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?

at terminations up to birth! I just couldn't IMAGINE someone aborting a baby at 19+5 (when I lost my last baby), or 28 weeks (as I am now). A baby nowadays has a chance of survival at 24 weeks, and there are quite a few examples where the baby was born at 22/23 weeks and survived. I personally think that the very extreme limit should be 16 weeks. Anything more than that, and I feel it is basically murder. It has been proven that the old school of thought that a baby couldn't feel pain before 24 weeks is crap untrue, by 18 weeks, a baby can resond to hot and cold, dark and light, and it is therefore a reasonable assumption that by that point certainly, a baby would feel pain.

I cannot understand the fact that doctors will try to save a premature baby born at 24 weeks, yet only 1 day beforehand, you are allowed to terminate that pregnancy. Is one day going to make that much difference to that baby's chance of survival if born? Unlikely!

I personally did not have any prenatal tests for disabilities (apart from the nuchal scan) because I wouldn't have aborted anyway, so I didn't see the point.

Many of the most disabling disabilities are neurological (and undetectable) anyway.

Not that it's really relevant but eugenics has its origins in British science EvilAllenPoe. Most countries in Europe had eugenics laws in the early 20th century. Many wanted to bring in eugenics laws in Britain (including the famous cousin of Darwin, Francis Dalton) but they never made it past parliament. Eugenics is normally associated with the Nazis but they are not the only ones or even the first ones who practiced it in a serious way.

I also believe in sterilising drug addicts if they want to be sterilised. And offering them £200 if that's what it takes to ensure no more babies are born addicted to crack cocaine.

No, eugenics goes back much further than that. Babies left out on hillsides?

Sorry, busy thread I know but I would like to know who's the autism researcher you're referring to.

I'm not sure I should name the researcher. Thankfully he is old and out of the picture to a certain extent but he can exert huge influence due to the fact that he won the Nobel Prize earlier in his career. I met him once and his views made me sick.

BTW he actually has an autistic son.

I don't agree with that either colditz

heartbreaking though it is for a baby to be born with an addiction - horrifying - people HAVE been born in appalling circumstances and risen above it to lead happy and meaningful lives

paying people to mutilate themselves....ugh

I think that you need to consider an individual's circumstances and let that person decide what's best for them and their family.

You can profess shock about a pre-natal diagnosis for autism, but if you had an autistic child and knew the work and difficulties involved, you may think differently.

And for a lot of people, having children comes with the idea that they will fit into one's life, allow one to continue one's career and to enjoy life as a family. Having a child with disabilities that prevent such a life, is something that can devastate a lot of people. If they don't wish to have that life, why force them?

I agree, Colditz. I understand that people with disabilities can still live an enriched, fulfilling life, and make my choices accordingly. And that I would begrudge being lectured about Eugenics by someone who has no idea of life with a disability/ child with a disability.

that the reason for researching the genetic causes of Autism is to push termination of those pregnancies! My DP would probably not be alive if that was the case...if his mum had been told while pg that her son would need caring for by her until he was well over 30, and even at 35 would not be able to live alone or hold down a job (which he does, BTW) without added support from either her or me, she may have decided differently. Jeez!

Loudlass, it's not the reason for the research, it's one of the possible outcomes of it (and the desired outcome of the researcher I've referred to).

That that researcher in question has an autistic child. So he resents his son to the extent that he would have killed him. again.

Historical digression: There was a big eugenics movement in the USA in the early part of the last century, and there was also some debate about whether severely disabled children should be killed after birth. Apparently this movement was what inspired the Nazis.

On the actual point: I really don't know. I've never been in the situation and I don't know what I'd do if I were. As a result, I don't want to judge others.

essentially OP all abortions happen for the same reason - the mother does not wish to continue the pregnancy.

the likely disability of a foetus is just one of many reasons why someone might not wish to continue their pregnancy. a safely performed abortion should be available for those that really wish it, rather than pushing them to get backstreet abortion which may end up with an end to two lives rather than one.

The huge majority of abortions (and some of the 'late' abortions) are of foetuses that have , as far as anyone knows, nothing wrong with them - disability is usually something of a red-herring in these debates.

my point was op, that you have sought an inflammatory mode of engagement from the off - we had a while ago a very sensible and relatively flame-free discussion on this. quick search would bring it up...

just to put everyone's minds at ease the official statistics for 2008 (latest avaialable) say that :

90% of abortions were carried out at under 13 weeks gestation; 73% were at under 10 weeks

Abortions where gestation has
exceeded its twenty-fourth week
account for less than 0.1% of the total.
There were 124 such abortions in 2008

So really - there aren't masses or women aborting children past 24 weeks gestation.

source

(Have 2 out of 3 dc with autistic spectrum problems, plus DP is autistic, AND my brother has Aspergers, and is currently studying Natural sciences at Uni with support!)

OP, for one thing, you can get nuchal fold tests and so on in Ireland. The are standard in some areas and not in others but it's not as though it's impossible to get the various tests which are available in the UK.

I think it is disgraceful that having children is becoming some sort of luxury only the wealthy can afford. That's offensive to me.

Abortion and standard routine tests are not Eugenics.

Millions of Irish women would die every year in back street botched abortions if it weren't for the UK. So we have no highground WHATSOEVER,. even if you erroneously consider pro-life a 'highground' which I obviously don't.

We (the Irish) lower the british statistic. They state that 90% of abortions are carried out BEFORE 12 weeks, and Irish women travelling over to Britain for an abortion are at the tail end of that 12 weeks. The British statistics for abortions carried out before 12 weeks might be better (ie higher) if it weren't for the fact that it's a bigger trauma having to go for an abortion in another country.

I am not opposed to abortions per se, although I wouldn't have an abortion myself. My point is that it seems acceptable for a couple who genuinely want a child and have planned for a child to reject that child because he or she is disabled. I know I could be alarmist (I really hope I am) but as genetic testing gets more accurate, this veil of acceptability extend to things like intelligence, susceptibility to disease, anything at all really?

'And for a lot of people, having children comes with the idea that they will fit into one's life, allow one to continue one's career and to enjoy life as a family. Having a child with disabilities that prevent such a life, is something that can devastate a lot of people. If they don't wish to have that life, why force them?'

I have yet to meet anyone with a disabled child who wishes they had aborted that child or wishes them dead.
However hard it is.
The fear of the unknown is worse than the reality.

it must be horrific to have to go to another country for a termination

I think there are separate arguments for and against abortion perse, and very late abortion

personally I think abortion should be universally available with excellent counselling, medical care and aftercare

but NOT when the baby is at a viable age, and certainly not up to birth!

There is a pre-natal test for autism??? WEll I wasn't offered it in the UK, and if I had been offered it, I would have said yes. And it would have picked up on my son's autism. And I would never have known any different. I mgiht have a totally different son. I'd never have known the son I have, so I wouldn't miss him.