To think you can't physically force somebody to have a late term abortion?

[Cringemum]

Just that really.

I was following the thread on the feminist board about the 22yo woman with LD's, who is 22 weeks pregnant, and a judge has ordered the pregnancy be terminated against her wishes.

The thread reached the maximum amount of comments before anybody was able to shed any light on my question.

I can't fathom how she can be physically forced to go through the procedure if she refuses to comply.

Could anybody shed any light on how exactly something like this could be enforced short of physically dragging her to the hospital and restraining her.

Horrible, horrible case by all accounts and my POV is that the judge has made the wrong decision - for the mother - I'm strictly pro choice in all situations but this doesn't sit right with me at all.

Many on the previous thread strongly disagree as is their prerogative but I don't understand how she can be made to go through with a termination?

Anybody?

I believe forced adoptions are sometimes necessary... I don't fundamentally believe forced adoptions are inhumane.

Are you aware that a significant subset of non Western cultures, particularly older cultures closer to the hunter-gatherer type, adoption is seen as monstrously evil, cruel to the point of despair? And that's adoption in the case where the mother has died, never mind given the child up, or had the child taken from her. These people think that people like you, who would prefer adoption etc. to abortion, are moral monsters who have no pity or love for the babies involved...

I mention this because many of the posts in this thread are really appeals to cultural norms. The judge themself mentions this in their ruling.

Our obsession on keeping a life going, no matter what the cost, no matter what the suffering, is likely predicated on the idea that more lives = more labour = more successful farming society... the fact that we have this obsession doesn't mean it's right or that it's in the best interests of the human beings involved in cases like this.

This woman is in a dreadful, nightmare scenario. She is unable to understand what is happening and why. The court made a terrible, sad decision in a terrible, sad situation. But I have a feeling they did the best they could.

There is no "pure", happy-path decision in these types of situations. Human life is full of terrible suffering and we muddle through it, trying to use our culture, beliefs, ethics, etc to reduce suffering. I am sure the court, solicitors, barristers, judge, etc tried their absolute fucking hardest to reduce the suffering of this woman. But the terrible truth is that there was no happy decision for her.

This has been repeated to you several times and I hope you will listen this time. No one is pro-life. Certainly not me. I've had a termination myself. This has nothing to do with pro-life rhetoric.

And so is child birth.

... as well as any situation that might lead to such. I.e. sex.

In a perfect world. But this is not what we're looking at. So it's going to be imperfect solutions in a flawed from the get-go situation.

I'm not a blind believer in systems. Far from it. But if a judge has decided that, taking into account all factors, this is about as good as it's likely to get their judgment call - and that's what this was always going to be - is frankly as good as or hopefully better than yours or mine.

I understand that a c section could also be traumatic, but would it be as traumatic as undergoing a late stage termination?

Yes, it certainly can be. It's a bigger operation, and if the woman refuses to to into hospital as she doesn't understand what is going on, would involve the coercion that OP is so concerned about. Plus she would have undergone another 18 or more weeks of pregnancy and everything that goes with that.

The other aspect of a C section under anaesthetic is that drugs and sedation have to be kept to a minimum to avoid harming the baby. That wouldn't apply in a termination.

@franklyshankly2

This is isn't a matter of life saving surgery though. There's nothing to suggest that the pregnancy is life threatening. It would be entirely different if it were.

This is such a tragic case, and there are no easy answers. If the woman were to give birth, her baby would be taken away from her - I suppose the grandmother might apply for guardianship, but that would be problematic as well, as she already failed to protect her own DD.

If the baby is adopted, that's potentially even more traumatic. My DDs' birth mum has LD, though not so severe as in this case, and leads a chaotic lifestyle with DV, and she's given birth 4 times and all her DC have been taken off her. Each time, she stated that she wanted to keep her baby, but the court decided otherwise. So what she went through was arguably far worse than this woman going through a termination to spare her from that trauma.

I don't know what the right answer is. But adoption, while it is a solution, isn't an easy one. It's traumatic for the birth mum and also traumatic for the child taken off her.

This has been repeated to you several times and I hope you will listen this time. No one is pro-life. Certainly not me. I've had a termination myself. This has nothing to do with pro-life rhetoric

You can’t use pro-life rhetoric like ‘the death of her baby’ and then claim this has nothing to do with pro-life rhetoric. If you’re going to use the language of pro-lifers to make your point, you are going to be tarred with that brush. The fact that you’ve had a termination yourself is irrelevant - plenty of pro-lifers have terminations themselves and yet continue to campaign against others who do the same.

Lack of capacity doesn’t mean lack of awareness entirely, she will be aware something is happening but isn’t able to fully understand in depth what it is, or why.

Perhaps the judge feels that her awareness levels are enough that removing a live crying baby from her body she will never see again - likely through force because she might not comply with professionals during labour as she has behavioual issues - is less traumatic than removing a small less developed foetus she may not even see in a calmer medicalised way with more medication options.

At the point of 24 weeks, perhaps the woman carrying the foetus has to have multiple blood tests, scans, invasive vaginal internals with human hands and foetal monitoring, none of which she may want to do and the foetus will become at risk of death. Perhaps there is a history of non compliance with medical professionals. Perhaps health and law professionals feel that to prevent the risk of both maternal and foetal death/trauma it is safer and more humane to medically intervene now rather than have to battle to save 2 lives later down the line, and place a child for fostering/adoption who cannot ever have contact with their birth mother and will grow up with their own trauma.

Lots of perhaps

It is a an awful situation & is very sad.
But as pp's have said no one on here (as far I know) has the full judgement or access to the case & evidence presented.
As previously stated the Judge had to make the 'best' decision in the interests of the woman.
As TakenForSlanted stated every case has to be taken on a case to case basis.
What gives randoms on the internet the right to say that they are the only 'experts' ones right & the Judge doesn't know what she's on about?
Either way each option is going to be technically 'forced' and those who keep banging on about the 'forced' abortion would you still complain about a 'forced' adoption' or birth if the case was the other way round?
Like I said however sad the Judge has had to come a decision that is in the best interests of a person who lacks capacity.

I will also say I was subjected to a forced abortion myself, as a teenager, at 16w gestation. I had full capacity and it was extremely traumatic and it isn't something you get over. It was an act of violence against me.

I also have a 7 year old child.

I know if my DC had to have an abortion at this age, it would be a radically different experience to what I went through and it would be in her best interests, there is simply no doubt.

A person of that mental capacity simply wants someone to take care of them and will follow the person who holds their hand. This woman needs someone to hold her hand, desperately. And I have no doubt that the medical staff who are caring for her will do everything they can to do just that. She will not have the experience and the aftermath I had. I don't trust that the same could be said if she were to carry to term and give birth. The variables are just too much to countenance.

‘Terminations are for women who are capable of giving consent’

So if her mother wanted her to have an abortion you’d still feel that she should not be given one?

Not necessarily. None of us can say for sure which is the less traumatic option for the woman. Not even the judge knows - they can only make a guess based on the information, and judges are not infallible.

However, the judge has an awful lot more information than we do, plus the benefits of full legal argument and all her experience of the law in such cases.

Just because I disagree with the courts ruling doesn't make my opinion wrong or invalid.

There is no doubt that your opinion is of less value than the judgement made by the court because you lack information and expertise.

You would have G&A and pethidine provided whether she gave birth at twenty two weeks or full term. It's exactly the same pain relief available.

It's down to gillick competence- so the procedure can be against her will. She is a ward of court so her consent is overridden, a bit like a parent signing for surgery if under the age of consent.

She’ll have an abortion under general anaesthetic.

^argh typo... more traumatic not less

And no, she will not be sectioned under the mental health act as previous poster says. She is a ward of court, that takes over.

This is shocking. Searched a bit on the web - her mother has stepped forward and wants to take care of the baby? This should be enough reason to let otherwise healty pregnancy to develop. I think there is a whole army of kids raised by granparents behind the scenes.

By that logic, no woman should be permitted to have a termination if there is a relative around who wants to take care of the baby.

The point in this case is that if the grandmother has the baby the mother would have to leave the home in order to keep the baby safe in light of her mood disorder which seems to include psychosis. The finding seems to have been that the distress which that would cause in combination with the birth is in itself dangerous to the mother.

@PouncerDarling

I know this situation isn’t life threatening to the best of our knowledge but you put your original comment across as an absolute

Ok sure, despite having had my own termination, donating money regularly to BPAS, and supporting local campaigning against pro-life demonstrations, I'm pro-life because I don't believe in forced terminations. If you say so.

@merrymouse Like is said earlier, this post was originally in feminism.
Feminists have a long history of disputing commonly known "expertise". I very much distrust the governments expertise in lots of fields ( but especially science) . I'm not sure that our government and it's workers is capable of making judgments about women's capacities.

She will not necessarily have an abortion carried out under general anaesthetic. You HOPE she has an abortion carried out under general anaesthetic.

@merrymouse

As someone who has been through the patriarchal legal system - made by men for men - and has less faith than you do in their ability to find the best solution, I repeat what I said earlier:

"It's still guesswork - the judge doesn't have a crystal ball to see into the future of two scenarios and see which one results in less harm. She has made a guess hoping it is the right one."

Time won't even tell if it's the right one, because the woman will only go through one scenario.