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

To the posters saying this campaign aims to strip women of their rights, do you think women should have the option of abortion up until birth for any reason?

To the posters saying that the campaigners are raising an irrelevant issue, as there are no documented abortions after 24 weeks on the basis of DS alone, what is the problem with rewording the law so it relates just to fetuses with life limiting conditions?

For those posters saying that we should trust doctors to advise us re medical need for abortion, do you realise how outdated knowledge of DS is within the medical community? I was told by my doctor that my daughter would be very likely to have severe heart problems affecting her quality of life.

The actual statistics are that 80-90% of children with DS who have a heart defect have it repaired within the first years of life.

I didn't mind being asked (repeatedly) whether I wanted an abortion, I minded that the info I was given to 'support' that choice was wrong.

This is about the law being outdated in terms of what it includes as severe abnormalities.

@FTstepmum

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!

What kind of test? One of the screening ones that give a chance (where even a high chance can still be a small %) , or something more definitive like an amniocentesis. Because it is not common to have a false positive on an amniocentesis.

but then there is a point where a baby's needs does actually come first so at what gestation would you let the woman die if it was one or the other? If she was told at 24 weeks continuing the pregnancy would kill her? 30? 34? 38?

@Clocktopus

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.

But whilst in labour should she be able to say, "I don't want this baby anymore, end its life"? Because that is what is being proposed

@SleepingStandingUp

but then there is a point where a baby's needs does actually come first so at what gestation would you let the woman die if it was one or the other? If she was told at 24 weeks continuing the pregnancy would kill her? 30? 34? 38?

That is not what is being suggested. What is being suggested is a healthy mum with a healthy baby and for any reason she can terminate the pregnancy up until birth.

It’s eugenics to allow for one reason and not another. If you’re going to follow that argument for allowing the killing of one baby over the killing of another.

There's a huge difference between having a healthy child and having a child with Down syndrome - they could be mildly or severely affected - it's absolutely the parents who get to choose if they want to take that risk. I for one would not

That is not what is being suggested. What is being suggested is a healthy mum with a healthy baby and for any reason she can terminate the pregnancy up until birth.. But if there comes a point where the baby's needs actually do come first then it extends to that doesn't it? If you're arguing that the unborn baby is more important than the Mom because one is more "innocent" then in a life and death situation you'd let the Mom die to save the foetus / unborn baby

@Spink

To the posters saying this campaign aims to strip women of their rights, do you think women should have the option of abortion up until birth for any reason?

To the posters saying that the campaigners are raising an irrelevant issue, as there are no documented abortions after 24 weeks on the basis of DS alone, what is the problem with rewording the law so it relates just to fetuses with life limiting conditions?

For those posters saying that we should trust doctors to advise us re medical need for abortion, do you realise how outdated knowledge of DS is within the medical community? I was told by my doctor that my daughter would be very likely to have severe heart problems affecting her quality of life.

The actual statistics are that 80-90% of children with DS who have a heart defect have it repaired within the first years of life.

I didn't mind being asked (repeatedly) whether I wanted an abortion, I minded that the info I was given to 'support' that choice was wrong.

This is about the law being outdated in terms of what it includes as severe abnormalities.

Because if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy after 24 weeks due to Down's syndrome, she absolutely should have that right. So no, a change in the wording is not necessary.

I am happy with the law as it stands. Late term abortions only happen under tragic circumstances in this country.

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.

Agreed. Not for no reason. They would have a reason.

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.

Yep. I can imagine someone aborting for that reason at 39 weeks. Sadly I can. If the law were changed, to allow abortion, up to the point of birth, for any reason, this would happen.

You have to admit, it’s a pretty extreme ideological position.

I don’t agree with abortion up until birth unless for serious medical reasons. I’m not sure if Down syndrome alone is enough but I realise the condition can come hand in hand with other conditions. As for the notion of abortion after 24 weeks on a healthy baby, I think is totally morally wrong. A women would still have to give birth regardless at that gestation.

@SleepingStandingUp

That is not what is being suggested. What is being suggested is a healthy mum with a healthy baby and for any reason she can terminate the pregnancy up until birth.. But if there comes a point where the baby's needs actually do come first then it extends to that doesn't it? If you're arguing that the unborn baby is more important than the Mom because one is more "innocent" then in a life and death situation you'd let the Mom die to save the foetus / unborn baby

That doesn't answer the question of a healthy mother and a healthy baby.

If the baby can be delivered alive and cause no harm to the mother, should the mother be able to decide if that baby lives or dies?

@Mojoj

Today's decision is utterly heartbreaking. No matter that it hasn't happened yet - the law now says murdering a child because it's disabled is okay. It's not. And never will be.

Murdering a child will never be legal. What a ridiculous thing to say.

@Mombie2021

Agreed. Disgusting that they even tried.

Agree. And I think Heidi was used to try and manipulate the ruling but thankfully it didnt work.

If the baby can be delivered alive and cause no harm to the mother, should the mother be able to decide if that baby lives or dies?

Yes. As long as she is pregnant she should be able to make that choice.

@Mojoj

Today's decision is utterly heartbreaking. No matter that it hasn't happened yet - the law now says murdering a child because it's disabled is okay. It's not. And never will be.

A small number of terminations for medical reasons past 24 weeks happen every year. This is not just about DS.

Some babies are unable to survive birth or will have very short lives filled with pain. Some babies will never have much quality of life at all or will have care needs beyond what the mother, and whatever family she has, can provide for. Often the mother already has other children whose needs must also be considered.

Sometimes the prognosis is not clear until late in a pregnancy, sometimes well past 24 weeks. A simple diagnosis is not always enough to make a decision. A 'syndrome' can be very mild or can be devastating and sometimes it's not possible to tell how badly a baby will be affected until really quite late.

Here is what the judge said about murder:

To the contrary, the fact that the domestic law of murder does not protect the life of the unborn child is itself telling ... the fundamental truth remains that the law of murder does not apply to a human foetus before the moment of birth. To be the victim of a murder, a baby must have been born alive and have an existence independent of its mother ... Mr Coppel submits that Parliament has created an offence (child destruction) which is the equivalent of murder but that is not right in relation to sentence: the penalty for murder is a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment, whereas for child destruction the court has a discretion, with the maximum penalty being life imprisonment. This is but one illustration of the fundamental point that these are very difficult and nuanced questions, on which Parliament has reached a certain view. It is a matter for Parliament to decide to change the law in this respect.

anon12345678901 but why limit that to DS? What about other conditions that are not life limiting but make life more difficult? Why not just make abortion up to birth an option for all women?

This campaign is about an equal approach to abortion. It is not about taking away choice.

It is not for me to tell another woman what to do with her womb, her health, her life and for those around her.

We are woeful at supporting disabled people in this country. Let alone forcing women and families into it who are not in a position to have that baby.

But whilst in labour should she be able to say, "I don't want this baby anymore, end its life" Because that is what is being proposed

Proposed where? It's been discussed on the thread in a hypothetical sense but it has not been proposed officially as a change to the law.

Women in labour still have bodily autonomy, for example a woman could refuse a caesarean - even if it was needed to save the life of the baby - because its her body and she is the priority.

@Jobseeker19 you are insisting that people judge the "morality" of a situation that doesn't exist - a healthy woman with a healthy fetus who wants to have an abortion at 9 months (or at any point past the viability of the fetus without life support.

That is not a situation that will exist or will happen. If a woman decides for whatever reason that she cannot be pregnant any more? She's not healthy. Mental health is health. If she becomes dangerously psychotic and is a danger to herself if the fetus isn't removed, then her health is more important. What's the other option - to restrain her and force her to give birth?

I'm sure her doctors will talk to her, and try to convince her to continue the pregnancy or to have an induction or c-section (which, past a certain point, would probably be safer and easier on her than an abortion) but if the induction or c-section wasn't what she wanted, or if it wasn't compatible with the mother's health and safety - then that's that.

@LateDecemberBackInLowB12

If the baby can be delivered alive and cause no harm to the mother, should the mother be able to decide if that baby lives or dies?

Yes. As long as she is pregnant she should be able to make that choice.

Why? If a healthy fetus can be delivered why should it be a choice to kill it? Emphasis on healthy, not TMFR.

Ending the pregnancy is done by delivering early. What need is there to stop its heart?

I don't even think this has anything to do with women's rights at that point. You have the right to end a pregnancy, that's not being denied by delivering early and putting up for adoption.

I have to say I find this rhetoric that women are aborting 39 week foetuses all over the place, just because they can and for the lolz, really offensive and misogynistic.

Because if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy after 24 weeks due to Down's syndrome, she absolutely should have that right. So no, a change in the wording is not necessary.

Absolutely. I'm shocked at the amount of people on here so dismissive of the impact a disabled child can have on the lives of the parents and siblings. They may never leave home, never be able to care for themselves. Siblings could be dragged from hospital to hospital with little focus on their own needs. Having a disabled child is not the same as having a healthy child and women absolutely should have that choice up until birth. No matter how mild a disability the DS is it will still have an impact. I'm angry that anyone thinks that right should be taken away

Was the campaign about removing downs syndrome as a ground for abortion after 24 weeks? I can understand why they would campaign for that but I don't think the choice should be removed at least not without huge changes to available support systems.

[quote Wroxie]@Jobseeker19 you are insisting that people judge the "morality" of a situation that doesn't exist - a healthy woman with a healthy fetus who wants to have an abortion at 9 months (or at any point past the viability of the fetus without life support.

That is not a situation that will exist or will happen. If a woman decides for whatever reason that she cannot be pregnant any more? She's not healthy. Mental health is health. If she becomes dangerously psychotic and is a danger to herself if the fetus isn't removed, then her health is more important. What's the other option - to restrain her and force her to give birth?

I'm sure her doctors will talk to her, and try to convince her to continue the pregnancy or to have an induction or c-section (which, past a certain point, would probably be safer and easier on her than an abortion) but if the induction or c-section wasn't what she wanted, or if it wasn't compatible with the mother's health and safety - then that's that.[/quote]

Well, either you agree with all abortions in every possible scenario or not. Otherwise your anti choice apparently. If the law changed to allow abortion for any reason up til birth, this could well happen, albeit very rarely.

Why the reluctance to discuss, since some places do have such liberal laws, it could happen