Amended Abortion Bill

Firstly - if you're going to come into the thread and go on about abortions being murder bla bla, please dont bother.

I just heard on the news that a labour MP wants the current abortion law changed to allow abortions to take place up to and after 24 weeks and went HAAAAANG on a minute, this doesnt sound good. So I went to Nzherald.co.nz and read the article myself.

Mrs Chadwick's Abortion Reform Bill would take abortion out of the Crimes Act, making it solely a health matter and a choice for the patient, at least in the first part of pregnancy. She said it would remove the requirement for patients to gain the prior approval of two "certifying consultants", encourage abortions to be performed earlier in pregnancy, and increase access to medical abortions. Before 24 weeks' gestation, registered health practitioners could carry out an abortion at the patient's request. It would be regulated like any other medical procedure. After 24 weeks, abortion would be permitted if a medical practitioner believed it was appropriate medically and with regard to the patient's "current and future physical, psychological and social circumstances".

Now, this I agree with. I dont think it should be part of the criminal act - women have the RIGHT to choose what is right with them of course. I also agree with the last part of the quote - mostly because of a friend of my mothers who discovered at the 20 week scan (which was done at 24 weeks due to travel issues) that their dear little baby was suffering from a condition that caused her to not form vital parts of her skull and other bones in the body. They of course couldnt terminate the pregnancy and knew that the baby wouldnt likely survive the birth, so they chose to have a DNR for her. The hospital ignored the DNR and now they have a terribly disabled child who will most likely die within the first year of her life (she's 6 weeks old). I think it's great that people will be able to make a better choice for the child if it's going to be severely disabled / will die at birth etc.

I also like that they want to regulate it like any other medical procedure so that women cant use it as a form of contraception - which they DO! Couldn't believe it when I heard that.

Anyway here's the link: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10656210

Will be interesting to hear other peoples thoughts.

kebakat wrote: I'm mixed about it... I don't really agree with later abortions just cause they don't want the child that late in pregnancy. Early abortions I have no issue with..

I am the same, imo though I think that abortion that late should only happen if there are serious problems with the baby... I guess it depends what risk the mother is at too... E.g is she likely to kill herself if made to continue with the pregnancy or not. (Hope that came out as I intended)... I think if it's a case of her having mixed feelings through out then deciding nope and seeing as she can have one that late she'll go through with it, then it shouldn't be allowed.

Early abortions I have no problem with either, as I've had one. TBH I found the whole process easy, but not quick. The doctor who confirmed my pregnancy was the one who suggested abortion to me as I was 17 - he didn't give me a change to consider being pregnant or anything just said it's a positive, you can have an abortion. Was a slow process, I had severe vomiting and weighing f**k all to begin with lost over 10% of my body weight. So from finding out to going through with it took almost a month. Being 17 I had no idea really what I was getting myself into either.

ETA: I agree women have the right as well, and it shouldn't be a crime, under the right circumstances imo.

Edited by Lil_Nic9

decided to delete...

Edited by freckle

My only reason for having an abortion when I did was cause I didn't want the baby. It wasn't anything to do with age at all. I was 25. I guess for me the whole experience wasn't difficult at all, and probably why I've had no problems since.

Seems the NZ model creates more problems than it solves.

We were offered termination at 20 weeks, and while it wasnt our choice, I would support a bill that encouraged the option later in a pregnancy due to medical reasons without the drama, my concern would be on the base of the sex of the baby. I expect these situations would hopefully be few and far between but what a thought.
It definately should not be a criminal offence, and Im sure the ethical reasons for late pregnancy abortion would far out weigh the 'irresponsible choices'
I remember the panic when I chose to terminate 'in time' after finding out rather late in the piece that I was pregnant under circumstances that werent going to be good for anyone involved, I wasnt a baby , It would be a horrible situation for an unsupported young woman to be in

I actually commented on the yahoo discussion about it, which I dont often do, but I once watched a programme where a little girl asked her Mummy what the word 'f**k' meant - the mums response was a very nasty word for a very beautiful thing - I believe if we put more effort into teaching our children about the reasons people choose to have sex we could make a dent in the very high stats for teenage abortion. I certainly wish someone had taken the time to chat to me about the emotional side of sex as a youngin and I hope I can instill some of that knowledge in my children

I knew someone a long time ago who did have more than one abortion and used them as birth control it was awful and sad and should not be allowed to happen. She was preggies 3 or 4 times close together as well. Don't agree with it at all.
I don't agree with abortion.Mainly because of my values, beliefs, faith and how long it took us to have our babies.

My concern is if this bill goes ahead what is the cut off? 25 weeks
30 weeks e.t.c?? the baby is vaible and should be put up for adoption, rather than aborted.

yummymummy2 wrote: My concern is if this bill goes ahead what is the cut off? 25 weeks 30 weeks e.t.c?? the baby is vaible and should be put up for adoption, rather than aborted.

agree entirley - where and who draws the line once viability is possible - it opens a huge can of worms thats for sure
Obviously those who have found conception difficult will have very strong feelings, for absolute due reason
but also if this is not extended do those who would otherwise have not been able terminate without medical reason find themselves with children that are unwanted, seen as a burden or mistreated because of the sudden rush of love they feel when that little baby is in their arms and they cant give them to worthy adoptive parents.
Surely this too creates an ethical dilema in the mental health of both parents and unborn children, which in my opinion is also just as important as simply been given the chance to exist
I sure wouldnt like to be the person ticking the box to say yay or nay

That is true about a cut off, but depends on circumstances e.g health concerns for mum or bubs (serious).

freckle wrote: kiwi2 wrote: This is a touchy subject. I think that the first trimester rule should stay. With the exception of the baby/mother having a legitimate medical reason to terminate. In cases like this I think that the easier and quicker the better. There is no first tri rule... you can abort during the second trimester up to 20 weeks with the same requirements as the first trimester.... i.e. consent from two Drs... the only difference being it must take place in a hospital. I think the aim of this is to allow termination beyond this point...

I didn't know that. I think the earlier the better. I definately don't think it should be after this point and not sure how I feel about it even being up to this point seeing as I always thought it was up to 12 weeks.

I think the proposed bill is good but there does need to be set a cut off point. It is saying that it would be for medical and physiological reasons and as long as this is regulated then it should be good. People shouldnt be able to abort the baby at a late stage just because they dont want it or for gender selection and I think (and hope) medical professionals would be good as judging this.

For those saying that adoption is better than abortion I think it comes down to the person carrying the baby as to what they think. The person may not be able to cope emotionally or physiologically with the effects of a carrying a baby and it would be in their (and babies) best interest to abort the baby.