Nadine Dorries MP launches cross-party campaign to reduce abortion limit to twenty weeks

Image of baby in utero at 18 weeks >

An all-party effort to reduce the abortion time limit to twenty weeks has been launched today - with a front page splash in The Daily Mail.   The campaign which already enjoys the support of 200 MPs and is coordinated by Nadine Dorries, Conservative MP for Mid Bedfordshire, has launched a website.

The website lists twenty reasons for reducing the time limit to twenty weeks.  They include:

• High profile cases of babies surviving well below 24 weeks like Manchester's Millie McDonagh, born at 22 weeks, and the world's most premature baby, Amillia Taylor, who was born a week younger, both in October 2006.
• High resolution 3D ultrasound images, pioneered by Professor Stuart Campbell, have shown babies in amazing detail 'walking', yawning, stretching and sucking their thumbs in the womb.
• In top neonatal units, such as in Minneapolis, Minnesota, 80% of babies born at 24 weeks and 66% of babies born at 23 weeks will survive. Recent figures from University College London are similar.
• Recent research, such as that by Professor Sunny Anand from the University of Arkansas, has shown that fetuses are well enough developed to feel pain down to 18 weeks gestation.
• Stories of babies born alive after botched abortions, as young as 16 weeks, are increasingly common and have understandably shocked the public.
• Britain has the most liberal abortion laws in Europe. A termination can be obtained up to 24 weeks of pregnancy - double the limits in France and Germany and six weeks later than in Sweden or Norway.

Amanda Platell backs the campaign in her Mail column, citing heart-warming stories and changing science:

"A ten-ounce marvel with the most extraordinary fighting spirit, her tiny feet poke through the doctor's fingers.  As the world's most premature living baby, Amillia was born in October 2006 at just 21 weeks.  And this remarkable child not only confounded medical expectation but her very existence poses a conundrum for all of society.  We live in an age in which the chances of survival for a premature baby born before 24 weeks have improved astonishingly. Yet still we cling in Britain to a legal limit of 24 weeks for abortions - a limit that takes no account of recent medical advances and has been in place since 1990."

Below is a YouTube video portraying a scan of an unborn child at twenty weeks.

Comments

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Good luck to her!

[ACT]

Sayeth Tim: "Image of baby [sic] in utero at 18 weeks". Thus kicking us off with lie #1 of the anti-abortionists: it's *not* a baby. It can certainly, God and nature willing, become one, but plainly, to the naked eye even, it's *not* one at the point at which this picture was taken. If you can't tell the difference between a baby and your picture, well, your other opinions on the subject are liable to be set at something of a discount.

[Tony Makara]

No doubt those who oppose the death penalty for child killers will be the very people who argue in favour of abortion. So shall it be to this wicked generation.

[Tanuki]

Ms. Dorries seems to be confusing embryos and people.

I wonder if she has the same sort of difficulty differentiating between an acorn and an oak-tree?

[Ashton]

Abortion law should be based on the facts, not questions of terminology or religion. If scientific study shows the sensation of pain at 18 weeks ("walking, yawning, stretching and sucking thumbs cannot be real tests: they could be simple reflexes)and if babies are surviving at the current 24 weeks, then the time limit should be moved.

[Andy]

I don't see the relevance of the survival rate of babies at a certain time as the reason for setting the abortion limit.

When the time comes science is able to take an fertilised egg at 1 week and develop it fully in a synthesised womb, will we use that as an excuse to ban abortion totally?!

Yes, it may be able to feel pain at 18 weeks - but animals feel pain too, and that doesn't stop us killing them.

24 weeks does seem a long way in tho, and there may be a good reason to lower it - but not those above!

[Bob Jenkins]

My reading of what Ms Dorries is saying is that she is arguing for these changes because of advances to medical science, for example the work of several neo-natal pediatricians who have demonstrated that an embryo or fetus is capable of feeling pain before the complete development of the central nervous system, perhaps this is why I have been told doctors inject fetuses, which are being aborted after 20 weeks with anesthesia.

Before attacking Ms Dorries perhaps we should remember that the Conservatives when in Government allowed a debate on and the lowering of the abortion limit. This move took into account the huge advances in medicine that had taken place since 1967.

Survival rates for premature babies have increased. A friend of mine who has been a midwife for years often tells me how thanks to better care children who would have died 20 years ago now survive.

I think everyone can agree that since 1990 medical science has advanced again and whilst I am no doctor, it seems right to debate this issue to make sure we have got the limit right.

Does anyone else find it shocking that Britain is quickly becoming the abortion capital of the world with 200,000 abortions every year and yet there still seem to be a small group of leftie liberals within the feminist movement who try to squash any discussion on this issue - Why should we not be discussing this?

Finally there also needs to be a discussion about what constitutes a disability, as there has been several newspaper articles about fetuses being aborted with minor defects, which can be easily corrected with surgery. The current legislation talks about serious disability, it seems grossly dishonest to abort for minor disabilities which can be corrected with surgery.

Just a couple of thoughts.

[Mark Fulford]

I disagree with both the intention and the execution of this campaign. The intention is clearly to ban abortion, this being the "got to start somewhere" step. The execution is one dimensional, notably failing to call for measures that would reduce the demand for late abortions – e.g. better sex education, increased availability of contraceptives and easier access for early terminations.

[Jennifer Wells]

That's rdiculous Mark. Why don't you address the points Mrs Dorries makes rather than accusing her of wanting to ban all abortions? You are not being reasonable.

I am certainly persuaded.

If life can be sustained outside the womb after about twenty weeks we shouldn't be aborting it.

[North East Tory]

It seems clear to me that this campaign's roots are not based in science they are based in Dorries' view of morality. The science is simply being used as a smoke screen for socially conservative MPs to force a predominantly socially liberal country into making abortion more difficult.

The baby being able to survive outside the womb makes no difference to the 14 year old girl who's accidentally gotten herself pregnant, who's now got to spend the rest of her childhood raising a child she didn't want but couldn't abort because of Nadine Dorries. The fact I don't think it's appropriate for 14 year olds to be sexually active and definitely not sexually irresponsible, doesn't mean that we should be legislating to ruin her life.

[Jennifer Wells]

The child could be adopted North East Tory.
Your argument about the difficulty of raising a child could just as easily apply to a three month old child or a one year old child.

The issue here isn't the difficulty of being a mother (important though that is) but whether the law should protect life after it reaches a certain level of viability.

[Richard]

"The science is simply being used as a smoke screen for socially conservative MPs to force a predominantly socially liberal country into making abortion more difficult"

The fact that she may have a moral agenda doesn't mean that her scientific arguments should be ignored.

Another point to remember is that there was a poll on this a while back showing majority support for a reduction from 24 weeks.

[Ashton]

Jennifer: "The child could be adopted"

As ideal as that situation could be, I don't believe it's ever as simple as squeezing the child out and handing it over. Maternal instincts are bound to develop almost instantaneously, and it could be more psychologically damaging for an unplanned mother to give away her child once it's been born. As long as it's early enough, abotion is the safest course.

[Jennifer Wells]

Adoption may not be easy Ashton but the young mother will at least know that she gave her child the chance of life.

[Mark Fulford]

That's rdiculous Mark. Why don't you address the points Mrs Dorries makes rather than accusing her of wanting to ban all abortions? You are not being reasonable.

Nadine Dorries told Woman's Hour that she was concentrating on late abortions because "there are 200,000 abortions in the UK on a yearly basis" and "we have to start somewhere". Since Nadine herself has explicitly linked this campaign to abortion as a whole, not just late abortions, it’s perfectly reasonable for me to point out her intention.

It’s also perfectly reasonable to point out the dimensions missing from the campaign.

[Goldie]

Abortions at 24 weeks are clear acts of barbarism. I find it chilling to read the comments of the Andy's, Tanuki's and ACT's of this world, who speak so callously of killing embryos.

Abortions are killing human life, not potential human life. All of us were embryos at one point.

Now, there may be some grey zone, very early on in the pregnancy, where killing the embryo could be permissible. But we can never, ever forget that is what we doing, killing it.

[ToryJim]

"The foetus is effectively asleep [...] like a heavily sedated adult. As early as 13 weeks the foetus will show a reflex action to pain.

"But I question the word pain. If you take an adult who is fast asleep and tweak his toe, they will show a strong reaction but they will not wake up and they will not remember."

Professor Maria Fitzgerald, from the University College London.

[ACT]

If abortions are infanticide, go and kill the doctors performing them then. Parliament can't ever make murder legal. And since - according to you - they have, by legalising 'abortion' (child killing to you), your moral duty, I would have thought, is clear cut: stop the killers by all means possible. Unless, at some level, you recognise the simple fact that, from conception to humanity is a slightly longer journey that the solitary beat of an angel's wings.

[IRJMilne]

"When the time comes science is able to take an fertilised egg at 1 week and develop it fully in a synthesised womb, will we use that as an excuse to ban abortion totally?!"

Possibly - there's sense in that, in my opinion.

Good luck to Nadine Dorries.

"If you take an adult who is fast asleep and tweak his toe, they will show a strong reaction but they will not wake up and they will not remember."

Is it OK to kill someone, so long as they don't consciously notice pain and do not remember their murder?

[Matt]

I think Nadien, as lovely and beautiful as she is, may not be the right person to run with this.
Abortion is a very tough issue and needs someone with balls of steel to carry it through.
She is going to have a huge amount of crap thrown at her from the union funded pro-choice lobby over the next few weeks.

[Michael Davidson]

Sorry, I'm not persuaded.

As has been pointed out, this has nothing to do with science, it's purely about Mrs. Dorries' personal views.

And even if science did say foetuses could survive at 24 weeks, so what? As science develops of course the survivability rate will increase - do we just keep dropping the limit more and more as a result? No, of course not because you'd just end up having a huge rise in 'backstreet' abortions.

And by placing emotive images of foetuses on this page, it only turns people against Dorries' patronising campaign.

[Sally]

Michael;
And by placing emotive images of foetuses on this page, it only turns people against Dorries' patronising campaign.

Are you saying that people should not know what a fetus looks like at 20 weeks? Should this be a secret?

[Buckers]

This represents quite the Damascian conversion. Perhaps we can look forward to Nadine Dorries and the other cabal of socially conservative MPs re-examining many of their opinions in light of their new-found deference to the latest scientific research. Or not.

[Mr Honk]

Look at the aftermath of abortions - google pictures of unborn babies

[Andy]

"Look at the aftermath of abortions - google pictures of unborn babies"

Again you're letting sensationalism rule... "Won't somebody think of the [unborn] children?"
Just 'cos they look humanish shaped don't mean anything!
Coming up with absurd reasons to drop it makes me want to side with the people who agree with 24weeks on principal!

[IRJMilne]

"Again you're letting sensationalism rule"

I read in the television guide that there was recently a programme about how we have become damagingly desensytised on issues where instinct previously provided sound guidance for us; the Conservative party has generally tended to believe that we should not scorn our own humanity.

I note also that a great deal of opposition to pro-life campaigns comes from men. I don't know whether this shows that men are more heartless, or that men, understandably, especially in the modern climate, do not want to seem to be dictating what women should or should not do. Perversely, they are opposing the view of a majority of women (or so it seems to me - though perhaps my view is biased by knowing more Conservative women than non-Conservative women).

[Philip]

We indeed should be thankful to Nadine Dorries.

Andy (2156) implies just because a child in the womb looks “humanish” doesn’t mean they are humans. How about someone who is born but has severe deformities – but still looks “humanish-shaped”? Are they less human and of less value? I don’t see what difference being in or out of the womb should make as what is human life, and who is a unique person. The end of this type of thinking, and behind the mass abortion we have, is…exterminate those humans deemed to be of less value and/or too troublesome or inconvenient.

The science is simply being used as a smoke screen for socially conservative MPs to force a predominantly socially liberal country into making abortion more difficult. (North East Tory 1818). That we’re a predominately socially liberal country is the impression that the BBC and liberal/left media like to give. But recent opinion polling shows most people are uneasy about the number of abortions. As for the idea that socially conservative MPs want to “force” what he thinks is a socially-liberal country, isn’t that what “social-liberals” have been doing for the past decades? Forcing their ideas onto a conservative (small ‘c’) population, whose minds have been more preoccupied with seemingly “more important” things (e.g. the economy) when they vote.

Yes, it may be able to feel pain at 18 weeks - but animals feel pain too, and that doesn't stop us killing them. (Andy 1603). I’m not justifying unnecessary cruelty to animals, but human beings are actually a creation apart from animals, having special dignity as moral beings with authority over the rest of creation.

Tony Makara (1451) excellently points out the inverted values of those that oppose the death penalty for murder while favour the killing of innocent children by abortion. No doubt those who oppose the death penalty for child killers will be the very people who argue in favour of abortion. So shall it be to this wicked generation.

I too agree with “choice”, but could the choice be exercised at an earlier stage in the process of creating babies! And for when unwanted pregnancies do happen, that adoption, to enable the child to live, isn’t automatically considered as the first and most natural option, but rather killing the child is too often the automatic first option, surely shows how far this nation has sunk.

[CJH]

"Look at the aftermath of abortions - google pictures of unborn babies"

I have done. Did you have a point?

"I’m not justifying unnecessary cruelty to animals, but human beings are actually a creation apart from animals, having special dignity as moral beings with authority over the rest of creation."

That's a religious argument and not everyone shares your religious beliefs. Keep your faith out of my uterus.

"I too agree with “choice”, but could the choice be exercised at an earlier stage in the process of creating babies! And for when unwanted pregnancies do happen, that adoption, to enable the child to live, isn’t automatically considered as the first and most natural option, but rather killing the child is too often the automatic first option, surely shows how far this nation has sunk."

I use the contraceptive pill (which some "pro-lifers" incidentially regard as bad as abortion and would seek to ban) and I use condoms. If something goes wrong and I end up pregnant I will be having an abortion. I have no intention of playing host to something I do not want for nine months, with all the physical and potential health changes that would entail.

[Andy]

"How about someone who is born but has severe deformities – but still looks “humanish-shaped”? Are they less human and of less value?"
That was my point - the shape is irrelevant.

You don't have to have conservative opinions to be worried about the number of abortions - it's a bit authoritarian to say that you think there's too many so ban them.
That's like saying people drink too much so ban alcohol [on the tube? stupid idea!]

Look at the causes and reduce them and not just tape over the warning light.

I think men are pro-choice as they don't like to see women being told what to do/hurt, especially in the name of someone else's religion and men can generally detach from the emotions more easily.
If it was for selfish reasons to save them being a father, I'm sure they would have said something well before 20weeks!