To think that the world would not be a better place without Heidi *Content Warning - abortion/disability edited by MNHQ*

[bridgetreilly]

Heidi is 24 and has Downs syndrome. She is beautiful and brilliant and very articulate in explaining why the UK abortion law is discriminatory in allowing abortion up to full term where the child has Downs syndrome (and other non-fatal disabilities including cleft palate or club foot), when the standard limit is 24 weeks.

She's not the only one to think that. The United Nations’ Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’ concluding observations on the initial report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland made a key recommendation that the UK change its abortion law on disability so that it does not single out babies with disabilities. However, the Government has decided to ignore this recommendation.

Heidi, along with the mother of a young boy with Downs syndrome, is planning to sue the government for discrimination. She is amazing and I hope she wins.

Heidi is here because her mother had a choice.

I find it abhorrent they now want to remove choice from other women.

Forced birth should never be a valid choice.

I don't think that women should be forced to have a pregnancy that they don't want and potentially spend their whole life as a carer whilst the father, as usual, has the chance to leave and do nothing.

Sometimes I feel this so hard. On Mondays in particular!

That did make me laugh!

I'm going to step away now as I accept my emotions may be getting in the way of discussing this properly.

I just want to say I'm all for our choice, our bodies. I just don't see why people are arguing to keep the status quo which is obviously unfair.

@Newtonpass no it's not. Because foetus' don't have rights.

Years ago they wouldn't think we'd be able to do what we can with a simple blood test.

Autism like DS is a spectrum. Good for you that you can function.

But I have a very dear friend who's son can not function. In any way. And never will. She says had she known what she knows now she would've aborted.

That's her right.
Science advances. That's the greatest thing about it. Always helping. And always giving us more choice.

I would not be in favour of further restrictions. I imagine the decision to have a late abortion is a terribly difficult and in many cases agonising one. I would never want to force a woman to continue a pregnancy to term with a child that might potentially require care until they die. It is too simplistic to say x is high functioning but could have theoretically been aborted therefore it is wrong. There are many others who are not anywhere near as capable or might suffer from more severe complications. Social and economic factors will affect decision-making etc.

Ultimately while many disabled children grow up to thrive, some don’t. And there is a massive impact on their parents, siblings etc. I was a young carer and I’ve seen the impact on my dad of caring for my mother over decades. My second pregnancy downs score was high and we had an anxious wait for the harmony test. I would have reluctantly aborted as I wouldn’t have wanted my first child to have become a carer. I might have made a different decision with just one child.

I suspect people have gotten too far into the discussion's emotions to have seen Newton's true point, which was that it would be MORE fair to just remove all abortion limits and let it be a choice between the woman and her medical practitioner. And I quite agree with them, that IS the right way to go.

I couldn't agree with the op more.
I have 2 children with complex needs and they are the light of our lives despite their limitations.
Abortion was originally supposed to be for extreme cases like life threatening risk to mother and child etc but now it is a free for all to destroy babies ( conveniently called features ) right up to term for disabilities! If that isn't discriminatory then what is ?
I will no doubt be flamed now but I don't see how we have gone from abortion being for v extreme circumstances to it being justified because it is the wrong time in somebody's life / career etc etc . The most trivial reasons are put forward to justify it in some cases.

Autism is a spectrum condition and affects every person differently but it is not associated with life-limiting physical co-morbidities.

I agree in this in general, and agree with the point you are making, however one third have epilepsy and unfortunately the life span is shorter on average, due to various reasons. My DS has physical co-morbidities and this is not uncommon. His life is still valuable and happy and worthwhile, I would not agree that he should be have been aborted for the reason of his disability, however we should not underestimate that severe autism is a serious condition.

I don't want to flame you flapjack. You made a choice that was very valid for you and I'm so glad you enjoy your children so much!

But it isn't right or fair to make that choice for other women. It's not a 'free for all to destroy babies', it's a heartbreaking decision that no woman takes lightly or for fun. Please go to facebook and twitter and search for the Women of the 8th and the stories from InHerShoes. Late term abortion is nothing but agonising for women who have to come to the difficult decision to do it.

The most trivial reasons are put forward to justify it in some cases

The only reason necessary is that a woman wants an abortion.

You had the choice to carry on with pregnancy, and have your children. Other women should also have full, free choice.

I disagree with any change or amendment in the law which further restricts a woman's right to abortion.

No one; not you, not the government, nor anybody else; regardless of your opinions, has any right to force a woman to continue with a pregnancy she does not want. Stating otherwise is an appalling breech of a woman's basic right to autonomy over her own body.

GothamProtector excellent. Look forward to working on ways to determine intelligence/beauty of fetuses so we can abort anyone who might not fit the perfect template.

I'm not against abortion at all. I am against there being different cut off points for those of us who have as much chance of living a fulfilling life as an nt baby.

If you care about choice so much why aren't you all setting up a campaign to get the limit completely lifted for all, not just the disabled fetuses. That would be fair. Stop shitting on someone else who is trying to campaign for their idea of fairness and set up your own.

Hiding thread now.

Sirzy Fri 28-Feb-20 07:41:28
It does make me feel very uncomfortable, I think in part it’s because there are so many disabilities that can’t be known about before birth, or even are caused by birth or develop after birth that to me it just doesn’t sit right and I think if you are going to have children then surely you should consider the possibility that they may have disability that means lifelong care.

There are so many unknowns in life, even with a diagnosis like DS that to abort an otherwise wanted child as a result just doesn’t seem right to me.

thank you Sirzy you said what I think so well. as a parent of a child with a disability caused at birth(can't test for that) anyone can have a child with a disabilty.

@MarieQueenofScots.
Actually I adopted and fostered mine and I am not alone so there are people out there who will raise these children if the families can't cope. I know quite a few infact.

And I am not saying I would judge anyone who did an early abortion for disability because yes it is a massive thing to deal with but when we think it is ok to basically euthanize a full term baby at birth well that is just a step way too far !

Abortion rates in general would be lower if we had better sex ed, access to contraception and confidence in using it, social care such as respite, equipment, education plans for disabled children and a society that supported disabled people better. If the entire campaign is based around stopping abortion rather than improving life once born and helping the family you are born into, then I can't support it.

Unfortunately there’s no official record so it’s impossible to know, but I am sure that the number of 3rd trimester abortions for DS where there are no other severe complicating factors such as severe heart defects would be extremely close to zero. This is taking figures from late stage TFMR for other conditions that are mostly incompatible with life and disingenuously suggesting they many are due solely to DS when they are not.

Parents who want to know whether their child has DS will have testing at 12 weeks. In most cases they’d know the situation long before 24 weeks. The issue is anomalies picked up at 20 weeks which require further investigations, which are not always quick.

Some posters here are implying that the limit for TFMR is higher due to ableism when in reality it’s because that extra time is necessary for investigations, counselling and decision making.

Anyone who thinks that women are seeing a full term abortion as an easy option is delusional.

SinkGirl hear hear!

And I am not saying I would judge anyone who did an early abortion for disability because yes it is a massive thing to deal with but when we think it is ok to basically euthanize a full term baby at birth well that is just a step way too far

I don’t want to be flippant but then don’t have an abortion. I fully support people being against abortion (whether completely or late term) for themselves. Nobody should extend that choice to other women.

You did an amazing thing adopting your children. But that shouldn’t mean other women have to have babies they don’t want - that’s forced birth.

Our abortion rights were hard fought for in the 60s. I, for one, will be out on the streets again if there is any legislation planned that puts a foetus above a woman.

No one has any right to dictate to a woman what to do with her body. I can't believe that there are people in this century who think so.

Interesting that throughout this whole thread, and it seems the campaign (did a bit of googling), no-one has mentioned the Abortion Bill currently going through parliament to allow terminations beyond 24 weeks. Regardless of result. So, should it reach completion, there won't be any discrimination/special treatment (negative/positive depending on your personal view!!!). So long as it's consensual.

I think, at the end of the day, if the natural outcome of a pregnancy is not wanted by the person carrying it, then forcing the pregnancy to continue is not going to have a positive outcome.

Neurotypical or otherwise, having babies is a choice that the adults have to make on behalf of a child before it exists. You can't get around how selfish an act it is. People know what they can cope with, and sure it would be ideal if everyone who was TTC was prepared for a set of DS triplets, because then the outcome wouldn't matter, realistically... people tend to bank on having one, neurotypical child. Sometimes that's all they can manage and that's not something to be judged on.

It's also important to remember that not everyone who is allowed to terminate, terminates. Not everyone who is encouraged by doctors to terminate, terminates! Termination is never an easy choice, and there are always emotional examples of how this law change might negatively impact people.

Just look at the "wrongful life" cases! You just don't know everything that can happen, how that pregnancy can turn out, for certain. You do your best, you trust the experts. Sometimes that means knowing you couldn't cope, and either terminating or arranging for adoption at birth.

Heidi is here because her mother had a choice.
I find it abhorrent they now want to remove choice from other women.
Forced birth should never be a valid choice.

Exactly this, no nicer way to put it

What SinkGirl said. This discussion needs to be driven by facts and not emotive bollocks considerations driven by forced birthers with an agenda.

It isn’t discriminatory - It is different because the information the woman has to base any decision on has changed. Once you had the information you are pregnant (mostly after missing a period so quite early on) you have several weeks - up to 24 weeks pregnancy- to take a decision to abort. For those who base their decision on results from the 20 week scan - why would you expect them to make up their minds and take this decision under pressure of time? Wouldn’t that lead to potentially more abortions rather than less?

Where do we draw the line though? Do we say that abortions of children with DS after 24 weeks are illegal but abortions for other genetic conditions are acceptable? What about the genetic conditions that are as yet undiagnosed?
What about those families who have known genetic disorders in their family? Should the parents be forced to undergo invasive medical testing in utero just so they can get in under the 24 week limit 'if they want to'

I actively refused all prenatal testing when I was pregnant with my children and made it clear that if anything was found at the 20 week scan I didnt want to know unless it was something that was definitely life limiting. And the fuss it caused was unbelievable.

Anything prenatally needs to be an active and conscious choice on the part of the person who is pregnant. Limiting abortions to 24 weeks completely overrides that choice.

When the UK makes better provision for disabled people, including high quality, respectful care homes with zero chance of abuse, and plenty of support, then more women will continue pregnancies.

I don't agree that this necessarily involves post-24 week terminations, given that Choronic Villus testing is done at 11-14 weeks for women with a higher probability of chromosomal abnormalities, and amniocentesis can be performed from 15 weeks.

I doubt that I would continue a pregnancy with DS because I would worry about what would happen to them when I died or was too infirm to do their care. There have been some terrible care home scandals, including one at a simple respite home.