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

@Passmeamenuatthetottenham

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.

How? If it became law that you could these are kind of question you would have to ask. There may be cases where that would happen.

I do see the campaigners argument. A baby with DS ca n be aborted up until birth. And other babies cant be. So the DS child has less rights.

@Spink

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.

Yes, if a foetus has disabilities then 100% allow a termination past 24 weeks. Not just life limiting ones. They absolutely are trying to take away choice and force women to have pregnancies they do not want. Late term abortions are done because of disabilities, no one should be forced to have a disabled child if they do not wish too. The law as it stands regarding abortion is perfectly fine. It does not need to become more restricted.

@Passmeamenuatthetottenham

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.

Yes it’s disgusting Never mind that two doctors need to reach consensus for medical grounds too

Someone will come along next and say it’s akin to a woman having abortion as contraception

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

You're confusing several issues there. First of all, a foetus and a newborn baby are two different and distinct things, but thats not actually the point here.
I believe abortion should be legal up until birth. That doesn't mean I would do it. That doesn't mean I'm fine with, it doesn't mean I think it's a good thing or anything less than horrific. It means that I know its not MY decision to make for any other woman but me.

I'd never do it. I don't think anyone would, except possibly in the most extreme circumstances. I think if they did, it would horrific. But it's not my call, that's the only point.

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.

Adoption is not the rose-tinted, happy ending you seem to think it is. You appear to have a poor understanding of the care system in the UK.

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.

Same.

The number of women who seek abortions post-24wks, both those who qualify and those do not, is very small. There aren't going to suddenly be swathes of women deciding to terminate at 39wks for shits and giggles. At present all women have the option of abortion up until 24wks and the majority take place prior to 10wks, why do people think that would suddenly change if the upper limit was extended?

Today 19:35 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.”

Would you be willing to do that, if you were an obstetrician? At 40 weeks? I wouldn’t. I don’t believe many would. First, do no harm.

I actually agree with the law as it stands. Up to 24 weeks generally covers the vast vast majority of people who want a ToP and also allows time for people to realise they are pregnant, have some time to make a decision and then carry that out. I also agree that ToP should be allowed later in some circumstances- often people find out about abnormalities at the 20 week scan (often between 19 and 23 weeks depending on local NHS, timings etc.) women need time to get more information, process this and make a decision. I feel the law is currently fair and balances the needs and rights of women with the fact that above 24 weeks a foetus can and does survive and therefore that should be considered.

Adoption is not the rose-tinted, happy ending you seem to think it is. You appear to have a poor understanding of the care system in the UK.

What healthy baby is being left in the care system? People are falling over themselves for newborns to adopt. My mum was a foster after so I can't say I know everything but this was definitely what I know from her.

I get the reason behind it but a woman should be able to abort for ANY reason. A lifelong disability is just one of the many reasons. Some people would not be able to cope with it. So they lose no matter what. They abort? They're discriminating and scum. They try to go ahead and fail themselves and the child? They're terrible human beings. They give their child up for adoption? They're absolute scum.

Jesus christ no woman EVER has aborted a full-term fetus because she was bored with being pregnant and changed her mind about the whole thing. THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED AND IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. I will 100% die on this hill. If she is seeking an abortion at that point, it is because the fetus has serious or life-limiting health issues, or because the woman has mental health issues or her own health issues that mean that continuing the pregnancy is dangerous to her. AND EVEN IN THAT CASE any woman who can safely give birth or have a c-section early, will do that. Because, at that point, giving birth is safer and easier than an abortion.

Want to know how I know that giving birth is safer and easier than an abortion near full term? Because I had to give birth to a dead but nearly-full-term fetus. I had to go through 9 hours of labour for that. If there had been the possibility of a quick and easy abortion to get that over with, I would like to think it would have been fucking offered to me.

Heidi lives locally to me and I went to school with one of her relatives. The family is both religious and heavily involved in activism of many types, so she has been brought up in an environment where its normal to find a cause and fight for it. I worry that she is being used by religious and anti abortion groups as a fresh angle with a sympathetic human face rather than the awful photos of foetuses that are usually on the placards outside clinics.

@kurtney
Thank you so much for sharing your story, I wish I could quote it for people to read again

It is easy to demonise women who choose (using choose there loosely, it doesn't feel like the right word at all) late term abortion. All the stories I've been told about late term abortion exemplify mother's love, putting themselves through heartache to protect their future child from pain and suffering, to protect their families from am even more intense suffering. My heart goes out to them for being put in the horrible situation to have to make this decision.

And in a situation I doubt exists: a woman who has no feeling towards their fetus. there is a huge amount of research showing the long term damage having an emotionally unattached mother does to a baby, ending the pregnancy to prevent that in my eyes is proportional

flippertyop

One of the issues that came up in the judgement are that was no documentation of any terminations after 24 weeks, on the basis of DS alone.

So, changing the wording of the law isn't likely to be forcing anyone to have a baby with DS; people seem to be making that decision before 24 weeks (which the campaign is not against).

What healthy baby is being left in the care system? People are falling over themselves for newborns to adopt. My mum was a foster after so I can't say I know everything but this was definitely what I know from her.

There are currently around 79,500 children in care in the UK right now, around 3000 of them are available and waiting for adoption.

There are 1700 adoptive families waiting to be matched with a child.

Can you see how that doesn't add up? Where are all these hypothetical babies going to go?

@thatsnotmyzoo

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.

All of this.

anon so we agree - it shouldn't be about DS.

@Waxonwaxoff0

Not their body, not their choice and that's the end of it.

This.

@Spink the. Why change it? The fact is that the option should be available if required. The fact it hasn't been required is great. I still believe though that if you find out late that your child has DS an abortion should be available to you. Pretending that bringing up a child with DS is the same as a healthy child is a nonsense.
Hopefully with earlier and more accurate testing this should not be necessary - but if they had their way they wouldn't allow women to even test for DS. How dare anyone campaign for that choice to be removed !! I am so greatful that I was given that choice

For all those who think that legal abortion to term is so radical and extreme...do you realise that is the law of Canada? And do you know how many late term abortions happen? Almost none.

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.

It does have to do with women's rights.

For starters when I was in a refuge a very high percentage if the women on there including me, were pregnant.

The abusive partners we were all running from would have to agree to adoption. Do you think they would, or do you think they would use that child to punish the woman? Either by forcing her to keep it, or by them having custody and using that child against the person they were abusing?

Another point is women choosing to terminate a healthy fetus stand a very high chance of being poor, so then we get into a scenario of poor women providing healthy babies for wealthy people.

Women shouldn't be forced into either having a child they don't feel able to cope with, being stuck for at least 18 years with their abuser in their life, or knowing they have a child out there and the psychological impact that may have on them.

We should absolutely be free to choose for ourselves if we carry the pregnancy on or not. We know our lives and our situations and what we can and can't cope with better than anyone.

@Clocktopus

What healthy baby is being left in the care system? People are falling over themselves for newborns to adopt. My mum was a foster after so I can't say I know everything but this was definitely what I know from her.

There are currently around 79,500 children in care in the UK right now, around 3000 of them are available and waiting for adoption.

There are 1700 adoptive families waiting to be matched with a child.

Can you see how that doesn't add up? Where are all these hypothetical babies going to go?

I don't know the exact figures, but newborns are naturally going to fare much better than a teenage child, or an unaccompanied minor, or one who's been abused, or one from a minority ethnic group.

The numbers are totally disproportionate but newborns aren't the ones being abandoned in the care system, as far as I know.

@Clocktopus healthy infants get adopted immediately, there is a waiting list for them. The 3000 children in care waiting for adoption are not infants or they have health issues.

Not that it matters. Even "healthy infant adoption" is traumatic for the mother, and there are studies that say it is traumatic for the infant, as well. And "healthy infant adoption" children are at higher risk of abuse in their adoptive homes and of mental health and suicide later in life compared to biological children.

Adoption is not an alternative to abortion. If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, give birth, or raise a child, it is better for her to have an abortion and it's sick and dangerous to encourage women to "solve" other people's fertility problems by claiming it's a moral good for them to give birth to children they don't want to raise.

Would you be willing to do that, if you were an obstetrician? At 40 weeks? I wouldn’t. I don’t believe many would. First, do no harm.

I'm not an obstetrician.

How many women do you think would abort a 40 week fetus just for shits and giggles? Honestly. Go through 40 weeks of pregnancy then say "I can't be arsed, better get an abortion before labour starts".

This boils down to my point of women not being trusted to make choices for themselves.

Look at the numbers already and trust your fellow women to make the right choices in their own lives.