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/

@JasHarts
The real issue is that if the parents don't pay to support a child, someone is still going to pick up the bill. Chances are, it's not going to be the mother all on her own.
I don't want my tax money to fund someone else's reckless fun. The current situation is that I do anyway so if rather limit it by keeping both parents on the hook as much as possible.

*On MN there’s been countless posts by men who say ‘my partner told me she was on the pill now she’s pregnant’ who then get bombarded with ‘well you chose to have sex!!!!’

My response is always the same. You should always look after your own reproductive health. If a pregnancy is not something you want, use a condom, have a vasectomy.

My response to women is always the same. Now you have a choice to make, next time get some contraception sorted.

@MarieQueenofScots I know they do but what I’m saying is it should be as accepted as a woman’s right to end a pregnancy. Either way, it’s a parent choosing a life without a child.

I can understand people who have a disability which someone may chose to abort a child for, could be offended or upset by that decision, but ultimately they are not the ones who would be caring for that child. Some people just know they wouldn't be able to cope.

I don’t think that the men should have to just suck it up and look after a baby they didn’t want

So the man’s right to carefree, consequence-less sex is more important than a woman’s right over her body and/or a child’s right to support from their parents.

That’s what you’re saying, right?

I agree but they also shouldn’t be forced to stick around for a child they don’t want. Women should choose whether or not to have abortions, men should be able to choose whether to walk away.

Hilarious that you think this doesn't happen.

No 'poor menz' about it.

Just look at the uproar at the furlough scheme with all these poor dads not declaring how much they earn, so they get away with paying £7 a week, and now they are pleading poverty because they are only getting a percentage of what they actually declared.

Men walk away all the time, with little to no consequence.

Either way, it’s a parent choosing a life without a child

But when the child is already here, who suffers from men walking away?

The phrase ‘incompatible with life’ is something that many parents of children born with rare trisomies etc are campaigning against. Many of these children were born alive and lived albeit for a short time. Their conditions were life-limiting - not incompatible with life.

You're insane, you think a foetus with a brain two thirds smaller than it should be isn't incompatible with life? Have you seen the reality of those children being born? I saw a child in the US born with such a condition, their skull was undeveloped too and you could see part of their brain. That child lived for a few months. If you think that's ok then you're not just insane, you're incredibly cruel.
Does it matter to you that those babies born could be in incredible amounts of pain?

@LaurieMarlow I’m saying that as men have no say in whether or not the foetus is aborted (and rightly so), they should at least have the choice to walk away.

@JasHarts men don’t have to suck it up and look after a baby they didn’t want. At the absolute most they’re asked to pay a minimal amount of maintenance. That’s not the same as taking care of a child. There aren’t really any consequences for men who decide that they want to walk away.

There are no methods if contraception that are 100 percent effective though.

And men have been known to remove the condom without the knowledge of the partner. I refuse to take the pill as been there done that and it messed up my body. Drs advised against the coil for me. I'm not having the implant as I do not want to mess with my hormones again and once anything is in it's impossible to get anyone to take it back out again plenty of stories on here if women who have had to remove their own coils because they have struggled to get anyone to agree to take it out.

A vasectomy requires back up contraception so why bother. Oh and condoms cause me alot if pain dp6has to order special ones online.

And even if you did all those things it can still happen.

And in the cases of rape and coercion then contraception isnt going to be on the mans list is it

I support changing the law to refuse abortion after 24 weeks (everyone has a right to 24 weeks) or two weeks after diagnosis if the disability is severe enough to be life limiting/require life long care. No reason to wait beyond 24 weeks because diagnosis is generally much earlier. I have a friend with downs who lives independently and apart from money doesn't have assistance, whereas another friends niece is severely disabled to the extent of needing 24/7 care requires a wheelchair with harness in public because she has runs, no speech etc - there's a lot of variation but you can't know until after birth.

@CovidicusRex there shouldn’t be consequences for them. If they don’t want a child then they shouldn’t have to stick around. If a woman doesn’t want a child, she should be allowed to have an abortion. Either way, nobody should be forced to parent a child they don’t want

I’m saying that as men have no say in whether or not the foetus is aborted (and rightly so), they should at least have the choice to walk away.

I know what you’re saying.

However, these three ‘rights’ cannot all be catered to together.

Woman’s right to bodily autonomy

Child’s right to support from parents

Man’s right to consequence-free sex.

When one has to give, which should it be in your opinion?

Whatever your thoughts - we do NOT have autonomy over our bodies. Man nor woman. We can not sell our body parts regardless of our views on them. Doctors can and do refuse to treat or operate if they don't "feel" it's in the patients best interests. If someone is deemed "not of sound mind" and sectioned they lose their civil liberties - cannot even leaves the country! And may have procedures performed on them regardless of their view. Getting a tattoo is illegal below the age of 18. Certain drugs are illegal even though equally dangerous ones are legal and can be taken freely. We categorically DO NOT have autonomy over our bodies.

@JanMeyer Why don’t you take a deep breath and read what I wrote again before going off on a rant about cruelty and pain.

It’s the phrase that they don’t like because it’s not recognising that their child was born and lived. They prefer ‘life limiting condition’ instead. What is your problem with that?

Either way, nobody should be forced to parent a child they don’t want

Do you honestly think men are forced to do so? As things are right now?

This is the exact reason that abortions should be accessible to term for all women rather than reduce the term for those making hugely difficult decisions based on medical information that they may not fully have at 24 weeks

This isn’t going to happen. What would be better is ensuring that prenatal tests are done as early as possible so women have time to make the decision that is right for them.

I just want to add that late terminations can be traumatic for the doctors and theatre technicians too. I have never seen anyone on these threads acknowledge that

This is another reason that the laws won’t be changed. After Tiller documentary highlights how unfair it is for doctors to be gatekeepers. They had to hear each case and decide if the reason was ‘good enough’ for them (paraphrasing here) because abortion laws in the US can be vague after 24 weeks in the handful of states that allow it.

Those who want this haven’t really thought it through. You either have doctors act as gatekeepers or you end up forcing doctors to
perform abortions that are ethically difficult
for them.

The laws are fine as is.

I agree but they also shouldn’t be forced to stick around for a child they don’t want.

They're not. Men walk away from children all the time. A lot of men pay absolutely nothing for the child they created, and take nothing to do with them.

Women have the option of abortion, men don't. Men should never rely on just a woman telling them they are taking the pill. For a start, contraception can fail. So why would they risk it?

Many people born with Downs are incredible and very capable people but many aren’t, many need life long full time care from their parents which is a lot to ask of anyone.

I don’t think the law should change, no. I think it’s a woman’s right to choose whether she wants to willingly raise a disabled child or not.

@LaurieMarlow men and women should be able to choose whether they act as parents. They should consider the impact on the child but at the end of the day, it’s better they have no father than a father who doesn’t want to see them

I agree with the case. If it's up to bIrth it's really the same as at or within a week of birth. Appalling imo.

men and women should be able to choose whether they act as parents

And down to biology they have to make those choices at different times.

There was an earlier challenge to late term abortion in 2002.-2003? on very similar grounds by a curate/reverend who had been born with cleft lip and palate, over the potential for late term abortions to be allowed for the condition which she regarded as 'without serious handicap'

Like this case, very emotive and with someone who clearly feels deeply about the situation, and how this interacts with disability rights

However - like this case of an individual with Downs syndrome bringing the challenge there was not an acknowledgement that the range and nuance of the conditions dont really lend themselves to clear cut blanket decisions. While the Rev in the cleft lip and palate case had a mild manifestation of the problem which was not incompatible with good quality of life - perhaps more cosmetic form this cant be said for everyone with cleft lip and palate problems: like Downs syndrome it can be associated with a variety of other physical developmental issues eg cardiac problems and the high quality of life and independence experienced by the challengers in this and the cleft lip and palate case cannot be guaranteed for all.

Personally, (I only have a very peripheral involvement in providing care in these cases, and no influence on the decision making) these are in no way easy and lightly made decisions. I think these situations are each in themselves so individual, deeply difficult and very often painful and tragic for the women and their families faced with making choices. I can understand why someone with the condition concerned might feel very strongly about the situation but cannot see how this can be imposed over the decision making of the mother who has to take the either risks of childbearing or its termination, and consider the welfare of both the pregnancy she carries and her whole family.

Im pretty sure there are many women here on mumsnet who have had to make these sorts of decisions. I've known women who have made all sorts of choices in these situations - from some who have chosen late terminations and others who have chosen to continue with a pregnancy with an idea of the potential severity of disabilities of their child. I've known some women choose to continue a pregnancy knowing they are carrying a child who would not survive outside the womb. I can never judge any of these women or second guess what I would have done in their situations and think the law needs to keep provision that each of these difficult cases can be negotiated by a woman and her doctors without influence from lobbying groups, no matter how sincere and motivated they are.