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.

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

This will happen too. Nothing anyone can do about it either, we just have to accept it is going to happen. Tbh I would likely abort a child with autism if they ever have a genetic test for it.

To be honest, abortion is a personal tragedy, not a global one. It is staggeringly rare that a person is of international importance, and even rarer that their talents are unique.

It's not a question of the world being a better place - especially when there's increasing evidence that there need to be fewer of us altogether.

It's a question of forcing an existence and circumstances on a woman that she faces real and personal consequences with whatever decision she makes.

This is why I love MN.

A goady, manipulative headline and the overwhelming response is “off you fuck with that bullying nonsense, we stand with women.”

to those whose personal experiences have been heartbreaking to read.

As early as possible, as late as necessary - this seems the compassionate thing.

this is not anti abortion. This is saying that people with DS deserve the same rights as "normal" babies and they are not allowed to be terminated after 24 wks

It is really because they are saying that mothers should have not have a choice over whether they are willing to take on a child with a life-long disability or not. And if we start with DS where do we end? Will we require mothers to give birth to babies who have no chance of any quality of life at all? The reason there is a later cut off for disability is because they don't always show themselves until later in the pregnancy and I am sure no mother-to-be has a late abortion lightly.

These people can say this if they are willing to look after the children born as a result. But they won't be.

People should mind their own business. What a woman does with her body should be of no interest to anyone else.

A woman should not have to give a reason for requesting a termination. The fact that she wants one should be enough. At any stage of the pregnancy.

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 wouldn’t be so sure about this, I think Scandinavian countries have high termination rates for DS whereas USA is not all that high comparatively because of the religious leanings of some of the population. I think it’s more than financial means.

A woman should not have to give a reason for requesting a termination. The fact that she wants one should be enough. At any stage of the pregnancy

This isn’t the law anywhere except maybe China, Canada and USA so why are you even starting from an ideological position not reflected in the U.K.?

Fact is you can’t get an abortion after 24 weeks except for medical reasons and that won’t change. You really think any ethical doctor is going to terminate a viable fetus for no reason whatsoever? It doesn’t happen even in Canada, which technically has no limits at all!

This is a clear case of conflicting rights but a very difficult issue to resolve.

I certainly don't believe the world would be better without people with severe disabilities but:

Afaik foetuses don't have any defined rights in the uk.

Is it fair to bring any child into the world where there are no people able and willing to give that child the love and high level care they deserve?

What kind of life would a disabled child have if born into a family that clearly didn't want them? Are there the numbers of adoptive families ready to step in? (No.)

Would a change in the law necessitate a return to large scale institutionalisation of unwanted disabled people? (Yes.)

And what kind of a life is that?

And what about the pregnant woman's right to bodily autonomy?!

A woman's right to choose. Always.

I think Scandinavian countries have high termination rates for DS We don't. Stats from Norway last year show about a 44% rate of abortion for prenatally diagnosed DS. I can't find a recent statistic for the UK but it was much higher, around 90 or more percent?

anyone can have a child with a disabilty.

And that is a calculated risk everyone takes when they choose to have a child. Everyone is risking a 1 in whatever chance of having this condition or that condition and you decide whether or not the risk is worth it.

When you know in advance that your personal risk factor is not 1 in 5000 but is actually 1 in 5 and then further testing narrows it down to an absolute certainty, it is no longer a calculated risk of having a child with that condition, it is a reality. It is then up to the woman whether she wants to live with that reality or not, she has a choice.

Yes, anyone can have a disabled child. No, you can’t test for everything in pregnancy. But if you do know in advance and don’t feel you can cope with it, that’s an entirely different situation. I don’t blame anyone for feeling they can’t do this. And I know plenty of women who end up raising their disabled children alone because it’s more socially acceptable for men to walk away.

Perhaps if we actually funded social care or carers allowance or SEN provision or disability benefits or respite care properly, people wouldn’t be so terrified of having a disabled child. Perhaps if you didn’t have to fight for every crumb of support it would be different. But no one is proposing that, are they?

I would argue that there are no conflicted rights. Foetuses and unborn babies don’t have rights. That’s why women get to eat and drink what they like in pg. As soon as the baby is in the world without utter dependency on another body for sustenance and oxygen it has rights. Even though it’s still dependent on others for care once born there are many people in the world who can feed that baby. That’s when rights are conferred.

@MangoFeverDream isn't there currently something going through parliament that would change that? To allow abortions past 24 weeks for any reason?

Heartened to see the number of responses defending a woman's right to choose. I'm sure Heidi is a wonderful human being but I hope she doesn't succeed in her attempt to reduce women's rights.

MangoFeverDream because I am pro-choice, and to me that means not believing that anyone should have the right to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her own body. It'll probably never happen but I hope it does, because it's what I believe is the right thing for women. I put the rights of women above those of a foetus.

I always said that I wouldn’t terminate a viable pregnancy. I did multiple ivf rounds and was extremely fortunate to end up with 2 healthy DC. A friend has had a DC with Downe’s Syndrome and severe disabilities. Whenever I see her, I am awestruck by her patience. Her DH divorced her, he couldn’t cope and publicly everyone rallied round her, saying how selfish etc he was. A little voice in my head does acknowledge that I don’t think I would cope either. I could not take away a woman’s right to choose, not condemn anyone for their choice.

Sorry ‘nor’ condemn

I had a tfmr at 20 weeks, well in the end it was due to concerns about my health as I was showing signs of infection. Waters broke at 18 weeks and at 20 weeks one of the babies feet was through my cervix so little chance of lung development and a good out come. If it wasn't for both of those things I'd have continued with the pg

I'd rather they did away with the 24 week limit for everyone.

The affect on my mh was awful, ptsd, anxiety. I cant imagine what it would be like not to have a choice.

SAVITA HALAPPANAVAR died almost a year to the day after my termination. The same happened to her as what happened to me.

I was just fortunate enough to live in a country where I had a choice . That is the sort of thing that can happen when the feotus is given more rights than the women who's body is carrying it

This case shouldn't even get to court.

It's based on personal emotion.

I was almost aborted, and many foetuses in my situation are (young teenage mother, no father on the scene). I was eventually adopted, but I have absolutely no right to suggest that abortion be made harder for women who want/need it.

How will it work? I personally would not have an abortion for any reason but I believe fully in women having the choice. The choice exists for people who need it. Forcing someone to give birth to a disabled child they do not want is counterproductive is it not?

Some people go on to love that child and others may resent the child, the financial, emotional and physical drain on their resources and effect on other children and their marriage. If you force someone to have a child they do not want, do they give that child up to the state? That would seem a cruel punishment to give someone a lifetime responsibility they do not want.

Would it not make that child at risk of abuse and neglect from their parents? It's one thing to make an informed decision to have a baby with a range of issues and the wish you hadn't but at least you had a choice.

Although children can be perfectly healthy and become disabled during anytime in their childhood as we cant control everything but I'm not sure taking choice away from women who happen to be primary caregivers and sometimes are also the breadwinner or/and single is the answer.

My emotions completely agree with this mother and daughter but I fear limiting and policing women's choices will affect them later. The support systems for carers in this country and financial support are being cut to the bone. People seem to care more about babies in the womb than already existing children as proven by underfunding to children's services, carer's allowances, disability support and 30% of children in the UK growing up in child poverty and having insecure food households.

If the limit for TFMR was lowered I actually think it would have the opposite effect of what they want and more likely to result in more abortions due to the pressure that would be put on the woman to make a decision in a very short amount of time.

My son's disability diagnosis was at birth rather than pregnancy, but my initial reaction was 'I can't cope, how am I going to manage, how am I going to be able to work, should I give him up, what am I going to do, is my life over etc' (obviously other emotions about the challenges for him too). Maybe this is a similar reaction when you receive the news in pregnancy. Imagine having those thoughts and only a week or two to make your decision. I would be more likely to abort under that kind of pressure with those kind of thoughts.

However if there is no time limit pressure and a woman is actually given the time to process the news she has just received, seek support from family and professional organisations, and make an informed decision then she may be more likely to feel she can cope and keep the baby.

If the argument is the limit should be the same for all then I agree with others that the 24week limit should be removed and no restrictions placed on any woman at any stage.

I think there are real issues with how doctors treat mothers carrying babies with DS or high risks for it. We were pushed into booking a TMFR before our final results were even back. When we said we didn't want that, there was a lot of pressure. As it was, our results came back NT, but I'll never forget how those medical professionals pushed us at such a difficult time, and how negative their view of life with DS was.

To the people saying there should be no restrictions at all- is it acceptable to have an abortion because of the sex of the baby?

To the people saying there should be no restrictions at all- is it acceptable to have an abortion because of the sex of the baby?

It's an interesting question. I don't know the current abortion regulations, but believe the woman can have an abortion before 24 weeks for any reason? Do they have to give a reason and it be approved or in theory can they do it on the basis of sex already? It wouldn't be my choice but who am I to judge someone else.