Is it time to change the abortion law?

Question

The church wants the abortion time limit lowered from 24-weeks to 20, as they claim that technological advances means that foetuses can now survive even if they are born before 24 weeks gestation.

Should the church and Government change the law? What about women who do not follow the church? Why should they be allowed to make the decision for women?

What do you think?

Answer 1

No and if they did, what an infrigement on womens rights.

Answer 2

i use to work at a abortion clinic, i personal feel that it should be lowered to 20 weeks BUT having seen women come into the clinic 21weeks plus and seeing there distress of the whole situation then the law should not be changed as the abortion done from 20-24 weeks is a very small percentage. What should happen is that early abortions 9weeks and below should be more easily accessible to women and also child as young as 13 should be told about abortions and sex education. The reason i say this is, is when working in a abortion clinic there was an increasing number or under16s coming in. These kids are unable to talk to there parents and really have not got a clue on sex education. So instead of the government trying to change laws maybe they should look at the school education first then hopefully there would not be a need for abortion at such a late stage.

Answer 3

I usually get very angry when other 'authorities' get to make major morality-based rules in which we can have little or no say, but this particular issue is so confusing that I don't know what outcome to want.

I don't like the idea of abortion at all, but I recognise that women should have the right to do it. The 'survival time' argument shouldn't really make much difference - it doesn't really alter the act at all, but there is something disturbing about killing a foetus that is starting to resemble a baby. Weighing it all up, I think it should be left open for each individual to decide.

And as for the church, they only way that they should have any say is if they form a political party and the electorate votes them into government, and we know that's never going to happen in the UK.

Answer 4

No, I think it is a womans right to choose. What happens to those women who decide they can't have their baby for medical reasons and those who have found out that their baby has health problems and think they cant cope?

Abortion may not be everyones first choice but an institution, or the church, does not have the right to make those choices for anyone, followers or not. All women are, or at least should be, briefed and councilled about what they can expect and are given the choice to change their mind if they want. The church should leave it at that. Its better to not have a child than to have a child you will resent or not be able to look after. There is too much of that already, we dont need the church forcing other mothers into a decision that they dont want to make.

Answer 5

It is true that technological advances have made a difference to survival rates but I think the limit should be left as it is. Many NHS trusts do not scan before 20 weeks and if there is something wrong with your child it is only right that you have four weeks to consider your options - some people would not be able to cope with a seriously disabled child and in some cases it would not be fair to bring such a child into the world. Without enough time to think things over parents may make decisions (either way) that they regret for the rest of their lives.

Answer 6

If abortion laws were changed, you'd likely see an increase in crime 20 years down the road. Wade vs. Roe had far reaching implications beyond giving women the right to decide what happens to their bodies. The declining crime rates in North America have been shown to be linked to the outcome of that case, and this makes perfect sense. Giving women the ability to choose when they will have a family has resulted in fewer unwanted children that ill-prepared (whether financially, mentally or both) mothers could not or would not take care of. A child that is wanted will likely be more loved and cherished than an unwanted child. Women who lack the financial means to raise their children will likely be unable to properly supervise them, or pay for childcare and this could lead to a slippery slope into criminal activity. Rather than turning back the clock, we should be focusing on the welfare of our future. Enough children are forced into this world only to face dire poverty and limited life opportunities. This is something we should all be focusing our energies on.

Answer 7

I agree with the limit being lowered to 20 weeks because of technological advancement, however in certain cases, risk to the mother etc then later on is apropriate. I'm not religious but believe in what is best for the woman. There has to be a limit and while I don't believe that abortion is murder I believe that if the foetus is viable then it should be allowed to develop apart from in exceptional cases.

Answer 8

I think it's OK to change it to 20, but all in all, we know the catholic church wants to get rid of the thing altogether, and once they start making those demands, and getting their requests met, they'll ask for abortion to be gone completely.

People should be able to have an abortion if they want; if someone has been raped, and got pregnant, they should be allowed to have an abortion without being judged.

And to what Kat said, what about the men, who just leave the women, should they be allowed to get on with their lives? Not all women go sleeping around.

Answer 9

The Church--- no matter which Church it is--- should NOT be involved at all in the decision-making process for any laws. That's against the separation of Church and State. A lot of fundamentalist Christians do not seem to understand this.

Some right-wingers condem other societies for mingling religion and politics when it's Muslimism. But they think it is OK for the Christian church to be mixed up in American politics. This really, really scares me. I don't hate the Christians--- or any religious group--- but I don't want someone's interpretation of their faith to be impacting the laws! It's a very dangerous precedent.

If Government wants to change this law based solely on scientific fact and the wishes of the voters, so be it. I may not agree with it (or maybe I do, it doesn't matter) but a decision made by the majority and based on fact, not emotion/religion/etc should win.

Answer 10

"The church wants"!!
That got right up my back before you even mention whatever it was the church wanted, the church is not the law, the church is an organisation set up to rule !
If people are needing to believe in God then fair play, that is up to them, they do not need a church and all it's trappings to do so! They do not need any 'Holy books' to believe in God , women have the right to decide for themselves if they want to terminate a pregnancy or not !
I will go so far as admitting that they may require medical advise, but not from any religious nutter, but from an independent medical doctor!
I am not qualified to judge when and if a pregnancy should be terminated, but neither is the church , the church should stick to dishing out bits of bread and wine to the true believers and leave medical matters to the medics!!
Thanks I was glad to be given the opportunity to get that off my chest!! whether it helps or not!!

Answer 11

The Church should not have the right to influence this law. Not even the government should chnage it. I think that every single woman in the world, in every country, should have the right to choose if she wants to have a baby or not. Mainly when she is to have it with a guy who left her and says he would not help her. Should she pay for that mistake to the extent of letting her life be spoiled by the birht of a baby? And by, for instance, not being allowed to finish her education, being left by her family, while the boy lives happily??!