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

@ManifestDestinee

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.

Should Drs have the right not to perform a late term abortion? As the argument for their body their choice should stand here too. Or should they be force to carry out procedures that they don't want to?

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

'We' don't only keep 'perfect babies.

Women have the choice to abort if they want. Many women don't choose abortion and nobody is forcing them to. People are, however, trying to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.

There is no devil's advocate when it comes to our personal choices about our own bodies and lives.

@ManifestDestinee

Jesus. I'm 30 weeks and can feel my baby kicking away, he can hear and see light.I feel sick at the thought of aborting a baby at 39/40 weeks.I believe in women having a choice but not after a certain point. Like, to the point just before birth seems too much imo even the 23 weeks I'm not so comfortable with...maybe 20 weeks. It's tricky

It's not tricky. You can't be pro-choice but only up until a point you personally feel comfortable...your comfort is only relevant to your own body, no-one elses.
How you feel is how most women would feel....so how about we let women regulate for themselves? You really think that because it's available up to birth that women will just wait until 8 months and then on a whim decide, nah, can't be fucked having a kid after all?

We don't need regulations based on yours or anyone elses moral line. We need to trust women to self regulate, and we do. Termination is available up to 24 weeks even without factoring disabilities, but how many actually happen post 20 weeks? Less than 2%, that's how many. 82% are under 10 weeks.
We don't need other people's arbitrary rules. We can decide for ourselves...as early as possible, as late as necessary.

I don't think many people really agree with the idea of termination for any reason (e.g. financial) past 24weeks. If you think that's not pro choice... well, not that many people will be then.

The current law is fine. If you support the current law as it is now and no further, of course that is pro choice.

Should Drs have the right not to perform a late term abortion?
As the argument for their body their choice should stand here too.
Or should they be force to carry out procedures that they don't want to?

Drs aren’t forced to carry out any abortions, at any gestation.

My DH's ex SIL had a test for downs syndrome in her first pregnancy. The test was positive.

Ater much agonising, she decided she couldn't end the life of her unborn child and she would manage as best as she could.

She gave birth to a girl who didn't have down's syndrome. She was told by the midwives that it's not uncommon!

Some sick fucks in this thread. Abortion up until birth? Nauseating stance.

I find it really strange that people say a baby can be aborted up until birth. Would you (and seriously answer this) kill a newborn baby? Because in the weeks surrounding they are a normal baby that can live outside the womb.

Csection and immediate adoption if must but to actually kill it? Absolutely insane.

@Clymene

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.

But my question is whilst ending her pregnancy for a healthy child at a late stage the child wouldn't have to be terminated. At 39 weeks, for example that is a full term child. At that stage what procedure to terminate her pregnacy would be used, as the baby is large and it wouldn't be very different to a cesarean? Should a women be able to terminate her pregnacy whilst she is in labour also? Where would the cut off point be?

This is the right decision. No woman should be made to continue with a pregnancy they do not want. The idea of terminating up to birth is unpleasant but had to be available to allow time for screening, testing & appointments to take place prior to a termination. I do not feel that a 24 week cut off would be sufficient They simply may not desire a child with DS, they may feel they could not cope or they may not want the uncertainty. Termination figures for unborn babies with DS would suggest that a lot of expectant mothers would rather not have a DS child & I would also question how many prospective adoptive parents would be willing to take on a DS child.
I don't feel that an unborn child can be discriminated against as you can only experience discrimination once you are born imho.
DS is a spectrum ranging from mild to severe & unfortunately there is no guarantee of how severely a child with DS could be affected.

I dont think people really know what they're saying...

And sorry, but 'no woman should have to give birth'. To a point, yes... but then there is a point where a baby's needs does actually come first. Who is more innocent, really? No one's going to win here so you have to pick someone. And yes I've gone through a traumatic birth.

@GameSetMatch

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.

I think you should rethink that absolutely abhorrent statement. Having had an abortion as the result of a late diagnosis of DS at 22 weeks it was, and will remain, the most heartbreaking and sole destroying decision my DH I have ever made. It was not because our DS would not have been perfect. It was because he would have suffered. He was a much wanted child so to compare me to Hitler is foul.

As for the "only keeping babies that are perfect" thing? Honestly, no one gets the child they imagined, absolutely no one because they're individuals and you can't make them be who you imagined they would be. However you can have basic expectations that they will develop in a typical way, will be reasonably healthy, will mature, and will go off into the world to live their own lives. Having a disabled child changes that. You don't know how your child is going to develop, whether their development will continue but at a slower pace, whether it will be more or less typical, or whether it will halt. You don't know if they will be healthy and if they aren't healthy you don't know whether they will be able to access treatment, let you know they're unwell, whether they will have a decent quality of life due to treatment, and so on. You don't know if they'll ever be wholly independent or independent at all and if they're not independent you don't know what will happen to them when you're gone - not just who will take care of them but who will love them, who will spend time with them, who will want them. You can't think too much about the future because therein lies sleepless nights, that tight chested feeling, and the anxiety spiral. You worry about your other DC and whether they're missing out, whether they resent the situation, whether they're getting enough time and attention. You worry the same about your disabled DC. You have appointments, meetings at school, EHCPs to organise, DLA/PIP reviews just in case your child was miraculously cured of their life long condition, support to fight for, professionals who will look you in the face and say you don't need help when you clearly do, you have to constantly advocate, constantly fight. It affects your marriage your friendships and other relationships, your ability to work, your social life, your own health. It's not a situation that should be forced onto anyone and at the centre of it is a child that you are hoping you are doing right by.

I love my children but if I knew then what I know now, I don't know if I'd have continued the pregnancy. Their disabilities certainly influenced our decision not to have any more children as we didn't want to risk another child with the same difficulties.

If that makes me worse than Hitler then I guess I'm Hitler 2.0 - fucking hiel, me.

@BiscuitLover09876

I find it really strange that people say a baby can be aborted up until birth. Would you (and seriously answer this) kill a newborn baby? Because in the weeks surrounding they are a normal baby that can live outside the womb.

Csection and immediate adoption if must but to actually kill it? Absolutely insane.

Look and see how many women actually abort at that stage.

Oh and the tests they give are 100% accurate. Please do not speak about what you do not know about thus providing massive upset to those of us who have had the misfortune of being there.

This sort of issue is bound to arouse strong feelings.

I know someone who once said she could never abort because of Down’s - she knew someone with a Down’s child who was much loved.

Roll on several years, though, after 2 of her own and a 3rd on the way, and she wanted to know PDQ - said she could never cope, esp. knowing what the parents she knew had gone through in terms of the extra time, care and attention needed, especially for parents who both need to work more or less full time.

Personally I feel much more strongly about someone I know of, who aborted a perfectly healthy foetus at 20 weeks, because she already had 2 of that sex and only wanted the other. I’m still shocked at that TBH.

@BiscuitLover09876

I dont think people really know what they're saying...

And sorry, but 'no woman should have to give birth'. To a point, yes... but then there is a point where a baby's needs does actually come first. Who is more innocent, really? No one's going to win here so you have to pick someone. And yes I've gone through a traumatic birth.

I know what I'm saying. No woman should be forced to give birth or forced to have a baby with disabilities. If they wish to terminate that pregnancy that is their right. Late term abortions are done due to disabilities, they are not done on healthy pregnancies. No the foetuses needs does not come first.

All it takes is for societies attitudes to pregnancy and children to change for the uptake of that to increase.

To a point, yes... but then there is a point where a baby's needs does actually come first. Who is more innocent, really? No one's going to win here so you have to pick someone.

Up until birth, the mother. Always. And medical professionals will prioritise her too, she is the patient so her life, her wellbeing, and her autonomy are paramount.

@BiscuitLover09876

I find it really strange that people say a baby can be aborted up until birth. Would you (and seriously answer this) kill a newborn baby? Because in the weeks surrounding they are a normal baby that can live outside the womb.

Csection and immediate adoption if must but to actually kill it? Absolutely insane.

Yeah. Fetus will inevitably die in an early abortion, it's life Is in direct conflict with woman's choice. For a late fetus, I can't think of any good or even acceptable reason to kill the -what is now an- unborn baby.

Medical reasons is different obviously as it's like euthanasia and in both woman and fetus' best interests. But I could never support unrestricted abortion til birth, even in principle.

🌹

@BiscuitLover09876

I find it really strange that people say a baby can be aborted up until birth. Would you (and seriously answer this) kill a newborn baby? Because in the weeks surrounding they are a normal baby that can live outside the womb.

Csection and immediate adoption if must but to actually kill it? Absolutely insane.

Women wouldn't abortion at 39 weeks for no reason at all though. They just wouldn't. Late term abortions rarely happen now and they are all for particularly devastating reasons.

The stance of as early as possible as late as necessary is more of a statement - women can be trusted with their own bodies, and thats a powerful message, and will hopefully go some way towards finally creating equality between the sexes.

Why do some people advocate for further laws on their own bodies? Even if its not a choice you would personally make?

Grellbunt

Samcro
abortion should be available up to birth. problem solved.

“Woah... no nuance? That's an extreme and distasteful position.”

Agree.
If euthanasia is illegal, why would it be lawful to end the life of a child that could live independently outside of the womb?

@BiscuitLover09876

I dont think people really know what they're saying...

And sorry, but 'no woman should have to give birth'. To a point, yes... but then there is a point where a baby's needs does actually come first. Who is more innocent, really? No one's going to win here so you have to pick someone. And yes I've gone through a traumatic birth.

I absolutely understand what I'm saying, thank you

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.

And I’ve worked with so many babies that have Down’s Syndrome that have unsurvivable conditions and have suffered terribly. You can’t just say it’s one way or another.

Generally people don’t have the first clue what it takes for medical professions to sign off on a medical termination after 24 weeks, let alone what it takes for a patient to come to that decision.

There is such a lack of education when it comes to abortion rights and sadly, I think that’s what this court case was born out of. Lack of understanding and education. I’m relieved they didn’t get very far with it.

Why wouldn't they?
Some will and could. You don't speak for all women.
The questions are valid.