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

I'm not minimising anything at all, I'm just being factual...you are free to refer to yourself and your child in anyway you want. I'm talking to the people who are trying to remove our choices and rights based on their own feelings...we have to be able to counteract their emotive reasoning based in their own comfort levels, or else the choice that was open to you would be removed.
I've worked with women in countries that are/were not allowed to have TFMR....the preservation of that choice is an essential right.

@ManifestDestinee

I'm not minimising anything at all, I'm just being factual...you are free to refer to yourself and your child in anyway you want. I'm talking to the people who are trying to remove our choices and rights based on their own feelings...we have to be able to counteract their emotive reasoning based in their own comfort levels, or else the choice that was open to you would be removed. I've worked with women in countries that are/were not allowed to have TFMR....the preservation of that choice is an essential right.

I will fight with every fibre of my being that women will never be denied access to TFMR.

But your choice of language is hurtful. It insinuates that our children were not real, or living. They were living. We did have to choose to stop their hearts, or give birth to them so prematurely that they would never survive.

I under your stance and why you are saying it in that way. It will never not be emotive. Especially for the women who have lived it.

I'm truly sorry if my language upsets you, I really am. I would never speak like that to you personally in your situation. But, with respect, I am not going to change my position because it is completely necessary to fight against those who would stop us all from having the choices that must be available to us.

@ManifestDestinee

I'm truly sorry if my language upsets you, I really am. I would never speak like that to you personally in your situation. But, with respect, I am not going to change my position because it is completely necessary to fight against those who would stop us all from having the choices that must be available to us.

Thank you for apologising, I appreciate that.

@ShushShushShush

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.

A baby is in the eye of the beholder. I had a miscarriage fairly early and thought of it as losing a baby because it was a wanted pregnancy. Ive also had an abortion. Both times it was a foetus though and your feelings about your own pregnancies and loss dont change the facts

@Branleuse I agree - I've had multiple miscarriages from 12-14 weeks - I've never thought of them as babies but others do and I respect that

A baby is in the eye of the beholder. I had a miscarriage fairly early and thought of it as losing a baby because it was a wanted pregnancy. Ive also had an abortion. Both times it was a foetus though and your feelings about your own pregnancies and loss dont change the facts

My son was born at 21+4. He lived for an hour and a half. He has a birth certificate and a death certificate. I had to attend an inquest in court regarding his death. He was a baby. He was my son.

I do not consider the miscarriages I have had since to be babies. They were foetuses, they were very early.

What I meant to add

*The law also considered him to be a person. Which is why there was an inquest into his death.

I do appreciate it is rare for babies born at that gestation to live as long as he is.

@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.

There's also the impact on existing siblings to consider. If your first child has a serious health condition you may decide not to terminate as you have more time and resources to dedicate to caring for them and supporting them. If your second, third, or fourth child has the same condition it's a different situation and may not be fair on existing children or the unborn child if they'll need to spend a lot of time in hospital for example, parents can't split themselves in two.

I'm not minimising anything at all, I'm just being factual...you are free to refer to yourself and your child in anyway you want. I'm talking to the people who are trying to remove our choices and rights based on their own feelings...we have to be able to counteract their emotive reasoning based in their own comfort levels, or else the choice that was open to you would be removed.
I've worked with women in countries that are/were not allowed to have TFMR....the preservation of that choice is an essential right.

Fucking hell, the sheer lack empathy towards a woman who has actually had to make the choice that the thread is about ... And you are arguing semantics with her specifically about what a baby is?! To a woman who just said she's got PTSD about the choice she had to make? You say you care about women - well try fucking showing it then!

Shush, i am so sorry for the loss of your son, your baby. I'm sorry if this thread, and some of the people on it has caused you any additional pain.

@ShushShushShush I agree that what you experienced is completely different from an early miscarriage - for me there is no comparison. That said for others there may be. Regardless think that woman should be able to make a choice as to whether or not to continue a pregnancy at 24+ weeks if the child has disabilities

They’re appealing the ruling by the way, Maire just started a new crowdfunder.

ManifestDestinee

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)“

Of course at 24+ the baby is alive. I find your description of a potential son or daughter as “something” deeply offensive. That’s a really cruel thing to say on a thread where people are telling very personal stories of loss that will stay with them forever.

My babies were alive as soon as I felt them kicking inside me. Had I been told that they had a devastating condition that would have been incompatible with life, of course I would have put their interests first. I’m a peaceful person but I think I may well have laid out anyone who suggested to me that they had never been “alive”.

Insensitive in the extreme.

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

That might be true in a definition sense but what sort of person would say that on a thread where people are sharing stories of their losses like this? I mean... Come on. Clearly you don't actually care about women. You just like to try and sound like you're clever. But actually you're just callous.

EmeraldRaine

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

That might be true in a definition sense but what sort of person would say that on a thread where people are sharing stories of their losses like this? I mean... Come on. Clearly you don't actually care about women. You just like to try and sound like you're clever. But actually you're just callous.”

Yes, callous is apt.

@MrsSkylerWhite

EmeraldRaine

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

That might be true in a definition sense but what sort of person would say that on a thread where people are sharing stories of their losses like this? I mean... Come on. Clearly you don't actually care about women. You just like to try and sound like you're clever. But actually you're just callous.”

Yes, callous is apt.

Its a thread defending abortion rights. Its absolutely appropriate for people to discuss the definition of the terms surrounding it. It isnt a support thread and if someone finds it triggering because of their own late term loss, then its unwise to go on an abortion thread because this sort of thing gets talked about in cold clinical ways as a medical procedure

Yeah brilliant, except that person specifically responded to the woman who shared her story. She could have scrolled past. It's not ok to pretend to care about women only when you can use them as a statistic to back up your point. Not if you're a decent human anyway.

If we have to dance around with semantics about whether foetuses are the same as born babies on a thread started because someone was trying to remove womens rights to medical terminations, then thats a rubbish discussion. Im fed up of being kind about this. Obviously someone grieving a pregnancy loss is going to be sensitive about it, but no, discussing it and appealing for people to not anthropomorphise other peoples abortions does not mean they arent decent human beings.
Fed up of having to defend this

Im fed up of being kind about this

To a woman who has actually had to make that choice? Then as i say, you only care about that woman when you can use her as a statistic. Kindness to an individual woman who has been through hell costs absolutely nothing. But you saying that doesn't surprise me from what I've seen of you over the years.

And nobody asked you to defend semantics. You're just a keyboard warrior.

@EmeraldRaine

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

That might be true in a definition sense but what sort of person would say that on a thread where people are sharing stories of their losses like this? I mean... Come on. Clearly you don't actually care about women. You just like to try and sound like you're clever. But actually you're just callous.

This is a thread where in your op you said that

Cant help but think that this was a victory for common sense
The only person who has the right to choose in every single case, is the woman who is pregnant

So you agree with abortion up to birth. I'd actually say it is much more callous to say you are euthanising a baby than to state the true definition.

@EmeraldRaine

You lit a blue touch paper and then left the area
Now you return and attack two posters who’ve actually agreed with - as @MrsRobinsonsHandprints has pointed out - the basic thrust of your opinion

You’ve then resorted to sloppy insults by describing one of them as a keyboard warrior which is just asinine

There are lots of women on this thread @Branleuse
@ManifestDestinee
Being two of them whom you’ve singled out for criticism, who are actually championing a woman’s right to make this choice regardless of whether you or others consider then “unkind “ or “callous” in the process. They are upholding your point of view!

I would say to you that there’s been others on this thread you could pick out amongst when hyperbole such as “murder” “these sort of women” “ end the pregnancy hand the child over” and even at some point a analogy with late abortions being akin to Hitlerian practice. you can easily find more yourself. To me this is unkind: moral projections upon those who have or agree with acting within the confines of the law that upholds women’s bodily autonomy. That is unkind it’s also regressive. I’d tackle that first if I were you.

Being matter of fact and stating facts is not unkind. Those posters have no need to defend themselves. Especially not to you who started this thread because you believe exactly the same thing they have written.

There is no grey area here. It is either legal or illegal. Nobody has dismissed this process or said it’s a cake walk just because it’s legal. I understand that to women who had to end a much wanted pregnancy after 24 it is a life changing heartbreak. By reminding the thread - not the individual women as far as I am aware - that an unborn child is not a baby that legally it is a foetus, however is the basis by which women were able to end suffering and do the most selfless thing possible. In the midst of huge personal trauma and grief they had choice and dignity which as women we should fight with every fibre of our being to always uphold. For all of us. For any of us.

. Derailing this legal discussion to unpick whether someone is being unkind or not does not help women who are faced with this nightmare one jot. Reminding people we can do it if we absolutely have to most certainly is. Legal rights allow us as women from having to explain or defend our choices or dilute our words. I’m pretty certain the women who have had to endure this experience are on the same page as those you now suddenly don’t find favour with in that regard.

Again, it's not a baby and it isn't euthanised (you can't euthanise something that isn't actually alive)“ you realise a foetus is actually alive though right? It isn't breathing but it is alive. We can't pretend life is given at the moment of birth to make people feel better about decisions they're uncomfortable with

@SleepingStandingUp

Again, it's not a baby and it isn't euthanised (you can't euthanise something that isn't actually alive)“ you realise a foetus is actually alive though right? It isn't breathing but it is alive. We can't pretend life is given at the moment of birth to make people feel better about decisions they're uncomfortable with

Nobody is pretending life is given at birth. The Human Rights Act enforces that it does. An unborn baby doesn’t become a separate person with legal rights until they are born and draw breath by themselves.

The foetus is only alive because of the woman.
It’s not difficult to understand. Whether you accept it or not is a different matter I suppose but I would also suggest that’s the reason babies are given a time of birth is because the medical and clinical fraternity seem that biologically as the point when the foetus was delivered from the woman’s body and were alive independently. As a baby. An independent human being.

There's a difference between being alive and being a person with rights.

Sperm and eggs are alive. Tissue cultures are alive. Every other species on the planet is alive.

Personhood and rights come with being a) human and b) born

(aside from the legal fiction of 'corporate personhood')

I do agree that whilst if I have birth at over 20 weeks I would consider it a baby it is not right to describe it as such when discussing abortion. Technically it is a foetus and it is living but not alive. On a thread like this I think that terminology is right.