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.

I'm happy to discuss my views on politics, abortion, vaccination, and gender with my friends, one on one. Or in a face to face discussion. Or even with a group. But not on FB

Absolutely

Im not actually on facebook...but if i was, I wouldn’t

For those who advocate that a woman should have no choice to abort after 24 weeks, would you agree that the woman can then choose to give birth at 24 weeks? The reality is that 20-35% of babies born that early survive (and that is not a percentage that takes into account those babies whose early births have long-term consequences).

I can't imagine being forced to stay pregnant, it sounds inhumane.

It is all so sad. There will be a time when we as a society will see what we are truly doing in the act of abortion. That day will be devastating, even for those who have never had one.

What are we truly doing?

Enough of the passive aggressive head tilting Redroses. I was well aware of what I was doing and am not devastated. I would have been devastated if someone had told me I had to continue my pregnancy against my will.

What we are truly doing in the act of abortion: a list

• giving women agency over their own body and the freedom to choose what happens to that body

• giving women control over when, and if, they become a parent

• giving women autonomy over their reproductive rights

• protecting women from unsafe, illegal, dangerous, backstreet abortions

• preventing women from being hampered by an unwanted pregnancy

• protecting the mental and physical health of women in cases where continuing a pregnancy would be hazardous to one or both

• in the case of profound disability or developmental abnormalities, allowing the pregnancy to be ended peacefully and without pain or distress to the infant

• recognising that pregnancy is not a punishment for daring to have sex

• acknowledging that contraception can fail and therefore a safety net is needed

• making sure that every child is a wanted child

Did I miss anything?

There will be a time when we as a society will see what we are truly doing in the act of abortion

What? Giving women agency and autonomy?

Truly devastating

Disagree.

Whis is paying the legal costs?

I'd put money on a "pro-life" (i.e., anti-choice) group being behind the campaign, at least in part, and wouldnt be shocked if they've contributed to the legal fees.

Think that pretty well covers it Hoik.

The Argentinian president is about to submit a bill to Congress to legalise abortion up to 14 weeks I think. With presidential backing, fingers crossed that it will get through Senate this time.

President Fetnandez says, "A state should protect citizens in general and women in particular. And in the 21st Century, every society needs to respect the individual choice of its members to decide freely about their bodies."

How is this devastating and so sad, Redroses?

I actually think people who are against late term termination should be prepared to offer free respite care to families with severely disabled dc and complex medical needs - there is none available for my family

I wonder after a year of doing that whether any views would change

@Redrosesandsunsets are you going to engage in a discussion or just drop your vitriol and run

Because that a sure fire way to get people to agree with your way of thinking.
You want us to change our minds then come along and engage. Educate us.

@bflatmajorsharp - just a clarification. Later terminations typically do occur in delivery suites. I had mine (18 weeks) in the same place as I delivered my living children - albeit in a special suite slightly set away from where the live births took place. If the suite had been occupied I would have just been in a normal delivery room. Just underlines how hard this is, and that no one would go through it lightly.

It is rare for terminations past 16w to be surgical.

@Hoik 👏👏👏👏👏

SylvanianFrenemies yes you're absolutely right. Sorry, I know this, I worded what I mean to say very badly, I hope that I haven't upset you or anyone else.

What I meant was that terminations aren't performed as an alternative to a planned delivery ie there is a process to go through to have a termination that can't and doesn't happen during labour.

So it's not medically or legally possible for a woman in labour to suddenly decide that she wants a termination and for the midwife to switch from facilitating a live birth to terminating a pregnancy.

As you know, but posting to clarify what I meant to people who I might have confused, a termination in a delivery suite is a planned procedure not something that a woman can elect to have part way through a planned ordinary labour.

So no woman is offered the option of termination up to the point when the baby is in the birth canal.

Hook I'll add one to your list. Allowing decisions to be made in the case of ill children, not necessarily disabled. I'm thinking about Babies who develop tumours while still in the womb, benign or cancerous.

@Rubyroost

You’re right, and the reason they choose her as the ‘posterchild’ for their twisted argumentative is clear: because they want people to believe that having a child with Down isn’t so bad and that allowing abortion after 24 weeks on Down fetuses is ‘ some kind of government conspiracy to reduce the amount of citizens with Down syndrome ‘. People like Heidi are not representative for the Down community: so many of them are living in hard circumstances away from their family and are far from able to do basic things like feeding themselves/ using the toilet independently etc. And for those living with their family it’s very, very hard work for their parents, siblings etc.

I did the NIPT when I was pregnant with DS to check if he had Down syndrome and would have without any doubt choosen to have an abortion if he turned out to have it. And anybody who would have dared to tell me that they didn’t respect MY choice, regarding MY body and the rest of MY life, would no longer be tolerated around me for the rest of my life.

Yes Blackbear19, I know in cases of TS that benign tumours can inhibit development and function of the organs. Sadly there will be other conditions too with similar outcomes. Those women should have the choice on how they want to proceed.

DS can be picked up relatively early in pregnancy, later terminations are probably for the rarer conditions picked up by the 20 week scan. A friend had a late termination as there were severe neurological issues picked up later in pregnancy and then she had an awful wait for tests to confirm the results. It is heart breaking and no one would want to make that choice. This is emotive click bait.

because they want people to believe that having a child with Down isn’t so bad

do you mean then that having a child with DS is bad and what do you mean by this?

Read the rest of my post @curlsnotfrizz and stop trying to get into a discussion about something you’re trying to take out of context.

Not necessarily BGD2012. Ds is only confirmed through diagnostic testing, usually offered only if the 12 week screening tests indicate a heightened risk or the mother requests possibly because she's in a high risk group.

If the initial screening indicated a low risk someone has still got to be that 1 in 10,000 or whatever, and there may not be enough markers for Ds until the anomoly scan.

@curlsnotfrizz the poster explains exactly what she means by that in the rest of her post. Why not read it?

X post