Vive La France!

[JonathanM]

D) Premature babies have 0% chance of survival without extensive postnatal care. This sort of extensive postnatal care is only within reach of a very small group of people.

The "very small group" you refer to includes every pregnant woman in the UK.

E) the increase in survival rate of premature babies is due solely to improvements in postnatal care, not to any evolution of the gestation period.

Only an idiot could think otherwise. I despair at your thought processes sometimes.

 

[noseall]

So, just to repeat my very simple question. The 24 week limit was based on the viability in 1990. If the viability has improved by two weeks since the 24 week rule was introduced, isn't it just logical to reduce the time limit by two weeks?

Have you looked at any negative consequences, in reducing the limit? Those old dodderers inside Parliament are always reluctant to amend laws that have stood the test of time.

 

[motorbiking]

Why bother when 95% happen well under the time limit. It’s like lowering a speed limit when nobody is crashing or driving too fast.

 

[noseall]

Why bother when 95% happen well under the time limit. It’s like lowering a speed limit when nobody is crashing or driving too fast.

I've said the same myself - when I likened it to promising all your staff a million pound bonus when they reach their 133rd birthday

 

[Brigadier]

Why bother when 95% happen well under the time limit. It’s like lowering a speed limit when nobody is crashing or driving too fast.

Dangerous analogy..........

 

[space junkie]

No it isn't. It is a pooled study from developed countries, including the UK.

That's true to an extent, the early studies were mainly UK/Ireland and the later studies were mainly Japan (with an outlying extremely low birth rate), Sweden (with excellent medical facilities number 8 globally), and Australia (Ranks 1st or 3rd depending on the comparison)
So the studies are based on carefully selected country's data.

You seem to have a very bad habit of twisting simple and undisputed information to try to suit your argument. It is pointless and quite boring. Going back a few months, there was another poster who I had to stop engaging with because he kept doing this. He was called Roy Bloom. Unless of course you simply don't understand it, in which case apologies.

And you are clearly scouring the internet for reports that support your ideology.

The UK has amazing care for premature babies. Every bit as good as in the USA. The techniques are the same in all developed countries, because the medical community share them. This is not an area where the NHS skimps on resources.

The US model of medical is very seriously tiered depending on your medical insurance.
I suspect minority communities medical insurance leaves a lot to be desired.
The minority communities also suffer in UK for different outcomes in pregnancy.
As the study you presented selects countries on their medical care ranking, for the most recent data, it's perfectly feasible that the demographics of the study was also skewed.

The rest of your post is word salad. For instance you wrote this:

Do you really think the viability in the UK is 2.5% between 24 to 28 weeks? It is actually 40% at 24 weeks, rising to 90% at 28 weeks. I don't know how to have a discussion with someone who gets such basic facts like that so wrong.

Where do you get this data from? You don't support it with any articles, reports, data, etc.
The figures I presented were for premature babies (24 to 28 weeks) surviving postnatal care. Do you really think that all babies of 24 to 28 weeks do not all require postnatal care?

And none of this really matters. I was really interested in people's views on the principle. So, just to repeat my very simple question. The 24 week limit was based on the viability in 1990. If the viability has improved by two weeks since the 24 week rule was introduced, isn't it just logical to reduce the time limit by two weeks?

There's the risk of creating a population with greater morbidity, more people requiring constant medical care, etc.
The possibility of the viability of the infant should not be the only consideration.
Termination is still a choice, and most termintions occur before 12 weeks.
If prospective mothers have left it until the 24th week, there's a high probability the pregnancy was intended, and desired.

 

[space junkie]

The "very small group" you refer to includes every pregnant woman in the UK.

Every premature birth, yes, probably, but currently I'm guessing the majority of births are after full term.
But only a small group have the opportunity of "extensive" postnatal medical care.

Only an idiot could think otherwise. I despair at your thought processes sometimes.

The discussion seems to be going downhill because you are resorting to insults.

 

[JonathanM]

Have you looked at any negative consequences, in reducing the limit? Those old dodderers inside Parliament are always reluctant to amend laws that have stood the test of time.

Why bother when 95% happen well under the time limit. It’s like lowering a speed limit when nobody is crashing or driving too fast.

There is likely to be a debate in Parliament about reducing the limit to 22 weeks. Ahead of that, I had wanted to discuss the pros and cons and was hoping for more than "if it aint broke don't fix it". On the face of it, those proposing the change seem to have a very strong case, based purely on logic. If the 24 week limit was based on viability in 1990, and viability has improved by two weeks since 1990, then a reduction by a corresponding two weeks appears logical. But there will be other factors and that was what I was hoping to discuss. I have now found a very good article in the Independent which makes some strong arguments against a change.

Health chiefs voice fears over MP’s move to cut abortion limit

Exclusive: President of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said they are against any reduction in abortion time limits

www.independent.co.uk

 

[JonathanM]

Where do you get this data from? You don't support it with any articles, reports, data, etc.
The figures I presented were for premature babies (24 to 28 weeks) surviving postnatal care. Do you really think that all babies of 24 to 28 weeks do not all require postnatal care?

Info below from the NHS on survival at 23/24 weeks. Did you really think that, with all the advances in medical care, only 2.5% of babies born 24 to 28 weeks could survive?

https://www.bsuh.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/09/Information-for-parents-of-babies-born-early-around-23-to-24-weeks.pdf

They would be taken to a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. The chance of survival with intensive treatment is about 50:50.

 

[JonathanM]

The discussion seems to be going downhill

Every discussion with you goes downhill. It is also extremely boring because, every time, I need to think "what is the most ridiculous way this person might try to misinterpret my post".

 

[ajohn]

There is likely to be a debate in Parliament about reducing the limit to 22 weeks

Likely is the correct word as it seems to be a proposed amendment. The aim of the bill as it stands is to remove the illegal aspects from abortions past 24 weeks which has caused women to be put in prison. What appears to happen is the rules are broken and the women finds herself in need of a hospital. If there they notice a departure from the law the police get informed so they get to investigate a small number of abortions each year. Not going to look for the link again. I recollect ~30.

The bill is expected to be passed as the illegality aspect was removed in N Ireland a while ago. More recently a complication has been mentioned. NI use a different system. All 1st pills are taken under supervision. No pills by post. Given the reduction in the load on the services by post gives I doubt if they would like to go back to the NI system.

22 or 24 weeks. In some respects connecting with premature births is very academic. It doesn't give a clear picture of the premature aspect just assuming survival is certain and no other problems. Perhaps a more important aspect is the procedures used with respect to the foetus in later term abortions. Does it suffer? Steps are taken but are they the best ones?

 

[denso13]

The aim of the bill as it stands

The Bill is the Criminal Justice Bill which is wide ranging. There are two proposed amendments which might not get called for a vote, one is to reduce the abortion time-limit from 24 weeks to 22 weeks and the other is aimed at decriminalising abortion.

 

[ajohn]

aimed at decriminalising abortion.

Past 24 weeks. It's not illegal before that. Using a none registered abortion service will be against the law. Departing from the rules about gestation time and what method to use? The services might report that when and if they become aware of it. It seems they do otherwise there would be no attempted prosecutions.

The drive behind the main motion. A rather crazy lady given what she attempted finished up in jail Sentence reduced under appeal but still not that short. The other aspect - the stress on the lady when the police do investigate. There is even talk if women buying defective pills that do not work - made in a cement mixer in china type idea. I suspect that is pushing it as the effects of the pills do not take all that long to have an effect but it will delay the time to an effective abortion.

The other factor is false negative pregnancy tests. They crop up. Iregular periods don't help if a women has them.

The pills by post effect - that could result in a redraft or yet another amendment,

 

[space junkie]

There is likely to be a debate in Parliament about reducing the limit to 22 weeks. Ahead of that, I had wanted to discuss the pros and cons and was hoping for more than "if it aint broke don't fix it". On the face of it, those proposing the change seem to have a very strong case, based purely on logic. If the 24 week limit was based on viability in 1990, and viability has improved by two weeks since 1990, then a reduction by a corresponding two weeks appears logical. But there will be other factors and that was what I was hoping to discuss. I have now found a very good article in the Independent which makes some strong arguments against a change.

Health chiefs voice fears over MP’s move to cut abortion limit

Exclusive: President of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said they are against any reduction in abortion time limits

www.independent.co.uk

The Independent is incorrect.
After 14 weeks in France the criteria is similar to the current UK criteri:

In France and Spain, the cut-off point for an abortion is 14 weeks.

Health chiefs voice fears over MP’s move to cut abortion limit

Exclusive: President of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said they are against any reduction in abortion time limits

www.independent.co.uk

Abortion in France is legal upon request until 14 weeks after conception (16 weeks after the pregnant woman's last menstrual period).[1][2][3] Abortions at later stages of pregnancy up until birth are allowed if two physicians certify that the abortion will be done to prevent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; a risk to the life of the pregnant woman; or that the child will suffer from a particularly severe illness recognized as incurable

Abortion in France - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Again, there are more issues to be considered than the simplistic occasional survival of the infant due to advancement of medical science.

Dr Lord, who is co-chair of the British Society of Abortion Care Providers, warned that curbing the cut-off point could actually increase the number of abortions taking place, adding that it is highly rare for terminations to be carried out after 22 weeks.
Read more...

Health chiefs voice fears over MP’s move to cut abortion limit

Exclusive: President of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said they are against any reduction in abortion time limits

www.independent.co.uk

 

[denso13]

Past 24 weeks. It's not illegal before that.

No, up to 24 weeks. It is illegal at any time if the criteria in the Act are not met. Decriminalisation would remove the need to meet any criteria, before 24 weeks.