Royal College of Midwives backs abolition of abortion law that could see women terminate unborn child at any point

[ThatsMyStapler]

Surely the majority of people needing/wanting a medical abortion do so for very good reasons, and also as quickly as is possible.

Royal College of Midwives backs abolition of abortion law that could see women terminate unborn child at any point

Telegraph Link

he Royal College of Midwives (RCM) is facing criticism after calling for abortion to be decriminalised, without consulting its members on the issue.
The union, which represents almost 30,000 midwives and health workers, has said it gives its “full support” to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), the UK’s biggest abortion provider, in its campaign for abortion to be removed from criminal law.
Prof Cathy Warwick, chief executive of the RCM, is also chairman of the board of trustees of BPAS.
It is currently against the law for women to terminate a foetus after 24 weeks unless there is a medical reason to do so, while abortions earlier in a pregnancy are only legal if two doctors agree to it.
But the RCM is backing calls for the legal limits to be scrapped and abortion to instead be regulated in the same way as other medical procedures, at the discretion of doctors.

There is a petition to stop this, and they say;

"Your campaign is severely out of touch with what women actually think and want. A ComRes poll in March 2014 found that 88% of women favoured a total and explicit ban on sex-selective abortion, whilst another in October that year registered a similar figure of 85%. The March poll also found 92% of women agreeing that a woman requesting an abortion should always be seen in person by a qualified doctor. Whilst in 2006, a Guardian / MORI poll found that 47% of women wanted a reduction in the upper time limit, a 2012 Angus Reid poll found this number had increased to 59% of women."

Need I think it's ableist to prefer a non disabled person. If you were going to have an abortion regardless, that's not ableist but having one because the foetus is disabled because you think disabled people are inconvenient is ableist. It's saying that you prefer non disabled people.

I' not talking about terminal diagnoses before someone who hasn't seen the beginning of the conversation takes it out of context.

Yes, an able bodied foetus.

An able bodied person, no.

You think out of two foetuses, the non disabled one is preferable. That's ableist. It doesn't matter that we're talking about foetuses or people. The fact is two equal "things", you prefer the non disabled. Meaning you see disability as something inferior.

Amongst the range of pro lifers there are quite a number who are ok with aborting for disabilities, but not for other reasons. To me, these are the people who must think that a disabled foetus is "worth less", as they are the ones proposing different rules for disabled foetuses.

Pro choicers who are ok with aborting for any reason - but say that personally they would abort for disabilities but not otherwise - are not saying this IMO. They are saying all foetuses, disabled and non disabled, should be equal legally. They are just saying that - personally - they would not choose to be a parent to a child with disabilities.

Preferring your child not to be disabled does not IMO mean you see disabled people as inferior.

It just means you would prefer your child (and you) not to have to deal with the extra difficulties of disability.

It's a bit like saying you would prefer your child to be clever, or pretty. Doesn't mean you think less intelligent or uglier people are "worth less" as people - just means that given the option, you'd prefer your child to have the easier life that these benefits tend to bring.

It's saying that you prefer non disabled people.

No, it's saying you would prefer - given the choice - not to be a parent to a disabled person.

But clearly you see not being disabled as being preferable and you view the disability as the problem, rather than society's attitudes to disability.

I don't understand how that is not ableist.

No, it's saying you would prefer - given the choice - not to be a parent to a disabled person.

Because you see disabled people as a burden.

I think it's ableist to prefer a non disabled person.

Yes it is.

If you were going to have an abortion regardless, that's not ableist but having one because the foetus is disabled because you think disabled people are inconvenient is ableist. It's saying that you prefer non disabled people.

No. You are deliberately conflating two different things.
It is not saying 'you prefer non disabled people'.
It is saying I do not knowingly want to bring a baby with extra needs, who may need my lifelong 100% 1 to 1 care into the world.

If the baby was born and found out to have disabilities, or something happened in its life to bring mental or physical disabilities about, then that is completely different.
To me, it becomes a baby & a person when it's born, not before.

Mango

But say there were two identical foetuses. The only difference being one has a disability and one does not.

If you would choose to keep the non disabled but not the disabled, then that is ableist. You are saying you do not want this disabled fetus to become a disabled person, yet you are okay with the non disabled foetus becoming a non disabled person. So you are not against pregnancy at this time, it is purely the disability that is the problem. You are singling out a foetus on its disability.

If you abort both or keep both, that's not ableist.

A child with a disability would require more care and/or care for longer. The disability would also make the child's life harder day to day, compared with a non disabled peer. These things are unarguable, surely?

I do, by the way, have a child with a (mild) disability. I think it would be preferable if she didn't have that disability. I think the disability is a "problem" in that I am sad that she has it. The problem is the disability not society's attitude. Changing society's attitude won't make her legs work any better.

That doesn't mean I see her as a "burden". Seeing her disability as a bad thing is not the same as seeing her as a bad thing.

I do, by the way, have a child with a (mild) disability. I think it would be preferable if she didn't have that disability. I think the disability is a "problem" in that I am sad that she has it. The problem is the disability not society's attitude. Changing society's attitude won't make her legs work any better.

I have a disability. I wouldn't change it, and for someone to suggest they would wish me not to have it is to wish I was a different person. It is saying they wish I wasn't me.

The problem is society. Society is geared up for typical people. I could go into detail but I'm looking after my son, so if you're interested look into the medical model of disability (your belief) and the social model (mine).

The problem isn't your daughter's legs - it is that society caters for people who's legs work typically. At least from the perspective of the social model.

f you think society's views to disabilities are the biggest problem/deciding factor I'll make a reasonable guess you have little expierience of severly disabled children?

I'm disabled. I've lived my childhood as a disabled child.

It's not as simple as you're making it out - a disabled child has specific needs that must be meant, it's not just saying "nah I don't want a disabled child" it's more like saying "I don't think I could meet the disabled child's needs".

And therefore because you're not confident in meeting their needs, the potential disabled person doesn't get the same chance that the potential non disabled person does!

I'm not being obtuse, logically there is "discrimination" in that you would actively prefer a non disabled foetus. That is ableist.

It's your choice, but it is an ableist choice.

I'm not saying it's no big deal.

Would I actively choose to give birth to a non-disabled child over a disabled one?

Yes.

If that makes me 'ableist', then so be it.

But please stop translating that into 'you prefer non-disabled people Mango', because that is untrue.
I have repeatedly pointed that out.

I don't agree. Society could make more changes, yes. Societal changes could take away issues like being teased, or asked rude questions, or being unable to join in with sport.

But all the societal changes in the world will not take away the fact that there will be some physical things she cannot do which she would like to do. All the societal changes in the world can't make a person in a wheelchair able to walk normally which many of them would like to be able to do. Not because buildings aren't accessible but just because they would like to be able to walk. (To be clear, my daughter is not in a wheelchair, I'm using this as an example.)

As a disabled person though I'm certainly glad my mum didn't decide it would be "kinder" to not even give me a chance

(Patronising talk anyway - because no life is kinder than a disabled life, right?)

I have a disability.

It's not life limiting and it's a "small" disability as such because most of the time it does not affect my every day life. Yet the impact it had my mother was enormous. Her anxiety was through the roof especially when I was out of her eye sight such as in school or out socialising. When I moved out, I actually think she was relieved because it didn't impact her anymore. When I lived at home me and my mum were close. We were close because I depended on her. Now I have moved out I no longer depend on her and we don't actually get on as well as used to.

Would I myself have a disabled child? I hope I never have to cross that bridge because I don't think j could cope with it mentally.

Would I abort a disabled child? I guess that depends on the severity of their condition.

Does that make me dis-ableist? Most possibly yes but I don't think I could cope mentally or physically

I had a late abortion 25 +weeks for very good reason. It was not then nor now a decision taken lightly. I spent 5 years grieving and regretting it although I absolutely made the right call and the actual procedure was far too emotional to speak about. I was treated like a monster by all manner of nursing staff and treated so gently by others. Btw it would have been in the 24 but there was a bank holiday weekend so I had to wait .
I think all women have the right to decide

mini but say if everyone was in a wheelchair. Everything was adapted for wheelchairs. Careers expected applicants to be in wheelchairs. Shelves were at heights for wheelchair users, because everyone is in one! Houses were all adapted.

Then someone is born with working legs. They can't join in wheelchair basketball, because they aren't in a wheelchair and can't use one as effectively as someone who has to use one for everything. Ceilings are too low for them. They can't join in certain social activities that involve wheelchairs.

In that society, the person with working legs is disabled.

That's a crap example, like I said I don't have time to write an essay but read up on the social model. What is a disability is almost purely societal.