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

@Jobseeker19

I was replying to someone who said they wanted it up until birth.

Given the facts now provided on that point, surely you agree it should be available up until birth?

I'm unable to quote Mathildathink's excellent factual post, but it summarises the situation brilliantly.

As early as possible, as late as necessary.

@Grellbunt
What, even if there is no real reason? Really?
If the person who would give birth to them does not want to do that, that is the reason and is enough reason imo.

@Grellbunt I do not feel like I have enough knowledge to have a firm view but I do wonder who could judge what a "real" reason is? And if somebody else has to judge, then it's not the woman's right to chose anymore.
That said, is it still true in the UK that 2 doctors have to sign off on abortion? So women don't really get to choose anyway.

is the case about terminating for abnormalities (which personally I don't believe Down's syndrome is

It is, whether you believe it or not. It's not something you can alter based on belief.

I'm very glad they lost.

I agree with the verdict too. I know someone who has a child with Down syndrome and a host of other medical issues as a result. As much as he loves his DS, life is hard and so is the constant worrying.

I don't agree that abortions should be allowed up to birth for any reason, I.e. mother deciding at 37 weeks that she actually doesn't want a baby (not that I think that would happen). It's a very complicated moral issue, I don't see a baby as any less human because it hasn't been born yet. But I also believe it is a woman's right to choose.

@ilovemydogandmrobama2

Not sure I understand the issue - is the case about terminating for abnormalities (which personally I don't believe Down's syndrome is) after 24 weeks?

The issue is that the campaigner is claiming it is discriminatory to allow abortion after 24 weeks for disabled children but not for able bodied children. This is why people are countering with the proposition to allow abortion until birth for any pregnancy, for any reason.

That POINT is 24 weeks because the babies are most likely viable from then. As they’re viable, at that point I personally think it is murder. The mother could opt at that point for adoption. Better adopted than dead.

Yes, because there are millions of people out there willing to adopt children, particularly disabled children, not wanted by their own parents. It's why there are absolutely zero children in care, zero children damaged by poverty or neglect or abuse. . They all went to loving adoptive homes and there are still plenty of people out there still wanting to adopt!

@SunLovingMum

I agree with you UP TO A POINT as simply a mother’s choice whether to abort or not

That POINT is 24 weeks because the babies are most likely viable from then. As they’re viable, at that point I personally think it is murder. The mother could opt at that point for adoption. Better adopted than dead.

With that said, if you’re talking about mother’s life vs baby’s life, that’s another matter but that was not the purpose behind this latest action.

Do you know how many children are ready for adoption? And how many adoptive parents there are? And how much harder it is to get people to adopt a severely disabled child?

Those are rhetorical questions because your response above clearly shows you have absolutely 0 knowledge of the UK adoption situation. Over 99% of disabled children available for adoption spend their entire life in foster care (multiple homes) and children's homes/ specialist hospitals. Because no-one wants to adopt them

Abortion at any time, for any (or no) reason. Forced birth is abhorrent.

@Grellbunt

What do you consider to be a real reason?

Isn't not wanting to have the child good enough?

@SunLovingMum

I agree with you UP TO A POINT as simply a mother’s choice whether to abort or not

That POINT is 24 weeks because the babies are most likely viable from then. As they’re viable, at that point I personally think it is murder. The mother could opt at that point for adoption. Better adopted than dead.

With that said, if you’re talking about mother’s life vs baby’s life, that’s another matter but that was not the purpose behind this latest action.

Are there lots of people wanting to adopt babies with downs syndrome?

@BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz

Imo abortion should be available to all. For whatever reason they choose.

I don't doubt that, being a person with Downs Syndrome, they want to advocate for the potential future children who will also have DS, but it is simply not for them to say (or anyone for that matter), that a woman should have to continue a pregnancy against her wishes.

This!

I had an abortion because I didn't want the baby. I don't want children.

Is that a valid reason?

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.

Surely were campaigning to remove the right for women to terminate after 24 weeks if their baby had Down’s Syndrome? It’s not a position I agree with, as much as I feel for them, but I think it’s a key distinction... if I’m correct?

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.

No they weren't They were campaigning for the abortion limit to be the same for babies with Down's syndrome as it is for babies without it.

Prior to 24 weeks a baby is generally unviable outside the womb. Post 24 weeks a baby is generally viable outside the womb. Thus after 24 weeks some action has to be taken to deliberately end its life as it is removed from the womb.

I'm not convinced by the argument that there is no need for the limit to be lowered to 24 weeks for Down's babies because a) if that's the case then what negative impact does lowering the limit have and b) if it is indeed a matter of principle rather than practical outcome then let the principle (that Down's babies have the same right to life as any other baby) stand.

I haven’t read the article or the comments so I may get flamed for this but I’m not sure that’s what they were campaigning for.
Weren’t they campaigning against there being one rule for a ‘healthy’ foetus and another for a foetus with Down syndrome? As it stands a woman in the UK can abort for any reason up until 24 weeks and then only after if there is a health problem or disability identified with the foetus.
So therefore the lives of people with Down syndrome are being devalued or seen as lesser and I’m not sure I can agree with that.
I’m fully in favour of women being able to access abortion but it should be fair across the board. So all abortion carried out before 24 weeks unless in the case of the baby being incompatible with life or the mothers life being at risk... or all abortion being available up until term. People with Down syndrome matter just as much as people without.

On the abortion up to birth point, there was a case a few years ago about a diy abortion done at a very late stage. The woman went to prison, which troubled me as punishment didn’t seem appropriate in the circumstances. She didn’t sound at all well, and I just can’t agree with someone being forced to carry on with a pregnancy against their will. At the very late stages - as this was iirc - could early delivery be an option?

There are so few abortions performed after 24 weeks and, of the ones that are, most of them will not be performed anywhere near the due date. It'll be more likely women who've had results from their 20 week scan and have needed the extra few days to process things.

This is the right decision. Whilst Heidi is obviously quite a competent individual, there are many, many people with Down's who are not, and struggle immensely on a day to day basis. There are parents who've had their lives turned around by having to care for a disabled child. It should be a woman's choice as to whether she takes the risk to bring a child into the world who will obviously need a lot of support.

I'm glad the judge saw common sense.

'That POINT is 24 weeks because the babies are most likely viable from then. As they’re viable, at that point I personally think it is murder. The mother could opt at that point for adoption. Better adopted than dead.'

I don't want to upset anyone who has been adopted by arguing this point but I will say that although adoption works out brilliantly sometimes, if you're considering giving your child for adoption surely you know that their future safety and happiness is very precarious. I can completely understand why people make the choice not to bring their baby into the world if they don't feel they can care for them themselves.

Morally to me abortion feels wrong, I don't even like thinking about it and I would never have one. However, I would never want to take away another woman's right to have one. I've worked with children with disabilities and down syndrome and they have a right to be born into families that love them, not families that are forced to have them. Anyone with common sense should see that this campaign is ridiculous. Considering the 20 week anomaly scan might be the first time the woman may discover her baby has down syndrome, a 24 week limit is ridiculous.

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.

A lot of medical abnormalities only show up at 20 weeks, and require further testing and then women are given time to think about their options. Those (along with the mother being gravely ill) are the post 24 week abortions.

Any that die in utero and are subsequently induced are also classed as abortions.

What, even if there is no real reason? Really?

I'd say a woman wanting to avoid having to give birth to a child she doesn't want is a pretty compelling reason