When is an abortion "late-term?"

[caseymoz]

I had always assumed that it meant in "the third trimester," at 27 weeks.

I'm seeing that there's no agreement on the definition of "late term abortion." What does everybody here consider, "third trimester?" What do you think the anti-choice side is meaning?

[lapfog_1]

1. It's a changing definition

Some time ago it was 26 weeks since the last menstrual cycle. Now it is 22 or 23 weeks.

Viability of the fetus outside of the mother is determining factor.

[krispos42]

2. When the sperm meets the egg.

Or at least that's the impression I get from watching the freepers...

[caseymoz]

3. I'm surprised I thought otherwise. nt

[lk9650]

4. yep

[Azalea]

5. As

Reproductive technology gets better and better and viability gets closer and closer so does when an abortion become "late-term" become shorter and shorter. When I was pregnant I was told labor before 26 weeks was little to no chance of survival, so I'd say 26 weeks would be considered late but I'm sure others disagree.

[joeglow3]

11. It has changed

We had babies survive here (Omaha) at 23 weeks a year or so ago, so that is what I hear the most as the cutoff.

[Iris]

12. No, it hasn't. Doctors don't use the term "late term." See my post below.

[Iris]

6. NPR talked about this in relation to the term they use - which is "late abortions"

the reason being is that doctors do not call these late-term abortions b/c "term" implies that the pregnancy has reached it's natural end. I'm sure I'm not really explaining it correctly; I was mostly struck by how what doctors call things could be so different from what the mainstream media adopts as terminology for various issues, not just abortion.

[wolfsbane]

7. As a legal term and word of art

As a legal term, late-term abortion ranges, generally, between the 12th and 27th weeks of gestation depending on jurisdiction. However, in a non-legal, word of art sense, it is dependent on what you consider late with relation to a woman's pregnancy.

I think the anti-choice side would, generally, place that close to the begining/middle of the second trimester, if not sooner, when viablity of the fetus is still very much in question. I would venture to guess that the pro-choice side places it, generally, from the late stages of the second trimester to the early stages of the third.

I do think it is important that a clear standard be set. In my own opinion, in the majority of cases, it shouldn't take until the third trimester to determine if you're keeping your child or not. Yet, while still a very small percentage, as always, there are exceptions to any rule.

[Iris]

8. generally it's not a matter of choosing to keep or not keep a child at that point

it is about whether or not to force a woman to deliver a dead baby, a baby without a brain, or a baby with some other condition.

[uppityperson]

9. Or whether continuing to be pregnant will kill you

some cancers become much worse if you are pregnant, not to mention eclampsia issues.

[Iris]

10. and that, too.

I don't understand why more people aren't HORRIFIED by the idea that decisions that should be made on an individual case-by-case basis should be mandated by the state.

[Babykayx]

13. What I consider and what anti-choicers consider

Personally I'm Pro-Life but NOT Anti-Choice (the govt has no business in your personal choices, but I do believe that a fetus is a living human being). That said, I believe that a 'late term abortion' is a third trimester abortion. Anti-Choicers probably believe that a late term abortion is about mid way through the second trimester, with he real fanatics believing is to be somewhere between the start and mid of the second trimester.

Honestly, I think that the term 'late term abortions' derives from protesters, while the medical community would refer to the actual procedures used to cause an abortion to label it. In other words the term is for the 'lay people' while the doctors speak a more defined language.

[colinmom71]

14. This is a very dicey question, for several reasons...

"Late-term" is not a medical term, but rather is a layman's term to try to describe a pregnancy that has advanced very close to or beyond fetal viability (usually near the beginning of the third trimester/about 25 weeks given current medical technology). But determining medical viability for a fetus essentially means that if the fetus were born at that moment, the fetus would be able to survive outside the womb and meets certain medical criteria pre-natally that assures the obstetrician that survival is possible. Gestational age is not the sole indicator of fetal viability....

For a developmentally normal fetus, between 23-24 weeks is considered the basal standard to attempt delivery and resuscitation of an endangered neonate. An ultrasound exam can give a good idea of fetal maturity as related to gestational age in emergencies, and the OB can use their medical knowledge to decide the best course of treatment from there. But factors such as lung development, overall organ development, prior maternal health, and previously known fetal health issues (if any) also play a large part in determining if a pregnancy can be considered to be hosting a viable fetus.

For fetuses with genetic or significant physical disorders, their overall development may have been affected by their particular health issue. For instance, a fetus with a severe spinal lesion due to spina bifida may not be considered viable even at 38 weeks because the lesion has caused a complete retraction of the brain and brain stem into the spinal canal and has severely damaged basal life functions governed by the brain stem (I knew someone this happened to). Or, a fetus may present at 24 weeks with a complete omphalocele (most internal organs develop outside the abdomen - heart, intestines, liver, etc.), which is a very dangerous condition and usually renders a fetus non-viable at any stage in the pregnancy (I also knew someone else whose baby had this disorder - it's why I think Gulf-War syndrome is very real). There are many other issues that may impede fetal development to the point that viability is also effected.

But within the context of the general abortion debate, the phrase "late-term" abortion tends to be used in regards to a viable or third trimester abortion. Those are rare to the point of existing in statistical insignificance. Surgical abortions past the point of established fetal viability are illegal in all 50 states of the USA, not to mention are so medically risky that they are also medically unethical as they present greater medical risks to maternal health than an induced labor and delivery when absent an unusual maternal health issue (like a bleeding disorder, diagnosed placenta accreta, etc.).

Now, I have heard used (again within the general context of an abortion debate) the term "a later abortion" used to describe a second trimester abortion since it is a conventional surgical abortion that is performed *later* than the first trimester. These surgical abortions do require different surgical techniques from a first trimester suction catheter abortion, as they require greater dilation of the uterine cervix and more invasive surgical instruments to remove the fetus and products of conception. They are also more expensive, are performed at far fewer clinics than are first trimester abortions, and cannot be performed after 26 weeks for medical safety reasons. Some clinics even require a referral from a licensed OB to establish medical cause for the abortion to be performed...

As to what I think the anti-choice side refers to a "late term abortion", I've seen that term usually used by anti-choicers in reference to any abortion performed beyond the first trimester (starting at 14 weeks). Not sure why the viability standard alone isn't their cut off point since the fetus does not generally survive before 24 weeks, but that has been what I've mostly read opined within abortion debates/discussions...