Campaigners lose abortion fight

[EmeraldRaine]

Heidi Crowter and a few others were campaigning to remove the right for women to choose abortion if their baby was found to be affected by Downs syndrome. These campaigners feel that women shouldn't have the right to terminate a pregnancy because the foetus has Downs Syndrome, because it discriminates against people with Downs syndrome.

Cant help but think that this was a victory for common sense. Downs syndrome like every other disability is different from person to person and lots of people would feel unable to cope with a child with a lifelong disability. To say that isn't discriminating against disabled people. The only person who has the right to choose in every single case, is the woman who is pregnant. Perhaps these campaigners would be better off campaiging for better support for disabled people and their carers than trying to remove women's rights to make decisions that are best for them.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

As has been said many timesbybpeople defending this ruling, in practice this doesn't happen. There would not be a glut of premature parentless babies if it was ruled that abortion after 24 weeks was only allowed in cases where the babies condition is incompatible with life.

Even one would be too many.

One woman who is forced to have her abusers baby and have his abuse for life is too many.

One child on an incubator with no parent there and a life full of problems and pain is too many.

One woman who wanted to have a late term abortion but is forced to have a live birth only to watch her baby die over the course of a few weeks is too many.

Your 'solution' is cruel to everyone involved.

I disagree with abortion up to full term.
How can it be ok? If you were to smother the child as soon as it was born, it would be murder.
A baby that age is a sentient being, it will be hearing and feeling things. Parents play music to a child in the womb etc...
To me its horrendous!

@LateDecemberBackInLowB12

Even one would be too many.

One woman who is forced to have her abusers baby and have his abuse for life is too many.

This is irrelevant to the ruling. The position for "healthy" babies is that they can't be aborted after 24 weeks.

One child on an incubator with no parent there and a life full of problems and pain is too many.

That's not your call to make. And this is about babies with Downs Syndrome, that's not a guaranteed life of problems and pain...

One woman who wanted to have a late term abortion but is forced to have a live birth only to watch her baby die over the course of a few weeks is too many.

As I said, there should be an exception for conditions incompatible with life and if the parents and doctors believe only palliative care is in the baby's best interests then that's what will happen.

I've never had an abortion but I absolutely believe it is the woman's right to choose. If this were passed it wouldnt stop late abortion but it would increase much less safe later abortions and women dying due to it. Potentially we could be right back to back street abortions.

The most important thing is to actively care for and nourish the children that are already here. We have bigger fish to fry like child poverty and neglect. I know how hard and expensive it is to raise a child that isnt going to actively need me for his basic standards of living. I cannot think how I would have managed to have a child that potentially could never be independent. I also know families where one child is significantly disabled which means when the parents are no longer around that adult is the siblings responsibility which to me is unfair.

I cant see the link between abortion and discrimination.

@dangermouseisace

I work with people with learning disabilities (social services) and I disagree that babies should be aborted up until birth, solely because of Downs Syndome. If other severe complications, yes. But I've met so many adults with Downs syndrome who are only on the borderline for learning disability, and have no other issues except common problems like interactive thyroid. These adults most often work, and live independent lives with a minimum of support. When I say minimum I mean things that many if us need help with, like benefit forms or finding somewhere to live. The idea that their lives are worth less than anyone else, just because they have Downs, is shocking.

The thing is, you happen to have known capable adults with Down's syndrome.

I have known quite a few people with downs. The 2 adults I met (relatives) were siblings. Both in their 30s, both still needing care from their parents. Couldn't live independently, but had been through school. Both had multiple health conditions as a result of DS, and died by the age of 40.
1woman I know in her late 20s with DS- masses of other issues. Has to have 24/7 care- 1:1. Incontinent, no communication.

Another teen with downs- again, needed 24/7 1:1 care, and died at 23 from associated conditions.

1 woman with DS who lived semi independently from 24-29 when she started have mutliple medical
Problems, and now back at home being cared for by parents.

[quote Pikamoo]@LateDecemberBackInLowB12

Even one would be too many.

One woman who is forced to have her abusers baby and have his abuse for life is too many.

This is irrelevant to the ruling. The position for "healthy" babies is that they can't be aborted after 24 weeks.

One child on an incubator with no parent there and a life full of problems and pain is too many.

That's not your call to make. And this is about babies with Downs Syndrome, that's not a guaranteed life of problems and pain...

One woman who wanted to have a late term abortion but is forced to have a live birth only to watch her baby die over the course of a few weeks is too many.

As I said, there should be an exception for conditions incompatible with life and if the parents and doctors believe only palliative care is in the baby's best interests then that's what will happen.[/quote]
You are the one who suggested induction rather than abortion at 24 weeks rather than trusting women to make decisions about their own bodies.

I was, as you know, talking about that.

You are the one advocating for life at any cost past 24 weeks ( I just think it's wrong to deny a chance at life where one exists ) but its not you paying the price.

And this is about babies with Downs Syndrome, that's not a guaranteed life of problems and pain

It is though, for the large majority of people with Downs syndrome.

That's not how morality works I'm afraid

I think people should be very careful about using words like morality

I see nothing ‘moral’ in suggesting that women who have an abortion after 24 weeks, which is usually for severe issues in this country at least, are ‘immoral’

If the baby is too premature to survive, then that's a natural consequence of the woman's right to choose so woman chooses to end her pregnancy at 25 weeks. The Dad has disappeared, she's lost her job, she's discovered she's got a life limiting illness, she's decided now isn't the right time but got her dates wrong, whatever. Baby is assumed healthy. So you deliver the baby live and then what? Do you throw every medical intervention needed at this very prem baby to have it in hospital for months with no parents as Mom signs the adoption papers or do you leave it without intervention, put it in an incubator, try to bottle feed it but basically let it die??

What I dont think is right is take two bsbies 23 week pregnancy. One wanted one not. Everything possible done to save 23 week but other ond can be aborted. Id like to see the abortion limit brought down to 20 weeks max except in the case of conditions not compatible with life. Its not going to happen in the UK. But at least the USA is waking up.

@LateDecemberBackInLowB12 you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm absolutely not advocating for life at any cost past 24 weeks. If the baby has a condition incompatible with life then, yes, go ahead with abortion if that is what the mother feels is best. But Downs Syndrome is not incompatible with life..

@SleepingStandingUp

If the baby is too premature to survive, then that's a natural consequence of the woman's right to choose so woman chooses to end her pregnancy at 25 weeks. The Dad has disappeared, she's lost her job, she's discovered she's got a life limiting illness, she's decided now isn't the right time but got her dates wrong, whatever. Baby is assumed healthy. So you deliver the baby live and then what? Do you throw every medical intervention needed at this very prem baby to have it in hospital for months with no parents as Mom signs the adoption papers or do you leave it without intervention, put it in an incubator, try to bottle feed it but basically let it die??

The baby's doctors should act in his or her best interests, as they should for any patient.

@Rubyupbeat

I disagree with abortion up to full term. How can it be ok? If you were to smother the child as soon as it was born, it would be murder. A baby that age is a sentient being, it will be hearing and feeling things. Parents play music to a child in the womb etc... To me its horrendous!

The situation is unlikely, but the truth is that if it is legal, it will happen and it isn't really morally clear-cut. The problem with a baby is that they are not at all self-sufficient. A baby will not survive if someone is not willing to do the extensive work of taking care of it. You wouldn't need to smother a baby, you would just have to have noone be willing to take up those caring duties.

There-in lies the problem, I think.
If you can't mandate that a mother (or father) takes care of the child they have borne, who will step up?

Currently the state steps in to an extent but outcomes are poor because, ultimately, the sort of emotional investment that is the norm for a baby is not something that many people can muster up for a child that isn't their own.

I don't understand the "forced birth" argument with regards to late term abortions. A woman who has a termination post 24 weeks will be required to give birth anyway, the procedure will not be different to that of a stillbirth

I agree. I think the term “forced birth” is nonsensical in this situation and shouldn’t be used. It’s so obviously incorrect that it weakens the pro-choice argument.

@ManifestDestinee

BTW, can we stop calling pregnant women mothers? They're still women, and the whole point is usually (though not always) that they are choosing NOT to be mothers.

Women who have a compassionate induction or TFMR very much consider themselves to be mothers to their precious babies.

They are choosing (and it is no choice, believe me) to not subject their darling children to a short life of pain and suffering. It is the most selfless thing a mother can do. Take on that pain and grief herself.

There is no word for bereaved mother. If you lose your husband or wife, you are a widow or widower. If you lose your parents, you are an orphan. There is no word for the hell that is a parent losing their baby.

Yes, and I've addressed that. But the vast majority of women who have terminations do so because they do not want to be called mothers, and they are not mothers. We need to stop referring to them as mothers.

This in no way stops women who wish to refer to themselves as mothers from doing so.

@ManifestDestinee

Yes, and I've addressed that. But the vast majority of women who have terminations do so because they do not want to be called mothers, and they are not mothers. We need to stop referring to them as mothers.

This in no way stops women who wish to refer to themselves as mothers from doing so.

This thread is talking about late terminations for medical reasons, so within the context I was talking about the language around that specifically.

In England, Scotland & Wales (NI law is different) we do not have abortion on demand at ANY stage of pregnancy.

Even before 24 weeks, the law says that you need two medical practitioners to be of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the continuance of your pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to your physical or mental health, or any existing children in your family.

Why on earth do some people think that if the time limit were removed, women would just be able to rock up and demand an abortion in the final weeks of pregnancy, 'just because'? You can't do that at 20 weeks, or 12 weeks, or 8 weeks ...

This thread is talking about late terminations for medical reasons, so within the context I was talking about the language around that specifically

Actually it's talking about a lot more than that, and the post you are complaining about was in response to posters calling all women who were pregnant mothers. They are not.,

I'm constantly hearing or reading about women's rights. Do the babies have no rights at all.

@Awwlookatmybabyspider

I'm constantly hearing or reading about women's rights. Do the babies have no rights at all.

They aren't babies until they are born, and foetus' don't have any rights.

Women still don't have enough.

The unborn must have rights even in the UK. Otherwise why is there this 24 week cut off limit for abortions except in very specific circumstances such as incompatability with life.

@Viviennemary

The unborn must have rights even in the UK. Otherwise why is there this 24 week cut off limit for abortions except in very specific circumstances such as incompatability with life.

Legal rights? No, I don’t think they do.

@Viviennemary

The unborn must have rights even in the UK. Otherwise why is there this 24 week cut off limit for abortions except in very specific circumstances such as incompatability with life.

Not because the foetus has any right to life, or any other rights.

82% of abortions in 2020 were done at less than 10wks of gestation (most under category C, risk to the woman's health - essentially an unwanted pregnancy), 88% by 12wks, 97% by 19wks (a fair percentage of these are due to medical issues), and 99.9% by 24wks. Only 0.1% were carried out after 24wks, these will have all been on medical grounds.

Seeing as the vast majority are done before 10wks (i.e., as early as possible) and there are very few done after even 19wks, what makes people think that women would suddenly wait until 37wks if the current upper limit was extended? They wouldn't. It would carry on as it does now where the overwhelming majority of women who did not want to be pregnant would seek to have an abortion as soon as possible and with it carried out in the first trimester. Terminations carried out later in pregnancy would be due to extreme circumstances as they are now - many for medical reasons. There would be no sudden increase in full term terminations.