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

@holibobs12

I think you’ve missed @Clocktopus point

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

When a woman is relinquishing a baby, consent for adoption cannot be given until the baby is a minimum of six weeks old a d the adoption process itself takes approximately six months. Where do you think the baby is during this time?

@LateDecemberBackInLowB12

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.

I can't comment on the adoption consent issue. An unmarried mother wouldn't have any trouble putting theirs up, but I suppose if you're married you're in a sticky situation, if you need consent

But the whole point of delivering early is it doesn't actually impede on the mothers rights. She gets to end her pregnancy at the point of viability, so not disadvantaged in any way. Not force to carry to 40 weeks, which would be horrible.

I just can't get my head around it, deliberately ending a life because...? I understand this would be very rare, but even as a hypothetical possibility, it's baffling to me how that could actually be justified. Nobody would euthanise a healthy person so why should it be legal to kill a healthy late fetus?

As these stands it isn't, so hardly a radical viewpoint.

@Clocktopus

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

When a woman is relinquishing a baby, consent for adoption cannot be given until the baby is a minimum of six weeks old a d the adoption process itself takes approximately six months. Where do you think the baby is during this time?

Well if the law regarding abortion changes to 'till birth, then "would have been aborted" full term babies could go straight to the people on the waiting list and not wait in care. Laws could change both ways.

Today 20:00 LateDecemberBackInLowB12

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.“

At 40
Weeks it is a baby capable of independent life, not a foetus.

Certainly in the UK, women will be aware of abnormalities and disabilities by 24 weeks.

Completely pro-abortion until then, thereafter I believe that the rights of both individuals must be given equal importance.

@Clocktopus

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

When a woman is relinquishing a baby, consent for adoption cannot be given until the baby is a minimum of six weeks old a d the adoption process itself takes approximately six months. Where do you think the baby is during this time?

Foster parents I imagine. Not entirely sure, my mum had teens with us not babies. Or with adoptive parents, but with an element of uncertainty, which I'm sure I've seen.

I don't think that is a strong reason to euthanise a healthy fetus, truthfully. Just because the adoption process isn't completed right then and there, it's better to not be born at all?

But the whole point of delivering early is it doesn't actually impede on the mothers rights

Of course it does! For one thing, if you end a pregnancy via termination, you are NOT a mother. If you give birth, you are. These are two completely separate things.
And its not just married women who need the mans consent to adoption.

At 40 Weeks it is a baby capable of independent life, not a foetus

No, this is factually incorrect. Until the point it is born, it is a foetus. End of story, no matter what you think.

@Jobseeker19

Your posts display a chilling lack of understanding of the complexities of a late termination

I was about to write what @ManifestDestinee did but they beat me to it.

@Spink

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

If a foetus has Down syndrome and the woman wants to abort past 24 weeks then that's fine, no problem with it whatsoever. It should always be an option.

ManifestDestinee

At 40 Weeks it is a baby capable of independent life, not a foetus

No, this is factually incorrect. Until the point it is born, it is a foetus. End of story, no matter what you think.“

Okay. Semantics.

Capable of independent life, no matter what you like to believe.

Well if the law regarding abortion changes to 'till birth, then "would have been aborted" full term babies could go straight to the people on the waiting list and not wait in care.

3000 children - including infants - currently available for adoption (out of the 79,500 currently in the care system).

1700 people registered to adopt.

There is a shortage of adoptive parents.

Currently there are 100 post-24wk abortions each year so let's say those babies get put up for adoption instead.

That's 3,100 children available for adoption each year.

There are still only 1700 adoptive families.

Where do the excess children go? Adoption is not the magic wand that will fix the need for abortion, there aren't enough families to go around.

It's not semantics, its a fundamental difference. Capable of independent life is not the same as having independent life.

@ManifestDestinee

But the whole point of delivering early is it doesn't actually impede on the mothers rights

Of course it does! For one thing, if you end a pregnancy via termination, you are NOT a mother. If you give birth, you are. These are two completely separate things.
And its not just married women who need the mans consent to adoption.

Not wanting to be a mother to a child somewhere on this earth, will never be a justification for late term abortion of a healthy fetus in the eyes of most people.

Every woman should have the right to end her pregnancy. Insisting the fetus dies is a step too far IMO, just unnecessary.

We wouldn't say that about born children. We have the right to end a pregnancy not decide if we want our offspring to live or not. If the fetus dies as a natural consequence, fine, but that's really as far as it should go.

as far as I know is doing some heavy lifting on this thread, isn't it.

", as far as I know "

[quote DebbieHarrysCheekbones]@Jobseeker19

Your posts display a chilling lack of understanding of the complexities of a late termination

I was about to write what @ManifestDestinee did but they beat me to it.[/quote]
I'm breaking things down to the nitting gritty. People want to add what if the child has disabilities or the mothers life being at risk.

What I wanted to know was what the people who were saying abortion until birth were really saying and at least one person was honest even if I disagree with what they said.

ManifestDestinee

It's not semantics, its a fundamental difference. Capable of independent life is not the same as having independent life.“

We’ll it’s obviously not going to have the chance of an independent life it it’s terminated at 40 weeks. Strange argument.

Would it be wrong to allow the child to be born, then immediately kill it?
At that late stage, I don’t see the difference.

@EnidFrighten

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

This is not quite correct. The Court did refer to Parliament changing legislation in relation to one discrete issue, but they still actively and substantively lost on each of their grounds. In relation to Article 2 and 3, they lost because a foetus does not have rights under the Convention (quite rightly, imagine the terrifying consequences for women's rights if they did) In relation to Article 8, they lost because the Court found there was no evidence that the law as is contributes to discrimination experienced by people with Downs Syndrome, and even if it did it was proportionate when weighed against a woman's right to chose. It's really important not to take a single line from a judgment (such as "if parliament wanted to do X, they would need to pass legislation") without reading it in context- that's how incorrect rumours such as "the Court agreed with them really they just said they weren't the people to change the law" are spread.

FFS the hyperbolic fantasy on this thread. I’d hate to be in some of your heads

The point is, not ALL fetus’ (yes without an O) are capable of independent life and that’s why the option is there. No one is aborting fetus’ at 39 or 40 weeks just because they have Down’s Syndrome. It’s right there on page 1 of this thread. It 👏 does 👏 not 👏 happen. So give it a rest with the sick hypothetical fantasies for god sake.

@Jobseeker19

“People want to add what if the child has disabilities or the mothers life being at risk.”

Doesn’t get more “nitty gritty “ than that

Certainly in the UK, women will be aware of abnormalities and disabilities by 24 weeks.

This is complete bullshit. Absolute crap.

You don't think women should be able to make choices about their own bodies and lives I do.

We don't all have the same life experiences, I get that. Mine has made me understanding, yours has made you a little more rigid in your arbitry cut off point.

Thats why I said healthy child, healthy mother no risk at all. Should the mother decide if the baby should survive?
Yes or no?

“Certainly in the UK, women will be aware of abnormalities and disabilities by 24 weeks.”

Factually incorrect and utterly insensitive to the many many women who did NOT know at this stage

Not wanting to be a mother to a child somewhere on this earth, will never be a justification for late term abortion of a healthy fetus in the eyes of most people

You're right...which is exactly why they won't do it. That's the point.

We wouldn't say that about born children. We have the right to end a pregnancy not decide if we want our offspring to live or not

Unborn children and born children are not the same thing, and you know that. They aren't our offspring until they are born, and they can't die if they never lived.

People arguing against this..do you really think that we need a law to stop women having abortions at 40 weeks? Do you think we'd be queuing up for them if it was made law? Is your opinion of yourselves and your fellow women so low?

Certainly in the UK, women will be aware of abnormalities and disabilities by 24 weeks.

WRONG.

A large percentage of women don’t have conclusive evidence until after 24 weeks. You can look it up if you like. Many women in the UK won’t even get their anomaly scan until closer to 24 weeks and one ultrasound scan isn’t usually enough to get the full picture of a fetus’ health.