Vive La France!

[space junkie]

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

The survival rate is only 50/50 for those infants receiving postnatal intensive care.

For babies born at 23 or 24 weeks the chance of survival if they receive intensive treatment is about 50:50.

The rest are given comfort care until death.

Only three out of ten premature babies (23 to 24 weeks) will survive and most have them will suffer some morbidity.

Reducing the cut-off time removes the choice for many women and condemns them to a lifetime of care for a disabled child.

Caring for a child with a serious lifelong disability can have a huge impact onfamilies.It is important to know that most parents of children who were born prematurely adapt to the challenges of caring for the child, whether or not the child has a disability.
However, if the child does end up with a serious lifelong disability, some parents may come to wonder whether it was right to choose the intensive treatment option.

This might even cause a marital break down.

I can only base my comments on the available UK based data:

For every 1,000 babies who need neonatal care in the UK, we estimate that:

• 25 are extremely preterm (being before 28 weeks of pregnancy)

That's 2.5% of babies born prematurely, i.e. before 28 weeks. All of which will require intensive postnatal care.

It's not broken down by individual weeks premature. But it's a conservative guess that far less than 2.5% born at 24 weeks or before survive to discharge.
Maybe, as your article claims that 50/50 of those receiving intensive care, (less than 2.5% of live births). But that's a very different data set to how many actually survive at 24 weeks or before.

But all of this is academic if we accept that the health of the mother, parents, other children, future siblings, etc is taken into account.
Shifting the moral responsibility for survival from the mother to the child seriously adversely affects women.

 

[space junkie]

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".

You're beginning to rely on insults alone.
This is because I'm finding holes and gaps in your arguments.

 

[motorbiking]

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.

There is nothing like solving problems that don’t exist of fixing things that aren’t broken.

 

[noseall]

It's not illegal before that.

Abortion is still illegal in the UK. The Act is merely a vehicle enabling abortions to be performed lawfully, as long at the terms of the act are followed.

 

[noseall]

There is nothing like solving problems.

Yes, like the issues regarding the two doctor approval process, that many distinguished doctors and those in medicine, have campaigned to have relaxed or changed.

Don't tell me you've forgotten them already?

 

[ajohn]

There is nothing like solving problems that don’t exist of fixing things that aren’t broken.

The aren't broken factor seems rather stronger than the need to fix to me but politician are what they are.

Googling the 22 weeks mostly brings up prolife type links mentioning that the speaker may allow the amendment to be heard. From their point of view really 22 weeks or any other period is still an abortion.

The person in the woodpile is really the pills by post aspect. NI do not have that facility. They go to a suitable medical centre and take the first pill there. That at least means a visual check of the pregnancy and maybe a scan by default or if there is any reason for them to wonder about the time period. The pill misuse does seem to be related to prosecutions.

Gov up the creek without a paddle again? Go back to 1st pill in a medical facility again? Maybe a fine or something or the other?. Better education about what happens if the medical rules aren't followed? Or just do it and see what happens? The cases currently were the police get involved is a truly tiny proportion of abortions. Some of the proposers arguments seem to be rather weak to me but should a women finish up in jail is the main aspect.

Denso of course has studied the entire abortion legal framework also the motion. I haven't and feel that the basic framework would be rather torturous.

Seems we may know where it is all going within a couple of weeks. Phase 1 anyway.

 

[motorbiking]

Abortion is still illegal in the UK. The Act is merely a vehicle enabling abortions to be performed lawfully, as long at the terms of the act are followed.

If only we had a word for something that isn’t illegal.

 

[JonathanM]

Only three out of ten premature babies (23 to 24 weeks) will survive

That is what I said originally

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.

 

[motorbiking]

Yet you keep trying.

 

[denso13]

Go back to 1st pill in a medical facility again?

No need, everything seems to be working fine as it is. Sometimes things don't go quite right across everything we do. This is no different.

 

[JonathanM]

Yet you keep trying.

I hate being rude, and not answering, when someone has taken the trouble. But I've never been the one to start a conversation with him. He's been niggling at my posts, pretty much ever since he joined the board. It's almost as if he knows me from before somehow! I can't shake him off.

 

[space junkie]

That is what I said originally

But it depends on the availability, (and supply of advanced intensive medical provision).
And that data is based on advanced countries with available free (or extensively insured) (not dependable on the ethnicity of the mother) medical care.
It's not the run-of-the-mill that you suggested.

 

[space junkie]

I hate being rude, and not answering, when someone has taken the trouble. But I've never been the one to start a conversation with him. He's been niggling at my posts, pretty much ever since he joined the board. It's almost as if he knows me from before somehow! I can't shake him off.

If you post misleading data, and suggest you don't have an opinion, when you so obviously do, you can expect to be criticised.

 

[JonathanM]

If you post misleading data, and suggest you don't have an opinion, when you so obviously do, you can expect to be criticised.

I have never posted any misleading data. I posted the only article I was able to Google, which discussed public opinion, on the issue of reducing the abortion time limit. The article was clearly dated and all the polls it referenced were also clearly dated. I don't think anyone but you was confused by the article. It wasn't exactly difficult to understand. And it was actually seven years more recent than the Parliamentary Report which has been so heavily relied on in this discussion. Maybe the real reason you found it difficult to understand was that you struggle with simple data. For instance, when you thought, initially, that the survival rate in the UK for 24-28 week premature babies was 2.5%! When what you were actually quoting was the percentage of babies who are born at 24-28 weeks.

I have never suggested I don't have opinions. What I am able to do, however, which seems beyond your comprehension, is discuss all angles of a topic. Sometimes, I will even post an article which gives a counter opinion to the one I hold, to help further inform the debate.

If my opinion on abortion is so obvious, why don't you tell me what you think it is?

 

[space junkie]

That is what I said originally

I see you are now selectively quoting part of what I said:

Only three out of ten premature babies (23 to 24 weeks) will survive and most have them will suffer some morbidity.

I've gone on to discuss that viability is not the only factor to be considered, the life time consideration of the parents caring for that child with serious morbidity problems, the effect on the two parents, their immediate family, the other existing siblings, and future siblings, society in general needing to allocate additional resources to such issues (which invariably divert resources from elsewhere because resources are not infinite).

To place a value on a possibly viable premature baby, which will probably suffer with morbidities, over and above the health and wellbeing of everyone else is an extreme pro-life argument.
The current living people must have a higher priority than committing them to a lifetime of care for the unknown, based on some religious ideology.