A woman with mental age of 9 forced to have abortion

I agree this a disturbing and sad situation, but it appears to have been considered carefully and sensitivity.

Something I'd add is that we don't know anything about the pregnant lady's physical health. It's not unusual for people with learning difficulties to have other problems; people with Down's syndrome may have cardiac issues fir example.

This is in addition to any medication that may be required. Just speculation, but A full term pregnancy may not be achievable.

Interesting. I did not know that there were other pain free ways of doing it. I, personally, would never recommend taking misoprostol. I was younger and very trusting when I took it, no one told me what it would do. I was home alone and thought it was a simple pill, so I had no idea it would trigger labour and that I would labour alone with full contractions and so much blood loss I thought I was going to die.

Anyways, I think the state forcing abortion bothers me more than anything else. I hate to say "slippery slope" but what's to stop a dystopian future when people are forced to have abortions for other (eugenics) reasons? I think this starts a precedent that could be manipulated at a later time, so I do not agree with it for that reason. I do not believe she should raise the baby though, the baby should be adopted. I don't know all the details though, it's a very difficult situation.

Not really, in the case of lawyers. It's their function to put forward the best possible case for their client or the person whose interests they are representing. That doesn't necessarily mean they personally agree with their client.

Exactly. The lawyer’s job is not to agree with or even believe their client. Or even like them for that matter. It’s to advocate for them, to advocate for proper process, to represent their client’s interests, while respecting their own duties to the court.

From what I read, there were lawyers and another SW who supported her decision to not have a termination. I think that means something

The solicitors' and barristers' role is to argue for what their client wants. You cannot extrapolate from the fact legal representation has been hired that the legal representatives personally supported it.

Teddybear45 have you read the thread? A mental age of 6-9 is the old fashioned, outdated and misleading way of saying moderate learning disabilities. It doesn't remotely mean that the woman is a 6,7,8 or 9 year old in an adult body.

Adults with moderate learning disabilities can consent to sex in some circumstances. The only appropriate circumstances would be enthusiastic consent with a peer (so someone else with moderate learning disabilities) ideally after talking through her choices extensively with a trusted carer and learning about the consequences of sex and contraception in an age appropriate way.

A woman in her 20s with moderate learning disabilities can have sex without it being rape. Women in their 20s with learning disabilities are not children.

However obviously women with learning disabilities are incredibly vulnerable and she may have been raped.

It is not pure and simple though, nothing about this case is, and treating adults with learning disabilities as children is totally inappropriate.

It’s very likely she will have a surgical abortion.

I’ve had a termination for medical reasons at 20 weeks though and no, it wasn’t painful physically . The baby isn’t going to survive so you have as much pain relief as you want

Hopefully she won’t be going through that due to the affect on her emotionally but let’s be honest, it wouldn’t be as physically painful as giving birth full term

that her best interests were served.

The question should be how the hell did she get pregnant in the first place?! Should someone of not been caring for her?

She is an adult with a disability. That does not mean she needs 24/7 supervision or can’t socialize with friends or even have a boyfriend. I imagine she got pregnant as the result of sex, we have no idea in what circumstances that occurred but it is very possible her partner is an adult with disabilities himself.

The state is effectively saying she can't be a competent mother so the child must be aborted. Since when did the state care if a birth mother was competent, or even necessary for a child?

The judgement wasn't made in the interests of the baby. It was made in the interests of the mother. Every single point the judge made was about the effect that giving birth would have on the young woman. Do read the judges words further up the thread.

If the baby was brought up by the grandmother, the woman would have to leave home, as she is considered a danger to the baby.

If the baby ends up fostered or adopted, the judge felt that seeing the baby and then aprting with it, would be more traumatic for the young woman than having an abortion.

etc etc

Nowhere is the baby's future interests discussed in the ruling.

The question should be how the hell did she get pregnant in the first place?
She had sex, people do.

Well I've had abortions, none of which were physically painful. So there you go.

I think posters on this thread would do well to listen to the people that work in adult social care with vulnerable individuals. The whole area is so nuanced, there are no absolutes and each situation is entirely different. Which is why courts and advocates exist.

NONE of us can speak for this young woman, the very fact it was put before a judge would signify this was a complex case, with no easy answer and it was adversarial. I would like to think

The question should be how the hell did she get pregnant in the first place?! Should someone of not been caring for her?

If she is already at 22 weeks at the time of the decision, I am thinking she is not going to be 22 weeks when she has the abortion. I think it is most likely she will have a surgical
abortion anyway. Personally after reading a lot about medical v surgical abortions I am glad when I had mine only option was surgical.

I have a relative with LD - he can live independently, but with a great deal of family and social support. And as MrsTP says above, the thing is that he is an adult, he has desires and feelings, he sees relationships on TV and around him. He's bright, but immature, impressionable, vulnerable - I'd trust him to baby sit a child (although not one that was good at persuading people to do things they shouldn't) - I'd trust him with a baby while I nipped to the shops - but not to look after one of his own - and not through any malice on his part. I can completely see how these situations can occur with not even a hint of abuse, and I can see what an awful decision here there has been - the least worst choice as said above.
And this is probably the right call.

From what I read, there were lawyers and another SW who supported her decision to not have a termination. I think that means something.

Not really, in the case of lawyers. It's their function to put forward the best possible case for their client or the person whose interests they are representing. That doesn't necessarily mean they personally agree with their client.

The state is effectively saying she can't be a competent mother so the child must be aborted. Since when did the state care if a birth mother was competent, or even necessary for a child?

No, that is not what this case is about. It is saying that it is not in this woman's best interests to have the child, and in this instance, as in all other abortion cases, the mother's best interests have to come first. Unless you have seen all the papers and heard all the evidence, you can't possibly say that this decision is wrong.

While I agree it's unlikely to be used in this circumstance, misoprostol is absolutely usable at any stage of pregnancy, and will expel the fetus about 80-85% of the time. If the fetus is over 23-24 weeks old, it's very likely to be born alive and live for a little while before expiring, so it's not advisable beyond that point.

Other people aren’t forced to have abortions because they can’t care for their babies. The woman has become pregnant in her mothers care, for all we know it isn’t the best place for her to be. This story has made me think all afternoon.

This woman didn’t have the mental age of a 9 yo. It was more of a 6-9 yo. Could you ever imagine a situation where an actual child of that age could ever consent to sex? I can’t. She was raped pure and simple and keeping the baby might have caused her more distress than the abortion. The judge did the right thing.

AmeriAnn, I often agree with you but I’m stunned at this comment. The grandma is a total irrelevance here.

My main concern is still the vulnerable woman having to have a baby when she doesn’t know what that means, thank goodness it won’t be happening.

Horrible fucking country. 22 weeks old. The grandmother wants her grandchild but the fucking state knows 'best'.

But, it would appear, for the grandmother to have the grandchild, her learning disabled child would have to leave the house as she would present a danger to the baby. Shouldn't that be taken into account? And, of course, you have no idea what evidence was before the courts as to the grandmother's fitness or otherwise to look after the baby.

*@WhereYouLeftIt
*
The judge said she believed the woman would suffer more distress if the baby was taken away, rather than if it was terminated.

Yes I tend to agree with this statement. The judge is spot on there. It looks like it has been dealt with sensitively.

But I wish as a society we could do more to help women with problems to keep their babies. We just don't have the resources to have a 24 hour carer there with the mother

The judge comes over as very wise and considered in her statement. She clearly found the situation extremely difficult, and took every single element into consideration, to make the decision that was most in the young woman's interest. This was not a knee jerk reaction. This was a very carefully thought out ruling, which had clearly involved a degree of heartache.

I read about this on another source (Sky News) earlier today ( news.sky.com/story/woman-with-mental-age-of-child-to-have-abortion-court-rules-11746576 ) which contained this:

In a ruling, Mrs Justice Lieven said: "I am acutely conscious of the fact that for the State to order a woman to have a termination where it appears that she doesn't want it is an immense intrusion.

"I have to operate in (her) best interests, not on society's views of termination."

The woman would be unable to care for the child on her own and the judge was concerned about the risks posed by the woman's behavioural and psychological problems.

She said the woman may have to leave home if the baby was placed in the care of the woman's mother.

The child could also potentially be placed into foster care.

The judge said she believed the woman would suffer more distress if the baby was taken away, rather than if it was terminated.

My reading of that - about risks - was that she may pose a danger to the child. Why else would she have to leave home if the child was placed with the grandmother? What would happen to this young woman if she had to leave her mother's care?

Aarghh, this is one horrible shitshow. All that can be hoped for is a least-worst outcome .