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?

Ah so you did see my post then Writer. You STILL won't admit that you just made that bit UP about people with Aspergers being more likely to have a family than people with classic autism. Ignore any question that catches you out making up 'facts' to support your opinions.

Dueling, i honestly can't remember where i read it, infact i think i may of seen it on a documentry on BBC about abortions a while ago.
I wouldn't say this as a definate fact, but its what i remember of some information i read/watched.
I also am not against or for abortions, im pretty much on the fence, so i have no reasons for making untrue comments about what i recall.

There are a lot of different arguments on this thread, and I think that many of them belong in a much more advanced society than ours - these are the arguments about the right to choose whether or not to raise a disabled child.

We don't actually have this choice in our society - we only have the choice whether or not to raise a child with one of a limited number of conditions that are confirmable through pre-natal testing, and whether or not to continue with a pregnancy that carries some level of risk of other less identifiable conditions.

The difficulty with terminating a pregnancy based on a risk factor is obvious - you could be terminating a healthy child. So for me, the problem with allowing late termination of a pregnancy for anything other than the most serious confirmed medical conditions is that you are playing the odds to some extent. Any pregnancy has a possibility of ending in the birth of child who is not "perfect". We cannot be certain about the level of risk and we cannot be certain about the level of the imperfection. So it is not a case of only allowing the termination of disabled babies beyond the point of viability and up to the point of birth - the current law allows for the late termination of disabled children and of possibly able-bodied children based on the level or risk that the parents are willing to go with.

In my view, there has to come a point when you are committed to the life you are carrying and that point should be the point of viability. Beyond that time, risk is part of the deal. If there is a certainty of a serious problem, then that can be dealt with on a case by case basis, but where possibilities and risks are concerned, I think we have to accept that until we have much greater medical knowledge and skills, the late stages of pregnancy will remain a journey into the unknown.

I am very much pro-choice and have a son with di-George syndrome which is a chromosome abnormality. The syndrome is similar to DS in how it manifests and in that the spectrum is massive.

For me personally it is hard to acknowledge that another family would not want the family life we have (which is largely great btw) and I find it a very difficult discussion to have.

The only thing I do feel strongly about is that my two other sons will not be his carers. They just won't. We are able enough as parents to put good plans into place for when we are gone should he be unable to live independently. That argument does irritate me.

On another note when I was pregnant last year with ds3 we had the nuchal scan. The consultant spoke to us afterwards about our risk (low) and about our sons syndrome. When I read my notes at home is info was from wikipedia. Bloody wikipaedia??!! I do hope that he doesn't give advice to parents faced with dreadful decisions on the basis of wiki information. I was actually upset about it.

I should clarify that I am not saying that I think late termination of disabled babies would be OK if we could be certain about their condition, just that the argument about choice is flawed, as we don't really have that choice.

I don't know if I am misunderstanding you Kungfu, but when you say "The difficulty with terminating a pregnancy based on a risk factor is obvious - you could be terminating a healthy child" I would think that the majority of people don't terminate based on a risk factor but would instead choose to have more inveasive testing like an Amnio before making the choice? Very few people would terminate a pregnancy just because a Nuchal test gave them a high chance of a chromosonal disorder.

Though I do understand that there are so many other things that we can't test for and could end up having a child with.

Back on the thread after a break...so sorry if this has already been said but can't read 16 pages!

92% of women who test positive for downs abort.

What that doesn't consider is the number of women who decide not to have the tests at all as there are many parents who choose not to have prenatal tests becasue they've already decided that they'd accept and love any baby no matter what.

So its 92% of women who choose to test abort...but that isn't 92% of everyone as not everyone tests. Those choosing to test may have a wide range of reasons as to why they couldn't continue with such a pregnancy. IYSWIM.

Personally I was in the former category and, no I don't agree with late termination. I just disagree with the idea that those who choose to abort are practicing eugenics as its not that black and white.

Would it be better to force women to have Disabled babies, or any baby for that matter that she didn't want, for her to then give it up, abandon them, or keep them out of guilt/duty but not actually love their children??

That just creates a whole lotta other problems doesn't it??

Its not a nice thought having late terminations, but a live born baby isn't 100% garunteed until its born and is alive.

So although we can't see into the future, its fair to say that many pregnancies ended with termination could of ended up as natural still births, or with dead babies from complications anyway.

If a woman knows deep down that she wouldn't be able to cope with a baby with a disability testable during pregnancy, isn't it better that she can abort and resovle her options afterwards then go through with a pregnancy she doesn't want, give birth to a baby she doesn't want, and then for the state to have to come up with a solution as to how this young person will be looked after.

I don't know about you, but otherwise plenty of physically healhty children who are in the care system end up with a lot of problems, what would happen to the children with extensive medical problems and needs in the same situation.
Theres only so much we can do, SS and help for disabled people are already stretched as it is.

When I read this thread, I find I have mixed emotions.

I declined a triple test with DD1 (nuchal fold hadn't come in yet anyway) because I would not entertain an amnio, and there is no point having a test that could recommend a course of treatment you would decline.

I had a fairly uneventful pregnancy. Two back-to-back viruses in early pregnancy, but not unexpected as I have a history of CFS and pregnancy lowers your immune system slightly.

DD1 was late in some milestones, and slightly 'unusual' behaviour. She was flagged at 2.9, finally, and now we know she has a brain malformation, a likely as-yet-unidentified genetic condition, epilepsy and global development delay. Beautiful, funny, adorable girl, but the complex interplay of all her difficulties makes life quite hard for her. She has a blue badge, has DLA, attends Special School. She is 4.11.

The thing is, when we saw the geneticist, she said 'Wow, she is doing so much better than we would expect on paper!' She is feisty, and I truly believe that her personality is part of what enables her.

She has a severe speech and language delay (5th centile), yet her desire to speak and communicate means that she will just barrel on in there. OK, a lot of what she says is hard for others to understand. OK, she 'borrows' phrases she's heard, and we have to interpret what she is meaning, but she DOES communicate.

She has ataxia, and is a wobbly walker, but she is determined, and when she falls over (lots), she picks herself back up and starts where she left off.

She has fine motor problems, but she perseveres, and finds other ways to deal with it. If she can't lift the jug to pour herself water, she dips the cup into the jug!

She has no sense of danger, but that doesn't bother her! Granted, it gives us grey hair, but we modify and adapt to keep her safe.

She has epilepsy, but that is controlled for now with medication.

Her MRI scan shows subtle but widespread cortical dysplasia. If they had known pre-natally, I suspect they would have given a very poor prognosis. I am glad they didn't.

We would have missed the opportunity to be Millie's parents, and she is such a joy. Incredibly hard work, but that's what parenting is all about, isn't it? The fights are just slightly different. Our challenges have been things like DLA applications, modifying the house to keep her safe, Statementing, getting a Special School place.

With DD3 I was offered prenatal scans to try and predict a repeat. We declined amnio, but accepted scans. They didn't tell us anything. But we wouldn't have changed anything anyway.

dueling we seem to be asking the same questions and receiving the same silences...

Lougle your dd sounds lovely(not being a creep but she does)

OTTMummA yuck what a horrible post

DF - I was finding it difficult to articulate my thoughts so probably wasn't very clear. My point is that people are talking in black and white terms about the choice to have a disabled child or not. It is not a case of either/or. Some cases will be certainties, but some terminations will inevitably be based on guesswork - perhaps pretty well-evidenced guesswork, but not certainties, because there are no tests that will lead to certainty. And some cases will never be identified at all.

There are no definites when it comes to pregnancy, and I feel that we sometimes forget this when talking about choices. We cannot eliminate all risk and, in my view, there should be a point in the pregnancy when we accept that, barring any evidence arising that someone is carrying a child who absolutely cannot survive, we are committed. I don't really see the difference between terminating a 32 week pregnancy on the basis that there is a high risk that the child will be severely brain-damaged, and ending the life of a newborn who we know to be severely brain-damaged, or ending the life of an older baby who we discover is severely brain-damaged.

2shoes thanks I always love hearing about your DD (not being a creep, but I do ) How is her VOCA going?

why?

Kungfu I disagree that some people will have terminations where they could have given birth to a healthy baby (if that is what you are trying to say - I think it is but maybe confused).

I agree that some people will terminate when the true extent of the disability was not known, but the fact that there was a disability wouldn't have been in question. Diagnostic tests are 100% conclusive to the existence of a disorder for whcih they test.

"Some cases will be certainties, but some terminations will inevitably be based on guesswork - perhaps pretty well-evidenced guesswork, but not certainties, because there are no tests that will lead to certainty. And some cases will never be identified at all."

Ah right.

I only know about chromosonal testing (amnio/CVS) to be honest so am not aware of the other tests for other things which people may be having and then terminating as a result of.

Have to say now I think about it, a friend of mine has a friend who was told ther might be something wrong with her baby (fluid around the brain I think) and had a harrowing few months waiting for the birth. It turned out that her baby was fine when born but, yes, she was given the option of terminating which she declined, thankfully for her. I don't know how common this is though.

For me, I know I eliminated the risks I was able to test for and then accepted that I was committed to having the baby I am carrying. That was at about 18 weeks when I had the full Amnio result back. Obviously I do know that there are many things which could be wrong with my baby and many things which could happen to my baby in the future.

Seriously, why should I have the right to 'terminate' DD1 up to birth, when DDs 2 & 3 could 'only' be terminated up until 24 weeks?

Seriously, the thought of anyone suggesting my DD1 shouldn't exist...well, I'd dare them to stand in the same room and say it

And for those of you that say 'ah well, we aren't saying anything about your DD, just the individual baby of that woman...' - what a load of twaddle.

Racism is racism no matter where it is directed. Let's see you justify aborting on the inherent genetic material that make a person black or asian or female or male. You can't. So why suggest that it can be justified that my DD should be rubbed out because of a tiny difference in her genetic material.

No one is suggesting that your DD shouldn't exist.

disability isn't a race as far as I am aware.

Great post, Lougle.

One thing I find really distasteful is people who are pro-life with exceptions. It instantly places a moral value on some babies that others, identical but for the manner of their conception, do not have.

I have thought and thought about this - from a position of being 100% pro-life 10 years ago. I have completely changed my mind - I believe that abortion on demand to term is the only non-discriminatory, non-opressive to women option.

I don't actually much like my position, I wish abortion were never necessary, but sometimes it is. I genuinely do not believe that the current, arbitrary limit is necessary, because I do not believe the rate of late term abortions would rise if it were taken away.

One of my longest friendships has been with a woman who has Downs. We have been friends since we were children, and still see each other several times a week. I did not have any diagnostic tests, in large part because it would have felt horribly disloyal to her. And we wouldn't have terminated.

But some women need to, and it is nobody's right to tell them they can't or shouldn't. Not the church, not the state. To be truly equal, a woman must be no more a hostage of her reproductive system than a man is.

no but being disablist is still sick

(lougle she is doing well thanks, loves it)

great post lightly

Disability isn't a race. But it is a defining characteristic of an individual, just as race, gender or any other prominent feature that can be used to categorise individuals within a population.

Now, some disabilities are 'accidents of birth and life' ie. the baby was developed 'normally' until birth, when some process caused them to become disabled. 2shoes, I think your Darling girl would fall in that category - am I right?

So presumably, 2shoes dear girl would be safe from those who feel disability is an unacceptable prospect.

But for my DD, there is something that has fundamentally 'gone wrong' at some point in pregnancy. It could be a result of the 2 viruses I had, or it could be a translocation, a microdeletion, or any other genetic cause.

If that is the case, as is thought to be, then my DD is inherently, genetically 'different' from you or I. It is her genetic makeup that makes her who she is. Which is not too different from the fact that genetically I am female, perhaps someone else is genetically asian, and so on.

How is it that people feel that DD1's genes make her dispensible?

It isn't about your DD though, its about the mothers choice of wether she wants to have a baby with a disability that she knows it has!

I wouldn't say to anyone,, your child shouldn't be here because of any reason FGS.

I've had genetic counsiling myself and went through a period of not knowing if my son was going to inherit a condition from my husbands side.
I also have a disabled brother, who is also blind.
Im not questioning the equality of life between Disabled babies and non disabled babies, im saying that any live woman who is pregnant and chooses to have an abortion due to a disability found in the baby should have the option to terminate.

I think it would be much worse to force her to give birth, for the baby to be abandoned and not have their family take care of them, and for them not to be able to get the help and support they need, which would be more than the government provides at the moment.
Especially if we had a policy of no abortions, or abortions before 20 weeks where some disabilities are only being detected at that gestation period.

It would actually be unfair to the baby.

lougle no one is saying that your daughter shouldn't exist.

And following your argument to the same end I dare anyone to stand in front of me and say that it is acceptable for me, having burried one baby, to be forced to carry another baby who in all likelihood would die, because they find some abstract notion of a late termination distasteful.

This is about people doing what is best for them in their circumstances. No one is forcing the termination of disabled children, just offering the option for those that wish to take it. That is a good thing.