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

@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.

From the judgment:

... the European Court has never decided that a foetus, even one post-viability, is the bearer of Convention rights, including Article 2. To the contrary, it has been content to leave the controversial and difficult issue of when life begins to the margin of appreciation of Contracting States. The fact that both domestic legislation and courts, and the European Court itself, have recognised that there may be circumstances in which the foetus has interests which the State is entitled to protect does not lead to the proposition that it enjoys rights under Article 2.

Foetuses do not have personhood and do not have rights. If they did, all abortion would have to be illegal, even where the mother's life is endangered.

We have seen how that works out.

@Viviennemary

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.

You honestly, honestly think that a woman gets to 23 weeks, and then just goes "fuck it, I can't be arsed".

It is offensive to all mothers who have had to endure TFMR. Our babies were wanted, desperately loved, prayed for.

My son had a condition that is "compatible with life" but it would have been a short, painful, distressing to him life. He would have had to have multiple operations, at birth and beyond, in order to attempt to fix what my body creates wrongly in his. That's without breathing tubes for life, feeding tubes for life, fighting off infections with his tiny, second centile body. He would have suffered, immeasurably until he succumbed.

Could you put your child through pain and suffering, knowing that that is all they would ever know? Never leaving an incubator? Never leaving a children's hospital?

You honestly think that I wouldn't have given my right arm for him to have been even slightly healthy? For it to have been even just one of the conditions that he had?

How dare you condemn women who have had to endure the worst thing a mother can, condemn and judge them for trying to spare their child.

@Awwlookatmybabyspider

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

The Abortion Act is silent on the definition of “serious handicap”. It is therefore a matter of clinical judgment and accepted practice. The RCOG (Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists) has detailed guidance for health professionals involved in late abortions for fetal abnormalities.17 The BMA believes the factors that may be taken into account in assessing the seriousness include the following: – the probability of effective treatment, either in utero or after birth; – the child’s probable potential for self-awareness and potential ability to communicate with others; – the suffering that would be experienced by the child when born or by the people caring for the child.

That is taken from

www.bma.org.uk/media/3307/bma-view-on-the-law-and-ethics-of-abortion-sept-2020.pdf

I read those points and consider the decision to carry out a termination post 24 weeks quite heavily focused on the quality of life and capacity for life of an unborn child. These are factors which are of course considered in conjunction with the wishes of pregnant woman who go in contrast does have legal rights - but those considerations are of sufficient gravity nonetheless.

Given also that two doctors must agree on the same grounds for said late termination and the fact that statistically the vast majority of post 24 week terminations are on the basis of identified issues linked directly to those above points and not a late realised whim to end a pregnancy per se. See in particular section 4.8

www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-2020/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2020

It makes me uncomfortable to continually encounter statements such as yours in this debate. Precisely because research, Law, Professional Ethics and official statistics are all screaming out loud that this specific decision making process and procedure is - for the overwhelming majority of women in this situation - already traumatising and damaging enough. It is adding an unnecessary, ill judged and cruel dynamic mostly by those who will fortunately never have to make this choice. I find that an affront to what I and many others consider those 279 women’s Rights enshrined in Law and a civilised society.

Any right to life does not involve the right to use someone else’s body. I need a kidney, bone marrow, a blood transfusion to sustain my life? I’m not entitled to yours. Or my mother’s.

^It is adding an unnecessary, ill judged and cruel dynamic mostly by those who will fortunately never have to make this choice.*

This. 100%. I know someone who did go through this; a much wanted child. It was utterly horrific. How anyone would want to increase her suffering is beyond me.

Wimpolehat the issue is that after 24 weeks the baby has to be euthanised inside the womb to guarantee it’s not born alive so it’s not just about using somebody’s body. Most people accept euthanising unborn babies that will have a poor quality of life when born as it’s usually the kindest thing to do.

Giving an unborn baby rights would raise the possibility of a clash in the rights of the woman vs the rights of the unborn baby.

The only countries I know of that seemingly put the unborn baby ahead of the woman are countries that are notoriously anti-woman on all fronts.

We must always prioritise the living human, in this case the woman, over anyone yet to be born/already dead.

@stairway

Wimpolehat the issue is that after 24 weeks the baby has to be euthanised inside the womb to guarantee it’s not born alive so it’s not just about using somebody’s body. Most people accept euthanising unborn babies that will have a poor quality of life when born as it’s usually the kindest thing to do.

You’re contradicting yourself here

You’ve rightly stated it’s usually the kindest thing to do. Your choice of phrase of “Poor quality of life “ is a dismissive and throwaway especially when the word poor should largely be replaced with “ catastrophic “ in the vast majority of cases.

This notion about rights and kindness is warped. And who is it conjured up for? Yourself? Certainly not the mother or baby

@Kinsters
See PP
the child’s probable potential for self-awareness and potential ability to communicate
with others;
– the suffering that would be experienced by the child when born or by the people caring
for the child.

DS falls into this category therefore you are right it is not an opinion it is a fact that legally the condition on can be incompatible with life - hence why one can abort after 24 weeks

@ShushShushShush I am
Sorry for your loss.

As someone who had a TFMR at 31 weeks (not for DS) I am very pleased that they lost this fight. I didn't find out my babies diagnosis until 28 weeks as my scans up until then were just showing as her being "small" so after my 20 week scan they booked me in for a follow up at 28 weeks and after a proper investigation they discovered that I'd actually contracted CMV very early on in my pregnancy which affected the babies whole development (they don't routinely test for CMV so it wasn't picked up on the 20 week scan) so after an amino and MRI it was confirmed as a very severe case and the baby was brain damaged, by the time the results came in I was over 30 weeks and they gave us the option to end the pregnancy and that's what myself and DH decided was best for the baby, I couldn't knowingly bring a brain damaged child into the world. It was the hardest thing I've ever had to do, absolutely heartbreaking as she was a very much wanted baby. I shudder to think of any poor woman in a similar situation who gets a late diagnosis of DS or any other issue that would affect her baby and would be refused a termination due to the "cut off". Nobody has a termination or TFMR lightly but it is so important that the option is there for everyone.

@Roseinbloom20

As someone who had a TFMR at 31 weeks (not for DS) I am very pleased that they lost this fight. I didn't find out my babies diagnosis until 28 weeks as my scans up until then were just showing as her being "small" so after my 20 week scan they booked me in for a follow up at 28 weeks and after a proper investigation they discovered that I'd actually contracted CMV very early on in my pregnancy which affected the babies whole development (they don't routinely test for CMV so it wasn't picked up on the 20 week scan) so after an amino and MRI it was confirmed as a very severe case and the baby was brain damaged, by the time the results came in I was over 30 weeks and they gave us the option to end the pregnancy and that's what myself and DH decided was best for the baby, I couldn't knowingly bring a brain damaged child into the world. It was the hardest thing I've ever had to do, absolutely heartbreaking as she was a very much wanted baby. I shudder to think of any poor woman in a similar situation who gets a late diagnosis of DS or any other issue that would affect her baby and would be refused a termination due to the "cut off". Nobody has a termination or TFMR lightly but it is so important that the option is there for everyone.

You are so right, and I'm so sorry about the loss of your precious baby girl. ❤️

@ShushShushShush Thank you, I'm also so very sorry for the loss of your son. We go through the pain so they never have to

I’m not sure you understood what I posted, A previous poster said it was about the rights to another persons body, when really it’s about the decision for the baby to be born alive or dead. Down syndrome is usually about quality of life rather than a catastrophic condition. My Auntie is in her 60s with Down syndrome but she has had a reduced quality of life and it did impact my grandparents.

I’ve done a long post on another thread about this already so I don’t want to over egg the pudding. But I really do question the motives of the ‘drivers’ of this campaign (not Heidi) - the instamums who seem to be deliberately ignoring the context and real life application of this law, to make out there are hoards of women clamouring to have late terminations of babies with DS because they couldn’t be bothered to do it earlier. They have huge sway in the SN world (I believe some of them give talks to NHS staff, etc) so I find it worrying they’re using this campaign for what I suspect are more personal motivations.

Are the people campaigning for changes to the abortion law also campaigning for increases in social care funding, better healthcare, increased rights and benefits for carers?

This link says it all
fb.watch/8dHeWJvvAx/

@stairway

I’m not sure you understood what I posted, A previous poster said it was about the rights to another persons body, when really it’s about the decision for the baby to be born alive or dead. Down syndrome is usually about quality of life rather than a catastrophic condition. My Auntie is in her 60s with Down syndrome but she has had a reduced quality of life and it did impact my grandparents.

I’m not sure if you are aware that during this case the campaigners actually couldn’t show that a single post 24 week abortion in the last 10 years was because of T21 or Down Syndrome.

The vast majority - as has been referred to previously - of post 24 week abortions undertaken were down to other congenital medical or chromosomal abnormalities

This throws a very different o fight on what some have been ranting about on this thread

Apparently club foot, cleft lip and cleft palate are legally justified conditions for aborting post 24-weeks? And have been used after 24 weeks in multiple cases according to this Guardian article. Is somebody about about to explain to me how a cleft lip is incompatible with life? The way our society views and treats those with physical abnormalities is a tragedy. www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/28/mps-bring-bill-to-ban-late-abortions-for-cleft-lip-cleft-palate-and-club-foot

[quote Yarqueen]Apparently club foot, cleft lip and cleft palate are legally justified conditions for aborting post 24-weeks? And have been used after 24 weeks in multiple cases according to this Guardian article. Is somebody about about to explain to me how a cleft lip is incompatible with life? The way our society views and treats those with physical abnormalities is a tragedy. www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/28/mps-bring-bill-to-ban-late-abortions-for-cleft-lip-cleft-palate-and-club-foot[/quote]
Well cleft palate can range from hardly an issue, to having half of your face missing, so it can be quite a serious deformity with quality of life implications.

All it means is that for foetal anomolies the pregnant woman is given longer to decide than the usual 24 weeks, which is not that lomh after the stamdard NHS anomoly scan. Theyre not waiting till 39 weeks of pregnancy and going nah, fuck this.

Oh look. The woman who was offered her money back at her scan (weird as we don't pay for scans on the nhs) and was apparently offered several abortions used to write for the Catholic Herald. Rather remiss for the article to omit that fact

[quote Yarqueen]Apparently club foot, cleft lip and cleft palate are legally justified conditions for aborting post 24-weeks? And have been used after 24 weeks in multiple cases according to this Guardian article. Is somebody about about to explain to me how a cleft lip is incompatible with life? The way our society views and treats those with physical abnormalities is a tragedy. www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/28/mps-bring-bill-to-ban-late-abortions-for-cleft-lip-cleft-palate-and-club-foot[/quote]
If you actually read that article your post is deliberate manipulation of hair two cases where neither of those children were in fact aborted as foetuses nor did they have the other issues that can sometimes be present which cause more serious complications

Where are you getting information from the shows women are in fact having late term abortions for those conditions if they are at the “insignificant end of the spectrum “ respectively?

That article does not illustrate it

@stairway

Wimpolehat the issue is that after 24 weeks the baby has to be euthanised inside the womb to guarantee it’s not born alive so it’s not just about using somebody’s body. Most people accept euthanising unborn babies that will have a poor quality of life when born as it’s usually the kindest thing to do.

Again, it's not a baby and it isn't euthanised (you can't euthanise something that isn't actually alive)

Again, it's not a baby and it isn't euthanised (you can't euthanise something that isn't actually alive

I know you mean well, but your language is quite jarring to me. Distressing almost.

It is a baby, he was my baby, my very precious, very wanted son. And he was very much alive.

My DS was born at 21+4 so we didn't have to endure the needle (I would have 4 days later). So he was born live, and lived for a short while after birth.

Please don't minimise the lives of our children by saying they weren't people, and that they didn't live. They lived in our bodies, we felt them move and loved them more than words can say. The loss of them is devastating.

The problem is that where you start to chip away at "when" a woman loses her right to choose what happens to her own body, the genie is out of the lamp. Her body, her choice 100%.

The stats show that the late term pregnancy termination numbers are tiny. Abortion is never the easy option.