To believe that Britain promotes eugenics.

[WriterofDreams]

I am aware this is going to be highly controversial and could upset some people but it's an issue that genuinely concerns me and I'm not just shit-stirring. I do expect to get flamed, but any reasonable argument or debate is very welcome.

I come from Ireland where abortion is illegal. I am fully aware that many Irish women go abroad for abortions so I'm not saying look how great we are we don't abort. However, until I moved to the UK I never heard of the practice of people testing their baby for anomalies and then aborting them if there was something wrong. It genuinely shocked me that a couple who tried to have a baby, went through the sometimes stressful process of ttc, got the longed-for bfp and then lived with the expectation of a baby for many weeks could then go and kill that baby because it had Down Syndrome or some other (non-lifethreatening) genetic condition. I have looked it up on a number of sites and extreme though it may appear I can't get past the feeling that this basically hidden eugenics.

What do you think?

"Rape is an exceptional case. The woman was attacked and her right to autonomy was taken away."

but, in your view, what about the 'rights' of the 'person' who will be 'killed' through abortion in this circumstance?

You think a 'person' with a disability detected by a nuchal test has more rights that a 'person' with no disability but conceived through rape. There's no logic to it IMO. The person who should have the right to make a decision based upon their circumstances is the woman who is pregnant with the foetus.

What if the foetus resulting from the rape was genetically compromised?

Oh Ghoul I'm so sorry that sounds like a horrible situation to grow up in.

I was also a "mistake" apparently, and I don't have a good relationship with my mum. It sucks.

But if abortion is wrong because of the life of the feotus, then the autonomy of the other is not a factor. If the autonomy of the woman is a factor in some circumstances, then you are saying that the woman's position is important. Women who find themselves pg following contraceptive failure and dreading, hating having an embryo growing in ther bodies may well have very strong feelings about autonomy over their own bodies, and lives.

I think that any woman should be able to have the right to say 'I don't want this happening in my body'. I find it uncomfortable, unpleasant, couldnot have a late termination myself - but philosophically and ethically i think that a woman should have absolute control over what grows or doesn't grow in her body. For whatever reason. So- I wouldn't be messing about with blurry qualifying factors like 'up to 24 weeks unless the feotus is disabled'. That, like messing around with a fundemental belief that abortion is wrong if the mother was raped, is a step across into the opposing belief.

24 weeks unless the feotus is disabled

so we discriminate before birth!!

I know my logic is fuzzy surrounding rape I just can't bring myself to say that a woman who suffered rape has to suffer more by carrying her attackers child (regardless of whether that child is disabled or not). When a woman has consensual sex that inherent suffering isn't there. That's my justification. In those circumstances the woman's feelings come before that of the baby because I know (first hand unfortunately) the horror and suffering of rape. It is an exceptional case.

FWIW I do know one woman who kept her baby after being raped and doesn't regret it at all but I'd imagine she's the exception.

Fluffy I don't follow you argument at all.

If a diagnositc pre natal test told me that my unborn child was disabled then that pretty much guaranteed that my exisiting children end up carers. That is then something I have to consider as a pretty much 100% likelihood when deciding whether to continue the pregnancy.

If something terrible happens to a child that has already been born then that is simply a risk. I don't know how many children become severly disabled every year but it is certainly not 100% - more like .01%? So we all gamble and hope for the best which is an entirely different prospect to a proposition that is virtually guaranteed.

they don't all become carers..... ds hasn't.
they do learn a lot though and tbh it helps them to grow up with a good view on things

1 in 7 people don't become disabled and then need full time care which was the point I was making.

The vast majority of those 1 in 7 will also be older and therefore have partners who will take on a caring role. They wont become the sole responsibilty of a sibbling.

Thanks for your nod, W0D. I'm sorry it happened to you, too. Funny how we've ended up with such differing viewpoints, though! I'd much rather my mum had had the chance to determine her own outcome.

2shoes but you are alive and well - at least you are posting on MN so I assume you are!

I don't know your personal circumstances (and don't want to dig unless you wantto share) and I am only speaking with regards to my own, but it was a very real concern of mine that if I had a surviving child with DS then the chances of my DC's having to become their sibblings primary carer was extremely high.

I have not read the whole thread so sorry if I'm repeating anyone - I will read later when DS soundo.

I work with children many of whm have genetic conditions, chromosome abnormalities which I'm not sure if all are detectable. Many have also got disabailities due to complicated or premature birth.

It is one of the thing when discussed my collegues and I have differing opinions on. Some would knowingly bring a child with severe disabilities into the world, others wouldn't as they feel it's unfair on the child and know how hard being a carer is.

I personally could not bring myself to have an abortion but feel these are just words until I'm in the situation where the decision is actually necessary and real.

My 2nd cousin was born at 23+5 and therefore not legally a fetus but has survived so far beating MRSA and a severe infection. She is now 2 1/2 months old. Obviously no-one can tell what the future holds but looking at her when she was born and specially now its very hard to imagine that she could have been aborted.

Out of that 1 in 7 how many become disabled as children and how many become so severely disabled that they have little quality of life or need full time care? For that 1 in 7 to make any sense we would need to have this kind of break-down in statistics which I am guessing we don't and so it's a fairly pointless statistic to introduce.

Im not sure this has been mentioned, but im sure ive read that terminations of pregnancy after 24wks for medical reasons, including for Disabilities are classed as still births, not an abortions, and have you have to have a birth certificate and register the death etc.
These terminations available up to birth are not included in the offical abortion stats.

So we don't know the real figure as they are classed as still births after 24 weeks.

Sorry to hear about your brother Spooky. I can totally understand your viewpoint.

My concern is that there is an assumption that all disabilities (particularly DS) can legitimately justify abortion, which automatically reduces the status and rights of people with disabilities.

well, the 124 terminations carried out after 24 weeks in the UK in 2008 are included on the official abortion statistics I linked to earlier so I am not sure if you are right OTTmummA?

Maybe you can find a link to where you read it?

Ok everyone thanks for the great debate today I really enjoyed it. I need to go and convince my DH that I am actually alive now but I shall be back later to see how the whole thing has progressed. In my absence I would really appreciate it if the general maturity and consideration of the thread could be upheld if at all possible.

DF I said I wouldn't push but can I push you a little on the female abortion thing? I'd be interested to hear what you have to say.

See ya later!

Yes. I wouldn't support any kind of system where parents were given the choice to terminate based upon sex alone.

Ah Fanjo, you're going to make my DH a lonely man! I meant if the justification the same then why is it automatically wrong?

Ok really am going now, bybye!

Writer of Dreams - what are your thoughts on my situation? You've said that:

"I don't want to get dragged into an abortion debate as this isn't really what the thread is about, but I only support abortion in the following situations:

1. The baby won't survive at all outside the womb"

I terminated a pregnancy at 22 weeks due to a genetic kidney condition that meant that my son would have died shortly after birth. After genetic counseling we were told that as DP an I both carry a recessive faulty gene, we have a 1:4 chance of the same condition affecting each pregnancy.

We spent 8 months thinking about whether it was right to try for another baby. Morally, I struggled with the idea of creating another life knowing that there was a chance we would terminate again for the same reason.

In the end we did try again and I am currently 32 weeks pregnant. This baby does not have the genetic condition.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts. Should I have tried for another baby knowing it might not make it to 40 weeks?

Wanted to say thanks for the kind thoughts, and to say I'm so sorry for the losses that many women here have suffered.

nancydrewrocked we also went on to have another child - no screening tests, we went straight for an amnio (wanted a CVS but the GP cocked up the referral and we were too late). Knowing what we now know about Down's Syndrome, there is no doubt in my mind that if our baby had tested positive we would have opted for a termination.

I don't say this lightly. I very much did not enjoy labouring for 14 hours to give birth to my lost son.

I always said that we would continue a pregnancy no matter what, but until you're faced with it you don't really know how you will feel.

DS can be hereditary in (I think) 2-3% of cases. I had genetic counselling and a blood test to check I had the correct number of chromosomes with my first pregnancy - we have a high incidence of Down's Syndrome on my mother's side of the family and they wanted to check for a translocation.

Anyway, I'm bowing out of this discussion now because I don't feel it's doing me any favours. Opening old wounds, I suppose. But it has been an interesting debate - it's difficult to draw a line, especially on such an emotive subject. I don't think there will ever be a right answer...Thanks again.