Abortions after 24 weeks.

[11122aa]

Last Friday it was debated in the House of Lords if to ban abortion after 24 weeks on grounds of disability to the fetus. While it is said to be unlikely to become law. What is everyone on here's view.
www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/disabled-uk-lawmaker-speaks-his-bill-stop-abortion-disabled-how-dare-you (Couldn't find an balanced UK based website reporting it).

[Marbleheadjohnson]

Lord Shinklin can do one as far as I am concerned. If some conditions are not detected until late, the pregnant woman should be given time and support to make a decision that is right for her. Trying to restrict this is just barbaric.

“By rights, my Lords, I shouldn’t be here. I should be dead,” . With respect, my Lord, it is not all about you.

[Xenophile]

As early as possible, as late as necessary. Always.

If this man wants to stop women choosing abortion for FA, then maybe he should think about ensuring there is better funding for services, the NHS and support for families. If he's not going to do that, then he just butts out of women's reproductive life.

[TyrannosauraRegina]

I don't get the connection between the two. Banning abortions because of disability is one thing, and banning abortions in the third trimester is another. But together? Why does he think it is any different (to the foetus - there are obviously significant differences to the mother) if a disabled foetus is aborted at 12 weeks, 21 weeks or 27 weeks?

If the argument is eugenics then surely they should be proposing banning all abortions on the grounds of foetal disability.

[Marbleheadjohnson]

I guess it's a gradual chiselling away of the option to abort.

[FreshwaterSelkie]

I'm almost reluctant to weigh in here, because I have seen a few threads elsewhere on the site about thoughtless disablism, and I'm trying to challenge myself on when I might be doing that.

However, I have to weigh that against my horror of the idea that women should be forced to complete pregnancies that they don't want to. I don't think it's up to anyone to judge for a woman what ability she has to care for a severely disabled child. We don't know the reasons behind these 230 later terminations. Were they because of waiting times, what gestation screening is done at, family circumstances, incompatibility with life...? We can't know.

I speak as someone who could easily have been terminated if screening in the 70s was what it was today. As it turned out, I am very mildly affected by the condition. But you can't know that until birth - I could have been very poorly indeed. But it's unfair to apply retroactive reasoning to my mother's decision.

I am also extremely concerned about erosion of women's right to choose, and for that reason, I wouldn't support any change in the legislation.

[Soubriquet]

As early as possible, as late as necessary

Every time

[LoisEighty]

I don't think disability should have to be a factor in decision making at all. The only thing that matters is whether the woman wants to continue or end her pregnancy.

[Xenophile]

If it helps at all, I have two DSs with ANs. One of the reasons I chose to abort a subsequent pregnancy is because I was unable to take the risk of having a third. I simply didn't have the emotional resources to cope with going through it all again.

So, if this man would like to come and tell me to my face how I took part in some kind of eugenics, I would happily put him right.

[Lottapianos]

'As early as possible, as late as necessary. Always'

Completely agree. Anything less is a slippery slope

[OvariesForgotHerPassword]

As early as possible, as late as necessary. Whatever the reason. Anything less is anti-choice and anti-woman.

[madamginger]

My work colleague had a late term abortion at 25 weeks after it was discovered her baby's brain had stopped growing at 13 weeks. She had her 20 week scan late and then she and her partner had to decide what to do and then get things booked.
It was horrific and heartbreaking for everyone concerned.
That decision was between her and her dr and has bugger all to do with the state or some old lord who knows nothing.

[ChocChocPorridge]

'As early as possible, as late as necessary. Always'

This. Every time. I trust women to make the right decision about their own bodies

[Gowgirl]

Pro choice means pro Choice, no ifs not buts no reason required!

[PacificDogwod]

As early as possible, as late as necessary. Always.

Totally.

I entirely understand the distaste at the thought of late termination, but I don't understand why anybody (never mind well-healed middle-aged man) should have the right to stop another person (always a woman) to do what is right for her in her set of circumstances.
You don't like the thought of terminations? Or late terminations? Don't have one. V simple IMO.

[LightTheLampNotTheRat]

I read the whole debate. His case is pure and simple against reproductive rights for women, not about equality for disabled people. He's being highly disingenuous.

[whoputthecatout]

I see he cited the instance of cleft palate and said it is an easily rectifiable condition. Yes, if that's all the child has. What he conveniently 'forgets' is that it can be associated with a range of extremely severe disabilities. Perhaps the 11 abortions for cleft palate he mentions were actually done because of underlying severe abnormalities. As Light says, he is being extremely disingenuous.

Also disingenuous in that the Lord Shinkwins of the world give precious little thought to what happens to the child, the mother and the rest of the family after the birth. Shame on him.

This is about opposing women's reproductive rights not about disability.

[reallyanotherone]

Won't banning late Tfmr cost the nhs a fortune?

Sounds awful but surely forcing women to birth babies they do not want, with complex medical needs, is going to place a huge burden on the state.

230 x cost of supporting such a child. Not only medical care, surgeries etc but social costs, adaptive housing, dla, careers costs, special education.

It should be the woman's choice. Every time.

[growapear]

I support a woman's right to abortion after 24 weeks. I would disagree though that it has nothing to do with anyone except the woman, and i never understood how a society which doesn't provide medical support for late term abortion is "forcing" a women to give birth. Without a medical intervention, (which costs a lot less financially and emotionally than the support for a disabled child) then the pregnancy would continue so I disagree with the use of the word "force", but happy to have it explained to me if there is a reason it is particularly apt ? Isn't this the reason men feel they can butt in ? Because society must agree to fund it since we have a national health service.

[ShmooBooMoo]

Wholeheartedly disagree and that's all I say.

[Marbleheadjohnson]

Growapear if it were illegal, it would be illegal for private abortions as well.

Does "remove the option" make more sense to you? End result is the same.

[KittyandTeal]

I'm going to weigh in here with my story.

We had dodgy 12 week bloods with dd2 but we're told we were low risk so nothing was done. Scan at 19 weeks picked up no problems so anomaly was pushed back to 20+6 (latest it's advised). Sonographer picked up a small brain anomaly but didn't know what it was so referred us to kings, luckily they squeezed me in the next day as I was able to drop everything, next available appointment was a week later.

At our scan at kings they sucpected T13 or T18, both horrific an incompatible with life. Had an amnio on the day. They rushed our initial results back in 48 hours. The results came back as a positive screen for full T18. We arranged a post 20 week termination (to be clear terminations post 20 weeks and post 24 weeks are done in exactly the same way) by the time dd2 came I was 22+2. That was with lots of rushing to next day, squeezed in appointments and a 'clear' diagnosis. If she had had a mosaic form it would have taken longer for the result to come back.

We were close to that 24 week line. If thing had been delayed or her diagnosis hadn't been an 'easy' one then we would have easily passed the 24 week point. Our dd2 still would have had a lethal condition but I would have been forced to carry her to term, probably resulting in a still birth but quite possibly resulting in her dying in labour or very soon after. We made our decision based on how much suffering she would have gone through in her short life. I absolutely respect others choice to carry babies with trisomies to term however, as parents we should be allowed to make the heartbreaking choice that we think is right for our baby.

I have suffered huge trauma, ptsd and guilt at her loss and out tfmr. I cannot imagine how much worse that would have been if I'd had the choice taken away from me.

[NauticalDisaster]

KittyandTeal

I echo the as early as possible, as late as necessary posts above.

[Felascloak]

I know someone who had a termination after 24 weeks because her baby had a condition that meant it would only live briefly after birth, but the risk to her of full term labour was high.
It wasn't diagnosed for definite until post 24 weeks
What is the possible benefit of putting a woman through a longer pregnancy and a more dangerous labour when she knows her baby will die?
Why put the baby through the stress of labour and possibly a not very pleasant death when it could be have a kinder death at an earlier stage?

[MostlyHet]

As early as possible, as late as necessary.

I trust women to make their own decisions.

[Mornflake]

Agree with PPs. As early as possible, as late as necessary. Always.