwanted babies from being born. These are good things. However, it is not something to be taken lightly - I have attended two terminations and in both cases the women were absolutely terrified beforehand. It is not a pleasant procedure.

Abortion has been legal in the UK since 1967. It can only be carried out before 24 completed weeks, although the NHS will not do it for social reasons after 20 completed weeks. Incidentally Adam, your miwife friend is talking crap - there are no recorded cases of babies being born before 24 completed weeks and surviving; their lungs don't work, and their hearts aren't strong enough.

However, partial birth abortion is a horrific procedure. Thankfully, it is not legal in the UK and is never likely to become so. In outlawing it, the US has made a good move. What people are worried about, though, is the fact that the Republican Party are very sympathetic to the pro-life movement. People in the US are worried that this may lead to a complete ban on abortion.

Incidentally Ed, it is very easy to declare a woman at risk. The mortality of the termination procedure is lower than that of childbirth, so continuing the pregnancy is always putting the mother's life at greater risk.

I was waiting for your comments Tom, thanks :)

The more I think of it, the more amazed I am that the NUS condemned the banning of this horrific act! They are a strange bunch. Yeah, OK, so it might be a sign that they may outlaw abortion completly in the future, but in reality they have just banned something that I feel should have never been allowed in the first place! Fight them stopping the less sadistic abortions in the future!

Maybe if they feel strongly about it they should lobby the government here to allow this form of abortion (I think this may make them change their minds when they think about it!).

What's more likly in my mind is that they just heard that a form of abortion had been banned by Bush (so it was wrong in two counts) and jumped on the pro bandwagon without actually engaging a braincell.

Idiots.

Much like any sutdent organisation, NUS politics are dictated by people who stand up and shout, so are swayed by pressure groups and activists when nobody else is bothered enough to oppose in sufficient quantity.

Clearly in my advanced years I've become somewhay cynical about it, but have started to pay less and less attention to what the SU does.

Yup.
The NUS should concentrate on issues which directly affect students, such as tuition fees. Most students don't want to be part of a political movement that tells the world what students think on issues such as abortion. We all think differently. On most issues.
If all students truly believed what the NUS said, then the union shop would only have to stock the Guardian and the independent because "oh we'd never buy tory papers, especially rupert's", and they'd of course, not need to stock tabloids because of course "we're all too clever for that". But the times rather well AFAIK, as does the Sun. ( I realise the left-wing broadsheets may indeed still sell best)
It's bullshit what the NUS say we all think.

Most universities have societies representing all political parties, and usually several degrees of every major religion. They can speak for themselves on political issues not relevant to students, and moral issues.

Cheers,
JB

I was interested to read that there are no recorded cases of babies being born before 24 completed weeks and surviving.

I was reading a article in the New England Journal of Medicine (co-ordinated at the QMC :) ) about outcomes of live births between 22 and 25 weeks gestation. It indicated that one baby had survived at 22 weeks, and twentyfive at 23 weeks. The levels of disabilty /were/ high, but one at 22 weeks, and eleven at 23 weeks survived without overall disability at 30 months.

The article is:
Neurologic and Developmental Disability after Extremely Preterm Birth

Nicholas S. Wood, Neil Marlow,Kate Costeloe et al.
The New England Journal of Medicine.
August 10, 2000; Volume 343 Number 6 p378-384

Whilst I'm not attempting to say survival at such an early gestation is common, or uncomplicated - it ceratinly exisits, and babies have survived.

Maybe an apology is owed to the midwife?

Ok, I'll admit that I was wrong on that one, although I was quoting a consultant paediatrician. I'll know better next time.

However, 26 children in the UK in five years is as near to zero as makes no odds. It certainly isn't statistically significant. You certainly can't base healthcare decisions on those kind of numbers. I think 24 weeks is still a good cut-off because, practically speaking, babies don't survive before 24 weeks; a few fluke cases don't change that.

The other reason is that a lot of significant abnormalities aren't picked up till the 20 week scan. You have to be able to give the mother the choice of aborting a severely disabled fetus without rushing her into a decision. See my point above about unwanted babies; an unwanted disabled baby is far worse off even than an unwanted healthy one.

Bottom line, I personally belive that, until a baby that can survive is actually born, the rights and wishes of the mother are more important. But, to return to the original topic, that doesn't justify babaric methods of abortion.

More to the point: Why is the NUS wasting its money on something which does not affect British students?

Paddy