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.

Euthanasia is a different debate entirely
Who decides?

That's the hard bit. If the person who is suffering is able to ask then fine. Dementia it's not so easy to decide when the quality of life goes. But there is a point when it definitely does go.

But my real point is to the poster who seem to suggested society will one day decide abortion is wrong. Is that no it's not wrong and I don't think that views will ever swing main stream society towards believing it to be wrong.

Also years ago medical staff even called miscarriages abortion. I remember when my mother had a fairly late miscarriage in the 1960s a medical term for that was abortion (it which was spontaneous miscarriage of a very much wanted baby). Lots of miscarriages are nature aborting babies with disabilities - you could almost argue abortion is pretty natural and for those who believe in God part of his or her plan even.

PineapplePower why airbrush your actions then?

Rather than say 'I've got a large carbon footstep and eat meat' why not say 'I choose to live in a way that I'm fully aware is contributing to destroying the planet and causing untold misery to millions of people and animals. I don't have to live like this but I actively choose to.'

Or do you really believe that decisions about whether to fly or not, or whether to eat that ham sandwich or not are 'hard' in the way that making a decision about abortion is, and that the guilt and grief stays with people for the rest of their life?

The narrative that everyone feels guilt and grief after a termination is immensely damaging propaganda.

Absolutely, @Thelnebriati.

The narrative that everyone feels guilt and grief after a termination is immensely damaging propaganda.

Totally agree.

I didn't say that 'everyone feels guilt and grief after a termination'. At all. I most clearly didn't.

I pointed out to Pineapple that people don't feel grief and guilt after flying or eating a ham sandwich, and that making decisions about these things isn't the same degree of 'hardness' as making one about whether to terminate a pregnancy or not.

If you read it in the context of Sylvanian's response to Pineapple it makes my point clearer.

"Also, it's ok. I knew I was killing my son. You don't need to remind us. I was only intercepting the inevitable and imminent due to his heart and organ abnormalities, but thanks for sticking the knife in again.

Everyone who has a tfmr knows what they are losing."

people don't feel grief and guilt after flying or eating a ham sandwich, and that making decisions about these things isn't the same degree of 'hardness' as making one about whether to terminate a pregnancy or not.

I think that's a ridiculous comparison. A termination is a medical procedure, one that can be performed in a number of different ways, depending on circumstances, stage of pregnancy etc. It would be fairer to compare it to other medical procedures, which might be as minor as taking the MAP, or as significant as having a D and C for gynaecological reasons.

And while I have deep sympathy for @SylvanianFrenemies, who has talked very movingly on the thread about her experience of terminating a much-wanted pregnancy, for other women it is a matter of ending an entirely unwanted pregnancy almost as soon as they miss a period, not a matter requiring much thought or reflection. For Irish women until very recently, a decision to terminate was complicated and made far more traumatising than necessary by having to travel to another country. Some women still have to walk into a clinic through aggressive anti-abortion protesters.

There's an entire range of responses, just as there is an entire range of circumstances.

I agree that we shouldn't assume guilt and grief after a termination. I expect grieving is more common after a tfmr (the focus of this thread) because you are aborting a baby you want, usually later on in pregnancy than most terminations.

MingVase did you read Pineapple's post where she said that we shouldn't airbrush over what abortion actually does ie kill a living being then went on to describe her 'large carbon footprint' (ie airbrushing her destructive lifestyle) and about how we all make 'hard' choices.

Grief, PTSD, other complex emotional responses including long-term, after abortions hasn't really been researched or thought about. even in the areas of tfmr and PTSD the research is very sparse.

I think this is partly because any mention of complex emotional reactions gets either weaponised as anti-choice propaganda or dismissed as being anti-choice propaganda.

I do think 'airbrushing' has its place in discussion of high emotive and sensitive issues. It's not denying reality, it's choosing to be sensitive about that reality.

My point was that as a society we do things that seem unethical on the surface that actually make life better for all currently living. Infanticide in ancient societies could be thought of like this, a horror to modern people but perhaps necessary to protect the children that are older and have more potential to survive. I’m sure the mothers who killed their newborn babies did not want to do it, and most were likely traumatised but did what they had to do to protect the children they’d already had.

Anyway this has somewhat derailed things, as we should be talking about the ethics of terminating people like Heidi (which I feel obviously is justified when you think of family and societal sacrifices that have to be made)

I don,t think many social sacrifices are made for Heidi she works and campaigns. For other children such as David Camerons late son perhaps. Not do many social sacrifices have to be made for my nephew with ds.

Pineapple women don't necessarily decide to tfmr because of their other children (living or hoped for) or for the broader social good. It's really not comparable to mass infanticide to try to ensure herd survival.

There are all sorts of reasons that women terminate a pregnancy. Wanting to protect your unborn child from a short life of pain is one of them. Being aware that they're going to die shortly after birth, so interrupting the pregnancy to make that happen in utero is another. Because their health is seriously compromised by pregnancy and so and so forth.

A woman deciding to terminate a pregnancy doesn't cause harm to others in the same way decisions like flying do. It's not unethical in the same way.

I work with people with severe physical and learning disabilities. It probably colours my view a bit, but I certainly don't think the abortion limit should be curtailed. 24weeks is cutting it very fine with regards to additional testing etc.

If the do change the law, chromosomal testing needs to be included in the 12 week scan and screening to allow sufficient time for decision making

"the ethics of terminating people like Heidi (which I feel obviously is justified"

See this is the problem people with LDs face...or families like mine with people with LDs...people looking at them and thinking they should be terminated. Please be more tolerant...

I have to assume this is not what you meant?

An abortion for DS is not terminating a person like Heidi
It is terminating a potential person...a foetus not yet born which may or may not turn out to be like Heidi who is high functioning...may be a lot worse ....or not

(obviously if you know from scans of severe physical medical issues those are likely taken into account as well in decision)

This discussion is getting a bit grim. The ability of women to choose late term abortion for medical reasons is only that - a right to choose. It doesn't say anything about the ethics or otherwise of bringing a disabled child into the world and i support a woman's right to continue a pregnancy without judgment as well as a decision to terminate.

Any one of us might have a termination before 24 weeks for medical reasons or any other reason or choose to continue the pregnancy and the question of whether the world would have been better off with or without that child does not come into it. What the rest of the world choose to do with their pregnancies is irrelevant, the only legitimate debate is around whether there comes a point where a foetus has rights of its own and, if so, the extent to which these can be overridden by the rights of the mother. This is a debate that exists in other contexts - eg where the mother's health is at risk if the pregnancy continues but generally it is the mother's rights that take priority.

The people encouraging Heidi and others to take this case should be ashamed of themselves. It is a gross attempt at infringing on women’s bodily autonomy and rights. Really, how dare anyone try to make this kind of lifelong debilitating decision for women?? The reality is that carrying a Downs foetus to term has lifelong implications of varying severity that a non-Downs foetus will never ever have.

How is this any different from the Christian Right policing women’s bodies? If I met the families involved in this case I’d be telling them to get their ideological convictions the fuck out of my womb.

It’s deeply unfair on Heidi to bring her into the debate in this way. The pro choice side will present their arguments (to stand up for women’s rights over their own bodies).

She won’t necessarily understand them and she’ll be hurt I’m sure. But in bringing her into the debate and using her in this way, the pro lifers have created this situation.

Deeply unfair to bring her into the argument?? Do you not think she has a right then? Do you not think she brought herself into it? What do you think she won,t understand?

@LaurieMarlow I dont think that anybody brought her into it. It was her idea

So Heidi read up on the details of abortion law herself, did she?

@LaurieMarlow eh why wouldn't she?

She has a job, and lives independently

Because she does have Down Syndrome.
She will have cognitive limitations.

She sweeps up in a hair salon for children and talks about how her ‘independent’ life involves two careers as well as considerable input from her mother.. Nothing in her interviews suggests that she has the intellectual capacity for a detailed engagement with abortion law — something she has in common with most people who don’t have DS and aren’t lawyers.

She sounds like an estimable human being, but her arguments don’t move beyond ‘I have a nice life, and this law makes me feel unwanted’.