To think MN is taking a strange stance on the NIPT test?

[eeyoresgrumpierfriend]

Is it just me or is MN giving a lot of coverage to those opposing the new non invasive prenatal screening tests the NHS wants to introduce. Today's blog of the day, Sally Phillips at Blogfest and there was a guest post against screening a while ago too.

Full respect to these women and the choices they've made but isn't the crux of the argument about women's choice?

The NHS already screens for Down's, Edwards and Pateau's but the new test will be safer and can be done earlier. It's only going to be offered to women who would otherwise be advised to have amnios/CVS.

So it's a less invasive, faster, less scary, safer way of women getting the information they want to make an informed decision right for them.

Odd that MN's seem to be giving a platform to the anti-argument with no counter-balance?

Natalia - yes I think you've hit the nail on the head.

Wonder if MNHQ can confirm if this is what Sally Phillips will be talking about at MN Blogfest. The programme has her down to do a 'thinkbomb' - apparently a '5 minute idea blast' (!?). If she is going to be talking about Downs and screening then I hope they are going to offer a similar platform to a counter-balancing argument.

Hayley Goleniowska who is on the Blogfest programme too is also a campaigner and contributor to Phillips' documentary.

It's disappointing when this thread shows MN users have a much more diverse range of views on this issue.

Choosing to know the results of the test, and choosing to abort is not the same thing. They are two separate decisions.

I think the problem that many people have with the current screening system is that in practice they are often treated as effectively the same thing. This means that, unless the vulnerable woman in question is feeling strong enough to step back and separate the two decisions out again, she ends up being guided down a path by people who know very little about DS and a lot about aborting people with DS.

Heard her on 5 live today and the presenters were totally unable to get a word in. When they countered her argument she said 'didn't you like my film you haven't got anything positive to say about it*

It was frankly embarrassing and all about her and her obviously gorgeous son but her arguments are very poor.

She seeks to deny other women a test that offers then choice and that's absolutely nothing to do with her or her situation or anyone else.

gonetosee

I think obviously women should be given as much information and support as possible but for me I had an amino with baby 4 as i would not under any circumstances want a child with downs for many reasons and I wouldn't really want some random 'expert' trying to persuade me to have the child any more than I would welcome a HCP pushing me to abort if I didn't want to.

The expert here is the pregnant woman.

Don't you think SP is in effect doing the same in reverse though, gonetosee?

Sally Phillips can speak as the parent of a young child who has DS. But this is a very different experience of a parent of an adult with DS.

Want to clear up misunderstanding: Sorry if I wasn't clearer in a pp ages ago, but wanted to make it clear that I think the only reason a woman needs to abort a child (foetus/baby - please insert whichever term you feel more comfortable with) is that she doesn't want to have a child. When I used 'disgusting' I explained that I was talking about the language used and was not passing judgement on women and families for choices they will make in the future, are making or have made.

I stand by my comment that "Giving women permission to help themselves" by having an abortion, is not pro choice. I don't know if I misunderstood the context that it was in but I just feel that it really isn't a helpful way to think about abortion. Women should not feel pressured into any decision either way.

I again would like to reiterate that I think that the most safe, reliable screening should be available for mothers to be who wish to access it.

and she has enough money to ensure care and comfort for her child for life. Very few people have that luxury.

The presenter, Mishal Husain, then asked if Phillips was saying that there should be no screening at all for Down’s syndrome.

Phillips replied: “I think that is a question to be honest. I think we need to think as a society – we are signed up to various human rights acts, we’re hoping to move towards a more inclusive society, we do have to ask the question. If you think of people with Down’s syndrome as being a particular race then it’s utterly unacceptable, isn’t it?”

Quoted in the Catholic Herald...

Sugarlightly definitely agree about safe reliable screening. It's a statement of the obvious I know but it's such an emotive issue for all concerned - think it's good of you to come back and clarify.

Seconded call to MNHQ for balanced all sides discussion at Blogfest - invite Jane Fisher at Arc for example?

Hmm lozster a trawl of her interviews with Christian press are quite revealing. This is from an interview with Philips in Premier Christianity in June:

Everybody is created in the image of God, she says, and Olly has taught her more than anyone could about the ‘topsy-turvy topology’ of the kingdom of a God who ‘uses the weak to shame the strong’ and ‘promises to frustrate “the intelligence of the intelligent”’.

All power to her but that must colour your views on termination generally?

I honestly think you're extrapolating a bit too far there eeyore. That scripture - quoting that scripture - is quite capable of supporting the straightforward meaning 'my son is as much a human - a child of God - as anyone else' and no more. It could equally be quoted by someone pro-choice as an argument against screening or types of screening.

What you can't infer from it is that the person quoting it is 'generally' anti-abortion.

Although she might be.

But that's for to say not for us to ascribe to her.

I certainly infer that she is anti terminating a pregnancy with a foetus that has Down's syndrome, and it isn't such a leap from that to assume she is anti termination.

She has a live in nanny. I don't think anyone with a live in nanny is the person to show what life with a child with down syndrome will actually be like. What a farce.

Jessica you could - rightly - conclude that I am anti gender screening to inform pregnancy choice.

But it would be a MASSIVE leap to then further conclude that I'm 'anti termination'.

I am in fact in favour of abortion on demand in the first half of pregnancy.

nothing wrong with her campaigning or raising awareness - although it's really only of her life with her son, and not representative of another woman's experience.

Lots wrong with saying that other women shouldn't have access to a test that's safer, easier and earlier because she doesn't think the outcome - terminating fetuses with genetic defects - is a good thing.

I don't agree with the severity of her stance on screening BTW but I don't think overstating her position helps much either.

Sugar

I completely agree with you and can't really understand why you persist in calling my comment 'giving women permission to help themselves to have or not have an abortion' can possibly be considered pro or anti anything? Supporting choices and facilitating choices is the job.

From your previous post I sssuned you were coming st this from an anti abortion stance so if that's not the case then we have both misunderstood each other.

As a HCP I would never ever dream of passing judgment on a woman's choices either way and I think that's crucial.

I think Sally really needs to listen more and pontificate less.

Sugar giving women permission to have an abortion is nothing to do with the HCP views it's about listening to the woman and allowing her to express her feelings either way. Society judges women who terminate and women who don't and as such it's crucial to support choice in any way you can.

It's not a HCP telling a woman to abort or it bloody shouldn't be. Can you really not see that?

manumission totally respect your views but you can't be half arsed about this. You either belive in s woman's bodily autonomy or you don't.

Bodily autonomy means that a woman coukd abort for any reason including gender and at any stage of pregnancy.

Manu, it's not quite the same though, is it?

Extrapolating that someone who has said the above quote, about religion, about being made in the image of God, about the weak becoming the strong, is against termination of Down's pregnancies is a natural one.

The pro choice argument is just that: you can be pro choice, and never terminate yourself. But when you say 'I would not terminate for this reason and nor therefore should you " you are not being pro choice.

That's fine as far as it goes but let's not pretend someone who isn't pro choice isn't anti abortion in some contexts.

There's also an inference with SP that if people knew what having a child with DS was really like people wouldn't choose to terminate.

She's not the gatekeeper for terminations for disabilities. Or terminations for any other reasons.

Real, Jessica;

I think it's two different principles scraping up against each other and conflicting slightly. That's what makes it so difficult.