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?

Posie, don't you think this 'medals for mums of kids with disabilities' is a bit about making that Other, though? Sorry, that sounds really poncey but sometimes it really irks me when I'm on message boards (I am thinking of one in particular that I used to use) and someone mentions they have had a diagnosis of SN.

The response is intended to be supportive, I know,but there's this gushing of "you're so strong/brave/amazing/wonderful etc", usually with a "and you're so great to do it without complaining...".

To me, there's something about this that is actually about silencing discussion of the realities of having a child with a disability. By saying "you're so great not to complain", you're really saying "it's so great because I don't want to hear you talk about how hard it can be."

A girl I went to school with won a young carer's award as she was the lone carer for her mum with a severe disability. It was probably the only time anyone ever made any reference to her mum's disability the entire time we were in school and even then, I remember thinking that it was odd to get a "prize" and lots of pats on the back for essentially having a pretty hard life that no one was the least bit interested in when it came to the day-to-day, but recognised as "special" when there was an award attached? I remember thinking, why don't they get someone to let her go to the local youth disco for a night instead of giving her some sodding trophy? It was probably my skewed way of looking at it, but all I saw was her being told that she had to be strong/brave/hold it together. Maybe she would have anyway, but it seemed weird to me at 14!

But how many adults need repeated operations. Or treatment for cancer, or whatever. How many of those put themselves through great pain in order to live just a little longer? In contrast, how many of them choose to kill themselves, or go to places where it is legal to do so with help? A very small minority.

It is a decision on quality of life, but how many of those babies would have chosen not to live at all? And I suppose that is the crux of the issue - is a baby in the womb a 'life' or a 'potential life'?

Posie is suggesting that 'most' people don't view an embryo as a life.

Yet, how many ladies post on the miscarriage boards? How many of them are distraught because they don't want 'another baby' they want that baby, because when they have miscarried, they view that their baby has died, not 'an embryo' or a 'bunch of cells'. Even women who didn't know they were pregnant, or had 'chemical pregnancy'. For them the loss is as real as if they had lost a viable baby.

So why does that change? Why is a 'bunch of cells' a 'baby' in a wanted pregnancy, and how does that 'baby' become expendable when it turns out to be 'damaged goods'? How do you reconcile those two view points?

The other problem I have is that the whole thing is based on statistics, probabilities, likelihoods, etc. Even women who are cleared of the decision for an amnio on the basis of their 'odds' being 1:4330 can find that they are the '1'. Then they are in a more difficult posistion than ever, knowing that if they had realised they were the '1' they would have aborted.

My DD1 would have been given a poor prognosis, I am sure of it, because on paper the abnormalities in her brain are extensive. But, she does walk and does talk, and can eat, and drink, etc.

Lougle....I think that's generally what a casual attitude to abortion reflects the fact we don't think of an embryo as a life or we'd be murderers.

I think ';medals' reflect how empathic we can be.

it is different dealing with a current reality, than choosing that path whilst you have a choice.

it all comes down to whther you believe abortion is ok at all or not.

I believe it should be permitted.

WOD presumably at it's most basic level the reason why the limits are different is because it is all about making an informed choice. And that right of the mother to an informed choice is put before the right of the foetus.

A baby with a disability is a different prospsect to a baby without, especially when we are talking about the some of the most severe, life limiting and/or fatal conditions which parents choose to terminate for post 24 weeks.

The fact is many of these severe conditions cannot be identified earlier than the 24 week stage so if you believe a woman's rights come before that of the child there is sound reason for the limit to be set at a time at which informed choice can be made. This "extension of time" is simply not necessary in cases where there are no "additional factors" to take into consideration.

It is also of course worthy of note at this point that if a mother of a "healthy" child was to suffer some later trauma that, for example, changed her ability to care for the baby to such an extent that her mental health would be at severe risk than a healthy baby can also be terminated. Which does rather negate the idea that it is simply "disabled babies" that are considered disposable and support the argument that the law simply holds the rights of the mother as paramount.

I am not sure that it makes much logical sense but I find it hard to argue against.

Posie, I can see what you are saying, but then those of us that are in any way vocal in expressing our distaste at the casual attitude to abortion are branded 'pro-life- and a 'scourge'. I have experienced that in the last few days.

Quietly - I haven't seen that (I am guessing fairly new) thread but you do say in your original post "I am amazed at this site, yes it is not RL but so so often posters suggest termination in discussions" and I still have to say that it's not something that I have personally come across very often on mumsnet.

DF, have you seen the 14 year ols DSD thread? 90% of the posters have been saying 'make her abort; sit her down and persuade her to abort'. They have realised she is 16 weeks, and the response is 'make her have an amnio; she shouldn't be able to refuse an amnio' 'she should still abort, she could have a GA' no reference to the baby just 8 weeks from viability.

I'v found that thread - the mother in question hs been crying since she found she was pg and doesn't think she can cope.

i hardly think abortion is a completely irrelelvant or unusual thing to suggest i those circumstances.

sometimes people want to hear it from someone else -beieve they are peculiarly evil for thinking about it.

lougle that girl is 14 years old! she is a child herself, and i think in many cases posters are considering the kind of life the baby would have with such a young mother (although obv, that is dragging across a thread out of context).

'Why is a 'bunch of cells' a 'baby' in a wanted pregnancy, and how does that 'baby' become expendable when it turns out to be 'damaged goods'? How do you reconcile those two view points?'

It's not true that people simply don't want the baby as it is damaged. In many cases they feel it is unfair to bring a baby to birth who will suffer and be severely disadvantaged. Not just they no longer want it. In nearly every case they will suffer an extreme grief reaction afterwards as they are loosing a wanted baby that they felt kinder to 'let go'.

I believe there is no right answer in these situations. I have walked in the shoes unfortunately and this taught me that no matter what i said I would do in a hypothetical way, until faced with it I really had no idea!!! It's so easy to suddenly do the opposite!!!

Not read the whole thread. But if we are to discourage the practice of aborting babies with (sometimes quite serious) disablitites/anomolies we as a society need to offer far far more real help and support to the families of such children. The reality is that life is probably very very very hard (i have no personal experience so maybe I am wrong) for many parents of children with disablities and they have to fight for every bit of support.

"Yet, how many ladies post on the miscarriage boards? How many of them are distraught because they don't want 'another baby' they want that baby, because when they have miscarried, they view that their baby has died, not 'an embryo' or a 'bunch of cells'. Even women who didn't know they were pregnant, or had 'chemical pregnancy'. For them the loss is as real as if they had lost a viable baby"

well. I had a termination (under 8 weeks) many years ago for similar reasons to Posie, I also had a miscarriage at around 9 weeks of a very much wanted baby in 2009 and then I had IVF followed by an Amnio and I would have terminated for a chromosonal disorder.

I think that the loss you feel can be different depending on how much you wanted the baby in the first place and depending on your circumstances. I would have felt a huge loss had I felt the need to terminate after the Amnio and it would have been 100 times harder than when I had an abortion years ago, and different again to the miscarriage when I was basically given the same pills anyone having a medical abortion would have been given to bring on the miscarriage.

It's never simple or easy IMO but it can be different at different times and in differing circumstances.

I wouldn't wish a miscarriage or an abortion on anyone but I can completely understand why people decide to terminate even in the most difficult of circumstances.

"DF, have you seen the 14 year ols DSD thread? 90% of the posters have been saying 'make her abort; sit her down and persuade her to abort'. They have realised she is 16 weeks"

I went into that thread when it first started and my opinion (which I didn't post) was that I thought it was a terrible thing to force anyone who has said they do not want to terminate to do so. Why anyone would do that is beyond me.

'90% of the posters have been saying 'make her abort; sit her down and persuade her to abort'. '

No, they have not.

by the same token I think it would be a terrible thing to force someone to give birth to a baby (Disabled or not) that they really didn't want to give birth to.

I agree, DF. It's usually used as a means of punishing women, too.

expat, with respect, the prevailing sentiment has been that the girl should be made to 'see sense' and terminate. When I made it clear that even those of us who are considered 'pro-life' would want to offer Tess as much support as we could no matter what the outcome, your response was so sarcastic and derisory that I stepped back from the thread to avoid turning it into a debate, which is of no use to Tess.

Later, another poster said "pro-lifers are a bloody scourge."

I find that deeply unfair, because I was extremely reserved on that thread, and did not push a 'pro-life' agenda. I simply encouraged Tess to consider all the options and to engage with her DSD where she was at.

I think something worth mentioning is that a lot of this discussion is about "disabled" vs "not disabled" but obviously there is a scale of disability. I don't think very many people would suggest that late-term abortion should not be permissable for a woman who finds out that her child cannot survive. Nothing can make that woman feel better, but permitting a termination may at least allow her to begin the healing process a little earlier, rather than having a many weeks of hopelessness and misery. At the other end of the scale, I don't suppose many people would advocate late-term abortions for perfectly healthy babies simply because the mothe changed her mind.

But where, on that scale, should a line be drawn? At the moment, any child who is not completely "normal" seems to be fair game.

I am never going to be able to be entirely impersonal about this issue, for the reasons stated earlier in the thread. But should there be an option to abort someone like me, past the point of viability, because of a non life-threatening and mostly correctable condition which will require many operations?

I assume Tess is the step mother? Ultimately it is not her right, nor anyone elses, to tell her step-daughter what to do with her own body.

PosieComeHereMyPreciousParker Fri 29-Oct-10 14:50:20
This is also the society that gives 'motherhood' medals for women with children with disabilities, we tilt our heads and think we could never do that, we think parents of SN children are more deserving of 'great parent' awards and see disability as adverse.

what an odd post.

Very well put Nancydrew and difficult to argue against. In fact it's the only attempt I've seen so far to rationally justify the difference in time limits. It is a valid argument but one that still doesn't sit right with me. Clearly if the foetus was considered to be pain free and not sentient up to birth then all abortions could be carried out up to birth. It could also be argued that the impact of that a non-disabled baby would have on a family won't change after 24 weeks so obviously setting a limit of 24 weeks is putting a limit on the mother's wishes and giving precedence to the life of the child.

Currently as far as I know there are no conditions that can be diagnosed in the womb but not until after 24 weeks. Amnio and scans are the usual route and these are completed by 20 weeks. So while you argument does make sense it's not supported by medical need. It's supported more by the fact I feel that the medical profession want to make abortion more available for parents of disabled children.

WriterofDreams much as I have posted against pre-term abortion for medical conditions on an idealogical basis, as a Nurse, your argument isn't quite correct. There are lots of conditions, such as fetal hydrops, where the prognosis is sadly unable to be confirmed until later stages of pregnancy, because the fluid levels can either increase or recede. Likewise, heart conditions can worsen with time or get slightly better. Growth retardation, say with PROM (Premature rupture of Membranes) is often a late-stage complication. There are cases when the woman will have the choice of a poorly premature baby in SCBU, open to infection, increased risk of NEC (Necrotising Enterocolitis), Chronic Lung Disease, etc., or late-stage termination.

Now, obviously, if you are against pre-term abortion on disability grounds, it is irrelevant. But if you agree with it in principle, and at least agree that a woman should have a right to make that choice, then that choice has to extend to birth, or you would end up with more terminations before 24 weeks, when the prognosis is unclear, out of panic.

Where would you draw the line on disability? Well if you believe life begins at birth then the only logical position is that whatever the age of the mother , 13 even or condition of the child (will die within 1 day of birth) you continue the pregnancy.

If you think life begins at 24 weeks then you take a different view.

If you think it's fine to abort at 40 weeks as is lawful in current law for severe disabilities whatever they are then you proceed with that although in practice tehre are so few late abortions in the UK they hardly need to be debated. If you believe like the ancient romans that life even after birth isn't worth much if there are problems or even no problems but parents will starve if the baby is around then you leave it on a mountain to die up to a year after birth. We all draw lines where we think are correct.

Also, I wasn't suggesting the individual person who aborts a disabled child will automatically not have respect for disabled children. What I meant was, a society that has a universal health system that advocates the abortion of disabled children is a society that subtly perpetuates the notion that disabled children are less desirable than non-disabled children.

If tests were carried out to find out the sex of the baby and then abortion was an automatic option if the child was female there would be outrage.

People often cite the lack of quality of life for the child as a reason to abort. But as others on this thread have pointed out it is nigh on impossible to judge what the actual quality of a child's life will be. Once upon a time Harlequin Icthyosis was considered a horrific condition that led to certain death. But in the last few decades medical advances have meant that a small amount of sufferers have gone on to lead relatively normal lives. If asked I would assume those people are glad their condition wasn't known about before birth.