I was just looking into term limits, and I noticed that a lot of European countries had a term limit of 12 weeks. I figured there must be some biological basis for this number. Something that develops at that stage? Or is it just because 3 months seems like a round number? Obviously I posted the question here assuming a biological answer, but it might just be politics.

According to my wife (a midwife) most miscarriages happen before that time.

It seems like fetal development would be a difficult thing not to make arbitrary decisions about, anyway. Every fetus will develop at a different rate, so any of these time windows should be viewed with skepticism. But at the same time, cut-off dates have been a convenient compromise when balancing the wants of two ideologically opposed political/religious groups.

I'd like to see a non-arbitrary developmental milestone identified, with a simple, affordable, non-invasive means for assessment. But we don't have that yet.

Just a line in the sand. They measure pregnancies in trimesters, each of about 3 months, so 12 weeks is pretty close to 1st trimester.

12 weeks is fairly straightforward - simple suction. After 12 weeks more complex are often required and the risks of complications increase.
There is also some argument about the first trimester being when most organ development is taking place - thereafter it is more growth - so in essence a 'formed' human being.
Finally there is little evidence of pain response before 12 weeks - less clear after.
Thus most abortions actually occur before 12 weeks for safety and other reasons and most objections to the 'horrors' of baby killing are avoided by using this limit.
Can be a little unfortunate for those with limited access to efficient services, or who are a little slow to identify their pregnancy since the difference between 12 and say 14 weeks is extremely limited.

It's roughly the cut-off for mifepristone and electric vacuum aspiration as highly effective options. Between 12 and 14 weeks some degree of curettage may be required to remove the contents of the uterus completely. It also may not be! That's it though.

Not enough physicians are trained in D&C and D&X and other later abortion options. These procedures are also more expensive to perform.

This has been an informative thread. I am glad to learn that there may be some objective reasons for a 12wk cut-off. I was happy with thinking it was a compromise, and I would still push to allow later procedures given appropriate procedural support, but at least there appear to be some good, non-arbitrary reasons for it.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:but at least there appear to be some good, non-arbitrary reasons for it.

There's nothing whatsoever 'arbitrary' about a pregnancy, or its termination, once it is confirmed, ever, SS, unless the potential mother is brain dead or close to it.

I recommend you try it at least once, just to see.

Doubtdispelled wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:but at least there appear to be some good, non-arbitrary reasons for it.

There's nothing whatsoever 'arbitrary' about a pregnancy, or its termination, once it is confirmed, ever, SS, unless the potential mother is brain dead or close to it.

I recommend you try it at least once, just to see.

I think I need you to explain to me what you think it is that I was saying. Because your response doesn't seem to fit what I thought I was saying.

Speaking of brain dead mothers, we had one of those in BC not too long ago and all paid to keep her body warm so the fetus could develop a little longer because that's what the spouse wanted and apparently we do that here. When she'd begun to decompose and there was no longer any benefit to the fetus, it was removed.

Here's the kicker: they used an operating room. For a dead person.

Do you know the various costs of an operating room? Not just financial costs either. The time it takes for the operating room to be turned over and sterilised before another presumably living patient requiring surgery can be brought in? And the potential cost to them of having their surgery delayed because a dead person, who could have had the c-section performed behind curtains without a soul knowing and with no harm to them because they're already dead, was occupying an operating room?

For shame.

Anyways, that's an aside.

Pebble wrote:Finally there is little evidence of pain response before 12 weeks - less clear after.

I read today that 26 weeks is when the whole system for pain response is completed (although the study also argued that this is necessary but not sufficient for pain to be felt).

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

Doubtdispelled wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:but at least there appear to be some good, non-arbitrary reasons for it.

There's nothing whatsoever 'arbitrary' about a pregnancy, or its termination, once it is confirmed, ever, SS, unless the potential mother is brain dead or close to it.

I recommend you try it at least once, just to see.

I think I need you to explain to me what you think it is that I was saying. Because your response doesn't seem to fit what I thought I was saying.

I'm sorry, SS. I didn't mean to sound snarky. I lost one at 12 weeks, just when I thought we were safe. I didn't have a spontaneous miscarriage, but there was something wrong and I had to have a D&C. I've never forgotten the nurse who chided me when I came out of the anaesthetic bawling my eyes out. 'Now, now, we don't need any of that,' she said, 'there's nothing to cry about.'

Doubtdispelled wrote: 'Now, now, we don't need any of that,' she said, 'there's nothing to cry about.'

Holy fucking shit.

There's no guarantee, because someone's in a "caring profession", that they have any tact or empathy.

True dat.

I've heard similar just recently - the two doctors whose signatures you need first in this country saying 'if your other children die, god help you' and then talking about 'what you have done' after the fact. This was some decades ago now though, when attitudes were very different.

I'm sure that if you go to the wrong places and see the wrong doctors, you'll find those attitudes lovingly preserved for the handicap of future generations.

Undoubtedly. I hope it's not as bad as it used to be though.

I'd like to think they are in the minority, but there are still pro-life docs out there who will refuse services on "principle" and not miss the opportunity to proselytise at the same time.