What do you think of Emmerdale’s Downs Syndrome abortion storyline? *contains spoilers MNHQ*

[IntoP20]

I don’t actually watch the programme, but just read a headline that explained two characters (Laurel and Jai) are going to make the decision to terminate their baby with Downs Syndrome.

Is this damaging to new parents /expectant parents and those with Downs Syndrome themselves? Or is this a positive move to reduce the stigma around women being able to make choices about their bodies?

@HBGKC The bodily autonomy of the mother is The Only Relevant Moral Issue.

Well yes, either we have bodily autonomy or we don't. Are you suggesting that pregnant women should lose one of the most fundamental human rights? Any other circumstances where you think we should become second class citizens?

1,188 definite diagnoses of DS were made in 2010. So around 920 abortions. Out of around 205,000 abortions that happen each year in the U.K.

Personally I find it odd that tv shows and films focus so much on Down's syndrome when it's only one of many genetic conditions that might lead to such a storyline.

It would in my opinion be a good opportunity to educate people about the lesser known conditions.

I understand to a degree why they choose it when there's a character that will need introducing at a later stage in the form of a baby and then a child because it has clear visible and well known features and there are some amazing actors with Down's syndrome which I am sure writers and producers are aware of so there's sort of a reputation and history there.

With other conditions they might be tempted to cast a non disabled actor to play a character with a disability which can be problematic in itself

Politically in pro choice.

Personally I've had 2 mc and the thought of aborting a pregnancy horrifies me, yet is/was a really possibility for me due to my own health - something else which very rarely comes up in tv storylines - conditions that can result in maternal death at childbirth.

Occasionally pre-eclampsia is used but again this is but one condition which can cause this and is generally well understood and recognised.

I have a rare condition which does not present until the 1st labour and birth but which means ANY Future pregnancy is contraindicated as would be potentially fatal.

If I were to become pregnant I would be strongly advised to terminate for the preservation of my own life, though I've actually been told I must do all I can to avoid getting pregnant at all (and yet couldn't/can't get sterilised on nhs!)

Tv shows and especially soaps recycle the same storylines with the same conditions repeatedly.

They don't have a responsibility or obligation to do so but they reach a wide audience and could do immense good in educating and stimulating discussion on lesser known conditions that may well be affecting their viewers.

Well yes, either we have bodily autonomy or we don't.
In my opinion, a woman's bodily autonomy does not mean it is definitely okay to kill a viable fetus, though many feminists do not seem to allow discussion on this. So, aborting a fetus at say, 35 weeks, when you have to go through giving birth anyway, is horrific in my opinion because it means you have to actually kill the baby before inducing labour. That baby has acquired a separate right to life which takes nothing away from the mother if that right is respected (ie, ending the pregnancy by inducing labour and giving the baby up for adoption).

An abortion at 22 weeks, when the baby (healthy or not) cannot live outside the womb, is completely different.

People seem to think that Down’s syndrome is just a mild learning disability and express outrage at the idea of aborting a fetus who suffers from it.
However, Down’s has a high incidence of associated comorbidities including congenital heart defects, which can be life threatening and require major surgery, oesophageal and gut atresias, ditto, impaired immunity, leading to an increased risk of cancer (particularly childhood leukaemia) and infections, a very high risk of dementia beginning early in their fifties, and a reduced life expectancy. There can also be epileptic seizures.
Many pregnant women would not want to produce a child who would have to suffer a lifetime of ill health and an early death - rather than inflict that, they choose termination before the fetus is sentient, and then go on to have a later normal pregnancy. It is absolutely their right to make that choice, whatever other people, or surviving Down’s patients, think of it.

@WomenAndVulvas

Well yes, either we have bodily autonomy or we don't. In my opinion, a woman's bodily autonomy does not mean it is definitely okay to kill a viable fetus, though many feminists do not seem to allow discussion on this. So, aborting a fetus at say, 35 weeks, when you have to go through giving birth anyway, is horrific in my opinion because it means you have to actually kill the baby before inducing labour. That baby has acquired a separate right to life which takes nothing away from the mother if that right is respected (ie, ending the pregnancy by inducing labour and giving the baby up for adoption).

An abortion at 22 weeks, when the baby (healthy or not) cannot live outside the womb, is completely different.

It is different for Downs for fairly obvious reasons, though.

I am content with the current laws in England, Wales and Scotland.

There are instances in which often severe chromosomal problems (not just downs) are only detected later in pregnancy. The vast majority of TFMRs will be carried out after early diagnosis (usually by around 18 weeks when amnio results are available, or after the 20 week anomaly scan). The law is there to protect mothers in horrific circumstances where a diagnosis comes late in pregnancy. The number of late term abortions carried out is extremely low. As a poster up thread mentioned, nobody has a TFMR at any stage for fun. It is absolutely traumatic.

In 2019 there were 279 abortions carried out after 24wks, less than 1% of all abortions for that year, and all were due to medical reasons. I can guarantee they were not done on a whim and there will a sad story attached to each and every one.

The reason we allow abortion post-24wks for medical reasons is to allow time for tests to be carried out, to see how emerging situations develop, to give time for second opinions, and to give toke for decisions to be made without the imminent time pressure of a 24wk cut-off.

The mother of the young lady linked to above (Heidi?) had a choice in her pregnancy and it is disheartening that she and her daughter are seeking to remove that same choice from other women. As the mother of two disabled children and someone who grew up with a disabled sibling, there should always be a choice.

@Gancanny

In 2019 there were 279 abortions carried out after 24wks, less than 1% of all abortions for that year, and all were due to medical reasons. I can guarantee they were not done on a whim and there will a sad story attached to each and every one.

The reason we allow abortion post-24wks for medical reasons is to allow time for tests to be carried out, to see how emerging situations develop, to give time for second opinions, and to give toke for decisions to be made without the imminent time pressure of a 24wk cut-off.

The mother of the young lady linked to above (Heidi?) had a choice in her pregnancy and it is disheartening that she and her daughter are seeking to remove that same choice from other women. As the mother of two disabled children and someone who grew up with a disabled sibling, there should always be a choice.

This reminds me of that Sally Phillips documentary from a few years ago, where she 'investigated' the new NIPT test. She was so crashingly anti-abortion (very religious, not mentioned) despite ostensibly claiming to want to look at both sides. She absolutely laid into a woman who had aborted her Downs pregnancy, showing her videos of her (Sally's) son playing on a trampoline.

Sally Phillips is rich and privileged. She can always afford extra support.

Oh, and her child's syndrome was picked up postnatally. She was never even faced with the choice and yet was determined to preach to others who had been in that position. Grim.

I am pro-choice.

The law is about right for abortions for any reason. TFMR should take place at any point.

Not the same circumstances as it wasn't a TFMR but a friend of mine discovered late into her pregnancy that her baby would either be stillborn or die shortly after birth but the further along in pregnancy she got the greater the risk of complications for her so she had her pregnancy induced at 32 weeks. Her baby lived for less than 2 hours.

Absolutely the best decision for her and if she'd decided on a termination at that stage then that would be for her to decide and be in the best interests of her, her living child and her unborn baby.

I have had an abortion long ago it was very early and very traumatic but I am firmly pro choice.

I understand no woman would do this for fun. But the idea of a late abortion is really upsetting. When the baby would survive outside the womb it really does seem like killing a baby. The woman has to give birth anyway so why kill the baby first? Why not give it up for adoption. Of course if the baby would only survive for hours or minutes it's different, well maybe. I'm talking about if the baby would survive with the disability. Sorry I do not mean to hurt anyone with my language but it really does seem that if the baby would survive there are two lives to consider, not just the mother. And the word abortion does not seem appropriate. Really sorry if anyone has had to go through this, I'm sure everyone just does their best in such difficult circumstances.

When ever the abortion due to Down’s syndrome debate comes up there’s always someone with downs syndrome who is high functioning interviewed. I always remember watching a problem about a NICU and there was a Dad there who loved his son with Downs Syndrome so much but said if he had known what his son would go through they would of aborted. The baby survived for a while but spent his whole life having heart surgery after heart surgery, never came off the vent, never had a day when he wasn’t being pricked with needles and never saw outside of nicu before dying. I would never judge anyone on either side of the debate but it makes me sad that so often parents are portrayed as heartless for choosing abortion and as if they don’t love the baby as it’s ‘not perfect’. I think back to that dad crying who wanted his son more than anything but didn’t want him to suffer like he did

The mother of the young lady linked to above (Heidi?) had a choice in her pregnancy and it is disheartening that she and her daughter are seeking to remove that same choice from other women.

Exactly. She had a choice, and now she wants to take that choice away from other women who might want to make a different choice.

@CommunistLegoBloc that documentary was so biased, several of us on MN lodged complaints with the BBC.

Not everybody reads spoilers. Thanks for that.

The woman has to give birth anyway so why kill the baby first?

Because funnily enough having a living baby doesn't end at birth, it's a lifetime commitment and an exceptionally tough one if you have a disabled child.

It makes me itch when people say "I'm pro choice but not for X Y and Z reasons" especially when they've had terminations themselves - so you were happy for the law to be on your side during your troubles but you don't want to afford the same to other women?

Why not give it up for adoption

Because there are not hoardes of prospective adopters lining up to take on disabled children. Because society still looks unfavourably on mothers who give up their children for adoption. Because there is an emotional toll associated with giving up a child for adoption. Because there is pressure to not go through with it. Because pre-existing children may wonder why their sibling was "sent away". Because adoption in the UK is generally open adoption. Because they love the child but don't want to take in the (emotionally and financially significant) task of raising a disabled child and all the limitations, compromises, and worries that go alongside. Because because because and most importantly because they have the choice to not continue with the pregnancy.

Not everybody reads spoilers. Thanks for that.

The title clearly states that the thread contains spoilers.

@GlummyMcGlummerson

The woman has to give birth anyway so why kill the baby first?

Because funnily enough having a living baby doesn't end at birth, it's a lifetime commitment and an exceptionally tough one if you have a disabled child.

It makes me itch when people say "I'm pro choice but not for X Y and Z reasons" especially when they've had terminations themselves - so you were happy for the law to be on your side during your troubles but you don't want to afford the same to other women?

I came here to say this, surely the fact a person has to give birth to a dead baby tells you it wasn't an easy choice for them to make?

You can't be pro choice with exceptions, you either believe a person has a choice or you don't. It's a very slippery slope to say "I'm pro choice but" - I learnt this the hard way, I used to be like "I'm pro choice but I think it's bad people abort babies because it's not the gender they wanted" I then watched a documentary and found out that people will straight up just kill the baby whose just been born because it wasn't the desired gender so I absolutely have no qualm with any reason to abort, it's entirely up to the person and those reasons are their own.

Why not give it up for adoption

Gee I forgot women don't have feelings, they're just vessels do deliver children they don't want

doughnut, it just isn’t that simple. It isn’t as if there is a healthy baby waiting to be born who’s parents have changed their mind.

The whole point of having different laws for disabilities, as harsh and cruel as this may appear to those personally affected, is to do with costs. From the governments point of view, ongoing healthcare costs, care costs, related costs in terms of benefits, one or both parents being unable to work in the future - are large.

If that sounds awfully cold, it isn’t. Every decision the government make is one rooted in economics, no matter how much they might profess it to be about caring for us and our wellbeing.

And that is why no one should be pressured into terminating. But those costs don’t magically vanish upon the birth of the baby and not does the emotional strain.

"Well yes, either we have bodily autonomy or we don't."
"In my opinion, a woman's bodily autonomy does not mean it is definitely okay to kill a viable fetus, though many feminists do not seem to allow discussion on this. So, aborting a fetus at say, 35 weeks, when you have to go through giving birth anyway, is horrific in my opinion because it means you have to actually kill the baby before inducing labour. That baby has acquired a separate right to life which takes nothing away from the mother if that right is respected (ie, ending the pregnancy by inducing labour and giving the baby up for adoption).

An abortion at 22 weeks, when the baby (healthy or not) cannot live outside the womb, is completely different."

"...you have to actually kill the baby before inducing labour" - I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Surgical abortions (necessary after 13 weeks' gestation) will always entail killing the baby either before or during the procedure to remove it from the womb.

Babies born at 23 weeks have better than even odds of survival now.

I agree that the bodily autonomy of the mother is not the only factor in the discussion.

And I disagree that " a woman can have an abortion for any reason she likes and it's her business, not anyone else's." We have laws because in some circumstances, our expression of our bodily autonomy can negatively impact other people's bodily autonomy (assault, rape, murder). Society decides where lies the line between two competing 'rights' to bodily autonomy. A woman exercising her right to bodily autonomy through an abortion results in her baby losing their life. That is also a social and moral question, not just a personal, individual one.

I have a child with DS.

I think Eastenders did it better with Honey struggling at first and now the character with DS pops up occasionally but she's just another cast member.

I think this storyline just reinforces the negatives.

*And I disagree that " a woman can have an abortion for any reason she likes and it's her business, not anyone else's."

Well luckily the law says otherwise.

Don't like abortions? Don't have one. Your womb and it's contents are yours and you are free to decide for yourself what you want to happen but it is morally wrong to remove that choice from other women.