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

Can you show me evidence of any abortions taking place at 36 weeks?

@EnidFrighten

They didn't exactly lose, the court said it should be a matter dealt with through parliamentary legislation rather than the courts.

No, they lost. The judge dismissed all their claims.

It's not unusual for a judge in an unsuccessful judicial review to point out that if you want the law changing then this should be done through parliament.

He was just explaining part of the reason why they lost.

@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.

I had an abortion at 26weeks because my baby was found to have hypoplastic left heart syndrome. I didn't find out until 21 weeks (when I had my anomaly scan on the NHS). Then I had a 2 week wait for a confirmation scan at a specialist hospital. Then I had to decide what to do. Then I had another wait for a date for the termination.

Let me tell you, I went through absolute hell. It was a much wanted pregnancy and terminating was the very last thing I wanted to do but I had to weigh everything up. If I continued with the pregnancy, the baby would have had to have an operation as soon as he was born, then probably spent the next few years of his life in and out of hospital being operated on and in all likelihood would have died before the age he was supposed to start to school. I made the best decision I could, not only for him, but for me and my other child and the rest of my family.

And that's without going into the trauma of a late stage abortion.

If you think I should have waited and given birth because it was past your arbitrary stage of viability, then I don't know what to say. I doubt any woman who has to do this, for whatever reason, doesn't think about all this. More or less for the rest of her life.

If this was men this case wouldn’t even have got to court

As usual it’s about the coastal erosion of women’s capacity to act as competent and sentient beings with control over their bodies and lives

It terrifies me that another woman including some of you on here think you can make this sort of decision or set qualifying criteria for the rest of us

@JasonMomoasgirlfriend

You don't have to be so horrible when writing a post *@ManifestDestinee*

Where have I been horrible? Please point it out. I think the posts telling women they are murderers and the ones telling women they should only be allowed to choose what the poster is comfortable with are pretty horrible. There is nothing horrible about my posts which respects the rights of all women and trusts them to know what is best.

I believe in women having a choice but not after a certain point

So you think they should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term?

Do you know what, I am so glad the judge ruled in this way. This campaign wants to strip the rights of women. The rights of all women are nothing to do with this lady and her personal medical condition. I’m sorry but she has no idea what it means to be a carer for a child with a lifelong disability and to try and take that choice from other women under the guise of guilt is abhorrent.

If you want more women to continue with pregnancy after a DS diagnosis, then support increased social care and health funding. Better welfare support. Read Death by Indifference. Think about what it’s like in reality to battle the NHS and social care to get the support and care your child needs. Check whether your local day centre has closed (ours has). Understand that a woman is essentially rolling the dice with the rest of her life based on how severely affected that foetus may be by DS. It could be fine. It could break her marriage and keep her out of work for the rest of her life. That’s the reality and doesn’t even cover what it means to be a carer in any practical sense. If a woman wants to choose an abortion then she should absolutely be supported but there should be freedom of information and choice.

Just playing devil’s advocate, we are no better than Hitler if we only keep babies that are ‘perfect’. A woman should be able to have a abortion if she wishes but I kind of feel weird if the only reason was because it possible had Down’s syndrome. The tests they give are not 100% accurate.

Just going to repeat @MatildaIThink's excellent post (my bold):

"There are less than a hundred abortions each year after 24 weeks in the UK, from the evidence presented in court all of those cases were either foetuses which could not have survived on their own even with medical intervention, or cases where the mother would not have survived the remainder of the pregnancy.

The campaigners could not cite one case in the last decade where a foetus had been aborted after the 24 week limit because of Downs syndrome, although some with Downs were aborted because of other, unsurvivable conditions."

So no eugenics, just saving women's lives.

@Antiqueanniesmagiclanternshow

Can you show me evidence of any abortions taking place at 36 weeks?

Its not about there being evidence its about people wanting it to be available at that point for any reason. It should be called ending a pregnancy if someone decides at 36 weeks they don't wish to be pregnant. But the child's life shouldn't have to end.

@Antiqueanniesmagiclanternshow

Can you show me evidence of any abortions taking place at 36 weeks?

I know of one personally at 32 weeks, that's the latest one I ever knew ( I have worked in abortion support). It was notable because that is so so rare.

It should be called ending a pregnancy if someone decides at 36 weeks they don't wish to be pregnant. But the child's life shouldn't have to end

It's neither a child or a life until it is born.

Where have I been horrible? Please point it out

I don’t think you were horrible at all manifest

I have an 8 year-old son who has a condition similar to down syndrome. I could have legally aborted him up until birth. I chose not to but I think women should have that choice. I agree that abortion laws should be equal for disabled and non disabled babies, in which case it should be up until birth for everyone. I think if we want to reduce the number of disabled babies being aborted we should focus on giving the support and services needed for disabled people and their families.

@Clymene

Just going to repeat *@MatildaIThink*'s excellent post (my bold):

"There are less than a hundred abortions each year after 24 weeks in the UK, from the evidence presented in court all of those cases were either foetuses which could not have survived on their own even with medical intervention, or cases where the mother would not have survived the remainder of the pregnancy.

The campaigners could not cite one case in the last decade where a foetus had been aborted after the 24 week limit because of Downs syndrome, although some with Downs were aborted because of other, unsurvivable conditions."

So no eugenics, just saving women's lives.

Those cases are very different to what was being suggested up thread, which was abortion up until birth for any reason.

I do not agree with the ruling today and believe that to say it is acceptable to abort at any point is a decision in this case is wrong. I respect other peoples views but disagree with them - the law as it stands means that a foetus that is capable of surviving and being healthy is being destroyed. I understand that the decision to abort is not taken lightly however I do think that the damage to the mother to aborting a foetus at such a late stage is also extreme. I feel that given the improvements in medicine the limit for abortion should be lower in general. I am anti abortion and accept that this is minority view and therefore also accept that the law reflects this, however, that this recent judgment is in my view totally wrong.

[quote Clocktopus]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.

The post-24wk limit exists because its not always possible to reach a decision prior to this in cases where further testing is needed or where a woman might need time to think through the various options.

For example, Barbara goes to her 20wk scan at 20+5 and the sonographer can't get a good view of the full anatomy. She gets an appointment to be rescanned in two weeks time when the baby is slightly bigger and will have hopefully changed position. Along she goes at 22+5 and the scan shows a potential problem. She has a follow up appointment a few days later at 23+3 for a more in-depth scan and further testing. The results are back really quickly and she has an appointment at 23+6 where the consultant informs her that the baby has

@ManifestDestinee

It should be called ending a pregnancy if someone decides at 36 weeks they don't wish to be pregnant. But the child's life shouldn't have to end

It's neither a child or a life until it is born.

So if someone loses their baby at that stage their baby wasn't a child anyway as they were on the otherside of a womb?

Those cases are very different to what was being suggested up thread, which was abortion up until birth for any reason

We believe (or I believe and I imagine others agree) that there are almost no women who would actually have a termination at a late stage, and the chances of finding a doctor who would perform it without an extremely good reason are remote at best, so we don't need rules or laws to stop us doing what we couldn't or wouldn't do anyway.

Just playing devil’s advocate, we are no better than Hitler if we only keep babies that are ‘perfect’. A woman should be able to have a abortion if she wishes but I kind of feel weird if the only reason was because it possible had Down’s syndrome. The tests they give are not 100% accurate

ODFOD. Hitler. Really?

So if someone loses their baby at that stage their baby wasn't a child anyway as they were on the otherside of a womb?

No. Your life begins the day you are born, you already know that. Legally and biologically and in all measures, you become a person and alive when you are born. Not before birth, that's a foetus.

abortion should be available up to birth. problem solved

TMFR up to birth. No need for all abortions to be allowed to, since it doesn't happen anyway.

Good.

Tbh, if they wanted to fight discrimination they should've fought for late abortions to be available to everyone. I bet they would've had more support too.

Just playing devil’s advocate, we are no better than Hitler if we only keep babies that are ‘perfect’.

Suggesting that women who have a termination for medical reasons are doing it simply because the child isn’t “perfect”, and equating it to Hitler is quite frankly vile.

My point is @Jobseeker19 is that even though women are theoretically permitted to abort up until birth for DS and a number of other conditions which are compatible with life, they don't.

So even if the law were changed to allow women to abort up until birth, women wouldn't do it.

When a woman is in labour and her life is threatened, medical staff will always prioritise her life over that of her unborn child's.

And that should apply before birth too in a civilised society. If a woman no longer wishes to be pregnant, for any reason whatsoever, she should be able to terminate the pregnancy. An unborn child's right to life can never trump the right of a woman to choose whether or not to be a mother.

And incidentally, I would love to know how much money Anti abortion charities give to supporting very disabled children, how many of their donors adopt children etc.