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/

would definitely terminate, and I make no apologies for it. It is what amniocentesis testing is for, to prevent these births. That's the whole point of the tests. I also think it is wrong and selfish to knowingly bring a child with a disability into the world
I think terminating in these circumstances is wrong and selfish. And where do you draw the line? Is missing a finger a disability? Underdeveloped legs? Any genetic abnormality?

Forced birth can never be acceptable.

As I understand it different tests are done at the times when they can be done. If that works out later in some cases then that's that.

While I can't be sure of the motives here most arguments about specific situations are just a way of attacking the whole law.

@Abbccc Really? Why else do you think we have those tests for then? They exist to PREVENT these births. That is why they are there. So a woman can terminate, because we should be preventing these births. You cannot compare it to missing a finger. I think Down Syndrome is the number one reason imo to terminate (or spina bifida). And at the least effected, the person is unable to live a fully independent life without a carer, DS is a very serious intellectual disability, as well as contains a spectrum of physical ailments like heart defects. It is truly selfish of anyone to bring that into the world. It is the very reason pre-natal tests exist, in the first place!

I don’t know who this woman thinks she is to attempt to deny others their legal right. This is her opinion & she has her choices. Why is she trying to decide for everybody else

Just to be clear:
YABU - the law should change so late abortions for disability would be illegal
YANBU - the law as it stands - abortion up to birth for disability - should stay

?

“Yeah, i really hate that, the whole "autism is my superpower" crap.”

I agree not least from a pedantry point of view - they skills they suggest are not ‘superpowers’; at best they are towards the upper end of the normal range of abilities for the general population. As such they are also insulting to ‘others’ (non-autistic individuals) by the implicit suggestion that they could not possess that ability. Generally it seems to be met with bemusement by other children.

It feels like a platitude - you may have all these difficulties but at least you can do x.

Abbccc where would you draw the line? Would you insist on a live birth when you knew the baby would die instantly and painfully?

Because if you say no then you are just saying you'd draw the line somewhere else.

I support a woman's choice to abort for whatever reason she sees fit, but right up to birth doesn't sit right with me.

I have a disabled child and the thought of terminating his life in the third trimester makes me feel very sad.

I dread to think what the procedure would include.

Still, it's not my body so what I think doesn't matter.

I'm not comparing missing a finger to DS. The point I was trying to make was that the poster quoted was saying that it is wrong and selfish to bring a child with a disability into the world. I was asking how the poster defines disability.

She is welcome to go have as many babies with DS as she can if she feels balance needs to be restored. She is not welcome to force other people to have kids with disabilities. Women are not broodmares for activists and while this girl seems high functioning, many kids with DS are not. Who is she to make life decisions for those families when the reality of their kid might be so different to her?

@BlueBlueAndPink The 'right up to birth' line is a pro-lifer argument that isn't even true because nobody chooses to wait right up until birth (when it would then be called labor). And nobody chooses to terminate at a late stage just for the heck of it. It is always for medical reasons, and yes, if the disability is life-limiting, that is a valid medical reason.

LasttrainEast doctors do not always know if a baby is going to die instantly and painfully. And I hope (but I don't know) that doctors/midwives would not let it be painful.
Are fetuses given painkillers before abortions then?

I also think it is wrong and selfish to knowingly bring a child with a disability into the world so is any level of disability in a child acceptable to go ahead with the pregnancy? My child is on permanent o2 because of his disability, so I get that you think he'd be better having never been born but what about in a few years when he isn't on o2? His disability won't be evident, it won't affect his life anymore, but it would have warranted his abortion? A missing hand, a twisted limb, a club foot, a cleft palate? What about babies that have a brain injury at birth due to delivery? Are they young enough to withdraw all support because those few minutes shouldn't make a difference to the fact they shouldn't be alive?

@Abbccc I made sure I said knowingly brought a disabled child into the world. When you've had the tests and choose to disregard science and medicine and still continue with the pregnancy. I think DS is one of the main reasons some testing was introduced, so I think that is a good line, right there. An intellectual as well as physical disability would definitely qualify. So would spina bifida, which is life-limiting, life-threatening, and no real life for the sufferer. Any disability that uses disability and health care resources (unless the parent promises they will fully fund themselves and not access disability care) for a condition that was known about prior to birth, any disability that means that child will have less quality of life. I just think in 2020 these births shouldn't even be happening with all our technology and screening.

I think terminating in these circumstances is wrong and selfish. And where do you draw the line? Is missing a finger a disability? Underdeveloped legs? Any genetic abnormality?

Selfish to who? The child will obviously never know.

Having children is selfish in itself. Having a child you know has a permanent and life limiting disability is selfish. Subjecting your child to painful open heart surgeries is selfish. Bringing a severely disabled child into a home where your other children will often not take priority anymore is selfish. Putting the burden of care onto other family members once you’re gone is selfish.

If you want to talk about things being “selfish”, at least talk about all of them.

The 'right up to birth' line is a pro-lifer argument that isn't even true because nobody chooses to wait right up until birth

I'm pleased to hear that as I couldn't wrap my head around terminating during labour or in the run up to.

My child is severely autistic, if I could go back to being pregnant with him and had the foresight to know about his disability I wouldn't have aborted. However, if I were to fall pregnant again now or in the near future then I would abort whatever the situation.

I don't believe anybody should be forced to become a special needs parent if they don't feel able to adapt to that role. It is painful, hard and emotionally exhausting.

Foetuses don't have a fully developed brain stem or nervous system until around the 29th or 30th week, so they don't feel anything as they have no ability to sense pain, so no need for pain relief at that stage (up until say, 29th week) @Abbccc .

@SleepingStandingUp Again, I said KNOWINGLY. Meaning the mother having had the tests, told the test results, and therefore KNOW ahead of time already that the foetus has a profound disability (which DS falls into). Clearly not talking about things like Cerebral Palsy, trauma during birth, or conditions that aren't known about or can't be tested for.

@Timekeeper1 the tests are there also to enable treatment through pregnancy and after birth. A baby might be induced early because of certain conditions, for example. And for parents to psychologically prepare for a baby with a disability. Just because a person opts for testing doesn’t mean they would terminate.

No judgement on what anyone would do with the results of course, I just wanted to make that point

Sorry just saw your last post. The problem with so many of these things is that the spectrum is absolutely huge. In the case for DiGeorge which our child will have, many people go through life not knowing that they even have the condition. For some it means serious immune problems, schizophrenia or learning disabilities. They don’t even know what the percentage chance of all these conditions are.

I don’t think you can just say ‘it is selfish to bring any child with DS was or similar Into the world’, just as much as you can say ‘it is selfish to terminate’. The shades of grey are immense which is one of the many reasons it should be a completely personal decision. Unless you are trying to be provocative?

I think we should have equality. So let's change the law so termination up to birth is legal. What would change? Nothing. Because women carrying healthy babies would not have a termination just for the lolz. If you believe they would, then you're a misogynist of the highest calibre. The numbers would remain the same. No more feeling discriminated against, job done.

@PsQsAndFs slightly off topic but because you mentioned having autism, I have a couple of personal questions if you don't mind? Feel free to tell me to bugger off

My DS is 2.5 and is recently diagnosed with autism, given that he's so young we won't know the extent that he is impacted until he gets older but at the moment he is non verbal and low functioning for his age in comparison to his peers. The word "severe" has been mentioned more than once.

It's clear from your posts that you're high functioning (?) so I'm just wondering whether you had communication difficulties when you were young / were a late talker?

Also if you have children; do they have autism too? My DH is undergoing an assessment with a view that he has Aspergers. He has known he was 'different' his whole life but due to his parents never making the connection (not as well known back then) he has remained undiagnosed.

It wasn't something that was explored until investigations began with DS and we learned that it is often genetically inherited.

I'm always interested in hearing from other adults with autism as other than DH (yet to be confirmed)

The law should not change. I have a disabled child. I've had an abortion myself because having a second child would have been impossible and our birth control failed.
If I had known about the extent my first child's disability would affect our lives I would have terminated.

Women and girls (as many pregnancies that are aborted are on children not adults) should have autonomy over their bodies

It’s a very emotive subject but I will never ever support forcing a girl/women to give birth or a forced abortion