Girl challenging abortion law on grounds of disability

[User273648]

I've name changed for this. A girl is challenging the right to abortion on the grounds of disability as she has Downs. I'd be really interested in opinions.

Personally, I have a cousin who has Downs. She is low functioning (the girl challenging is clearly high functioning as she lives alone supported by carers). My aunt and uncle struggle with it. My aunt admitted once that she had cried for the first two years. They found out at birth. She obviously loves her daughter but given the choice of the same child not having Downs' Syndrome she would wish for that.

Obviously this a very sensitive topic - I'm not intending to upset anyone...just listen to other points of view.

YABU - the law should be changed so it's equal regardless of disability
YANBU - the law should stay similar to how it currently is.

www.dsrf-uk.org/downrightdiscriminationcase/

I don't think it should change either.

Some people with downs syndrome do have a high functioning life. However, they will ALWAYS be mocked in public by certain people of all ages. You're never going to manage to end that sadly, they will likely always be discriminated in some work places too. And that's high functioning people. What about low functioning people? Who looks after them when their parents die? Is a life in a care home for their entire lives almost something that I could knowingly do to someone? Given that some care homes have horrible staff that mistreat patients like this? I couldn't do that to someone knowingly to be honest, I couldn't handle the guilt.

I can see why some babies are aborted late term. It's not just downs syndrome, there are other problems that are sometimes only discovered very late on, or at least have been in the past like heart defects etc. Basically any time it's been found that the child is unlikely to survive birth and even if they do is unlikely to live long. Yeah you'll have a few times where that's not the case, but more don't survive. Again there, I think I'd rather the child didn't survive at all than be potentially in pain for months until they do die. It's not only horrible for the baby but also the parents who are hoping that their child does live and then they get taken from them. That's horrible for the parents. It's their choice though if they want to do it but they should have the choice to not go through with that.

I'm pro choice for quite a number of reasons, and think that the current law with the 24 week cut off is about right. I need to research this, but I am shocked that club foot/ talipes could be regarded as severe enough a disability to allow later termination. My DD was diagnosed with severe bilateral club feet at my 20 week scan. She was much wanted and no-one even mentioned termination once a nasty syndrome had been ruled out (talipes runs in the family). She had surgery at a year old (now would probably be treated by manipulation) and walked at 21 months. She is now a fit and healthy 22 year old about to graduate from a top university and start in the teaching profession. She does have some foot pain but is a positive and resilient individual. She goes running and was playing rugby till lockdown. Have I ever for a moment considered her, or has she considered herself, severely disabled? No, because she isn't.

But, if I had been given the choice to abort, I would have taken it as is my right, based on nothing more than the fact I don't want a disabled child
I find your post quite sickening. You have a disabled son and you’re saying you don’t want him and you would’ve aborted? Really?

It would help if people actually read what she’s asking for rather than jumping to the conclusion that she’s asking to ban all abortions 🙄 She just wants the abortion limits to be the same (24 weeks in the UK) regardless of whether or not there is a disability. At the moment there appears be to be a recognition that the foetus has a right to life from 24 weeks except if it has a disability. That seems to be a very clear case of discriminating against those with disabilities - they are not entitled to the same right to life that non-disabled foetuses are.

Right, and if that was made law women would be forced to carry to term a baby even when it has a condition that's not compatible with life. That's abhorrent, no two ways about it. This isn't just about Downe Syndrome. Sometimes abnormalities are picked up only later in the pregnancy, so having the 24 week limit apply regardless of disability just isn't workable. It's not discrimination against a disabled foetus, some people can't handle having a disabled child, that's just a fact. Should they be forced to do so? And what if you already have a disabled child and can't cope with caring for another?

Yes the woman is carrying the baby but she chose that as a possibility when she chose to have sex

You might what to sit down for this, I wouldn’t want you to fall over from the shock.

Newsflash: a woman can consent to sex without consenting to pregnancy, and every complication and health risk that that goes with it. Women are not incubators.

Horrifying, I know! I almost passed out from the shock when I heard this!

People can’t separate their children/relatives alive and children in the womb. So saying you would abort a baby is to them saying you want to kill their disabled child/think their life isn’t worth living. So they can’t rationalise it.
I have a disability that would now be picked up antenatally. I have no problem if my mum would have aborted me for that reason. It’s not saying my life does not count/I am worthless and I have a nice life, but it’s hard and I wouldn’t be here to know otherwise if I had been terminated. Completely different to say someone wanting to kill me know for being disabled.

Jsamineben
I find your post quite sickening

I find your judgement sickening.

@HeatherIV That’s not the issue she’s raising though. She’s not saying that all abortion should be banned. She’s saying that the abortion limit should be the same. That disabled babies post-24 weeks should have the same rights as non-disabled ones do. Down’s syndrome can be detected well before 24 weeks. Perhaps the issue is that better and earlier testing is needed rather than having to allow later term abortions.

Down syndrome can be detected before 24 weeks, but in a lot of cases its not. In some cases it's not known until birth. Most downs children I know the parents didn't know until birth.

This case doesn't just effect babies with downs, you would have to give equal rights to all babies with all disabilities. There are 1000s of issues that can be picked up at any stage in the pregnancy. So are we now going tell women that at 25 + weeks their child has been discovered to have some sort of disability, but they have to keep it now, whether they are equipt or willing to keep that child. What are we going to do with all these unwanted disabled children. There is alreasy little to no support for the parents and children. We would be back to the days of back street abortions. If a woman doesn't want to abort her baby based on downs after 24 weeks, then good for her. But why force others into that desicion. Let the individual make the choice that is right for them.

We should be extending rights, not taking them away. And you can't change a law based on a hope that better inutro diagnostic technology will be developed.

If there was a test that could diagnose autism before birth but not how severe or mild that autism would be

FYI, there's no such thing as "mild autism." And no, a lack of a learning disability does not eqate to "mild" autism. And for what it's worth as an autistic person i have no problem with abortions as late as is necessary. I'd hate to think someone would abort because of autism, and yet at the same time i understand why someone would if genetic testing before birth did exist.

That disabled babies post-24 weeks should have the same rights as non-disabled ones do. Down’s syndrome can be detected well before 24 weeks.

Yes, and IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT Downs syndrome. There are other conditions that are incompatible with life.

If you’re going to post such an inflammatory topic, perhaps you should get the fact of what she is challenging correct! She is not challenging the right to abortion, she is challenging the right to an abortion past 24 weeks. Which is a completely different argument.

Seriously, the blatant disablism that is rife on MN, often based on no personal experience, but stated as fact is an absolute disgrace

a man can have sex and not consent to a baby but he still had to deal with that circumstance

That’s biology.

Don’t worry though, men get the best of it when they can simply walk away with impunity.

@Baaaahhhhh so a woman can say that she doesn’t want her son because he’s disabled and say she would’ve aborted him...
But I’m the bad guy for saying that it’s disgusting to say that about a living person, her son? 😂😂 give over

19 weeks when I believe foetuses have survived.

The earliest surviving preemie was 21.5 weeks. It is rare for micro preemies to survive beyond 6 weeks and go on to have no long term disabilities or health issues. It is very dangerous to conflate premature birth and abortion as the two things have very different issues to be considered. Suggesting babies this small are likely to survive and thrive is really damaging to parents who have difficult decisions to make, or who face having an early birth.

There's no excuse for late term abortions for Downs syndrome. The tests are available early, so decisions need to be made early.

My 20 week scan was delayed by two weeks. That’s not uncommon especially as services are more squeezed. My friend got her results at 26 weeks which showed her son had a rare genetic condition. Her consultant had been on holiday so never called her. Tests are not available early, and tests are not available for everything at 20 weeks.

If you support a woman’s right to bodily autonomy then that’s absolute. The alternative is forced birth which is abhorrent.

This is irrelevant to the case, however. If that's what you want you should be campaigning for a change in the law to allow abortion up to birth.

Currently, we do not allow late term abortions for non-disabled babies. All that this is asking for is equality in law for disabled babies who can currently be aborted up to birth.

I find your post quite sickening. You have a disabled son and you’re saying you don’t want him and you would’ve aborted? Really?

I found the post very honest about the day-to-day realities of being the carer of a severely disabled child. It’s possible to love them with every inch of your being yet still mourn for the life you would have had without them.

The narrative is always, “They are a delight and a joy and the whole family has learned so much”. The realty is often fathers leaving, exhausted carers, sleeping and behavioural problems, continence and feeding difficulties and difficulties accessing respite, therapy and education. It’s OK for women to recognise their own needs that are separate from the Constant Carer.

I would’ve aborted for Down Syndrome as well, based on the fairly ubiquitous and steep cognitive decline observed from 40 years.

a man can have sex and not consent to a baby but he still had to deal with that circumstance

Really? My own child’s father walked away 15 years ago, never to be seen or heard from again. Has never paid a cent. He hasn’t had to deal with a single thing.

If women do that they are pretty much likened to Hitler.

see women are wreck less. If you have sex you know there is a chance you could get pregnant

Wreckless? Women are allowed to enjoy sex and not want to be pregnant. Do you hate women?

She is not challenging the right to abortion, she is challenging the right to an abortion past 24 weeks. Which is a completely different argument. Seriously, the blatant disablism that is rife on MN, often based on no personal experience, but stated as fact is an absolute disgrace angry.

Ummm, i don't know if you've read the thread but some of the people commenting here are disabled. And they (like me) disagree with this legal challenge. Are you going to accuse disabled people of being disabilist?

It's not disabilist to recognise the reality of caring for a disabled child in the UK. It's not disabilist to think women should have the right to an abortion past 24 weeks in the case of disability or genetic abnormalities. Do you think it's disabilist to have an abortion past 24 weeks when the child has a condition that's incompatible with life? Because this women wants that right restricted, based on her condition alone. And that's absurd and selfish.

At the moment there appears be to be a recognition that the foetus has a right to life from 24 weeks except if it has a disability.

That is untrue. A late stage termination can be carried out if the pregnancy causes a risk to the mother’s health.

I think this campaign is misguided and that Heidi is being exploited here.

No-one is suggesting that Heidi shouldn't be here.

However I do agree that there can be bias towards terminating downs pregnancies. My first pregnancy came back as high risk due to my age and nuchal measurement. It was pre harmony days and I was ushered towards having an amnio. With no other dependents, I was confident that unless there were serious co-morbidities, I wouldn't terminate. I had to push strongly to be able to have just a detailed specialist ultrasound to review the heart etc rather than an amnio.
My choice, other women should be able to make their own choices. I would have made a different one with my second pregnancy.

But removing choice does force women into giving birth - or seeking unsafe abortions.

@Wheninrometoday I agree, women can’t have it both ways. If a woman wants the baby, she’s allowed to choose between an abortion or keeping it. The father shouldn’t have a say in the woman’s choice of abortion but should be allowed to choose to walk away.

And how long does the "help" last?

I work in the SEN field. In my pretty wide and long-term experience, I have never come across a case where a pro-life charity offered parents help with the endless fights to get the right social care and education support for disabled children.

I find your post quite sickening. You have a disabled son and you’re saying you don’t want him and you would’ve aborted? Really?

You have no idea how limiting life can be for a profoundly disabled child. He will need care for his whole life. He will never talk, he may neve walk or toilet himself. Do I wish that on him. No. Do I wish that burden on my family. No. If I could go back and change things - yes I would. But I do the best I can for him because I am his mother and this is the life I have been given. But as things are he will end up in full time care eventually, most likely before he reaches his teens because his needs are too great. Not a great outcome for either of us, a termination rather than decades of pain and hardships would have been preferable.

So don't judge me or my life when you know nothing about me or the reality of having a disabled child. They are not all happy smiling little fighters. Many have very low quality lives full of pain and frustration.

Are you going to accuse disabled people of being disabilist?

It's entirely possible, just as plenty of women are sexist. We've all internalised our society's prejudices, those of us who are victims of them as much as anyone else.

The father shouldn’t have a say in the woman’s choice of abortion but should be allowed to choose to walk away

Why? Don’t men understand that pregnancy can result from sex? Their moment to decide whether they want to take that risk is prior to fucking.