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/

Look, if you don't want an abortion, don't have one.

UK legislators will never ban abortion for those women who need one, as early as possible, as late as necessary. The will isn't there. Not from a Johnson government, certainly.

@bumbleymummy As I have shown, those 'studies' were debunked and proven there is a difference between automatic response to stimulus, and pain. Even foetuses with no brain respond to receptors. Yet without a brain there is no pain receptor.

It is simply AUTOMATIC REFLEX ACTION.

If you had read my posts, you would have seen how pain vs stimulus reflex is fully explained, and 'pain' at 20 weeks has now been debunked. :)

Timekeeper1

@AbbcccOf course I do, where do I say that women don't have a choice? I said that regardless of week, if a woman needs to have a termination, she should be able to have it.

Ok, .when you said an abortion is needed if the foetus is disabled I thought you meant that you feel that anortions are always needed/should be performed if the foetus has a disability. But I think you meant "if the woman feels that an abortion is needed"?

Does bumbleymummy actually think that women who make the incredibly difficult and heart wrenching decision to TFMR at a late stage, that she has done so completely detached emotionally from the foetus and cares not a jot about the situation?

I agree with PP that the bulk of evidence points towards pain only being present from 27 weeks.

But @bumbleymummy, for the sake of argument, do you think the possibility of pain makes TFMR or late abortions wrong? If it is possible to manage theoretical pain with anaesthesia I can't see why the foetus's capacity to feel pain makes a forced birth acceptable.

Chickens, cows, pigs etc all definitely feel pain but presumably you are ok with the meat industry?

Does bumbleymummy actually think that women who make the incredibly difficult and heart wrenching decision to TFMR at a late stage, that she has done so completely detached emotionally from the foetus and cares not a jot about the situation?

It appears so.

I don't have an issue with pain or not although most of us would prefer no pain for the fortus. The choice should remain with the mother.

However I am sure most of us are happy women have the choice to keep the baby if they wish too.

@Celerysam No no no none of this is about women's bodies or any of that feminism crap.

Uh what? So are you saying the HEALTH and safety of a woman is just 'feminism crap'? That explains your morally repugnant attitude to women's rights.

Pregnancy is a risk to the mother's health and body. Women (though incredibly rare now) still die in childbirth. As the HOST of the blastocyst, the WOMAN'S BODY is paramount. You either understand and accept a woman has a right to not go through pregnancy to her body, or not don't.

@Timekeeper1 I’m sorry but these studies weren’t ‘debunked’. I’m really not sure why you think that. The recommendations for foetal anaesthesia are there for a reason and there are plenty of studies supporting the need for it during foetal surgery - including during the second trimester. You can even look up hospital guidelines on it if you don’t want to believe me.

@Timekeeper1 perhaps @Celerysam Is just rightly pointing out that the purpose of this case is not to remove the right to have a termination until 24 weeks but to make the limit the same for all foetuses, regardless of disability - so nothing to do with women’s bodies really.

@bumbleymummy Again, you clearly didn't read my links. They PROVE there is no actual pain stimulus, AND that foetal anaesthesia is no longer routinely recommended. In fact, "not indicated" is the medical term. Please actually read what I posted, and the links.

@bumbleymummy Celerysam's points and motive is obvious when they call women's rights to an abortion 'feminism crap' and that the woman's body is irrelevant.

I did actually and yes, it is still used for fetal surgery even in the second trimester. Do a brief search yourself if you can’t wait until later.

I think it is every woman’s right to determine their own body and own fate, and right-wing neoliberal then interfere at their peril.

There is nothing sacred about a bunch of cells and nothing sacred about life.

Indeed the Groningen Protocol for neonatal euthanasia in the Netherlands was set up to regulate actively ending the life of newborns, based on: certain diagnosis and prognosis; suffering present; suffering confirmed by at least one independent doctor; the mother giving informed consent; the procedure performed according to accepted medical standards.

In Holland it was mainly used in spina bifida, but in 1982 in the United States Baby Doe, a neonate with Down syndrome and oesophageal atresia, was declined surgery by its mother, as well as withdrawal of nutrition and fluids. This led to the Child Abuse Law in the USA, but decisions about euthanasia of newborn infants with congenital defects as well as late termination should rest with the mother, and men should butt out.

In Denmark all children with Down syndrome have been eliminated. In Iceland 98% of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome are eliminated, in France 77% and the USA the lowest at 67%.

Is it any coincidence that USA is full of right-wing neoliberal men who never have to live with the consequences of their decisions, and simply want to control women?

Bumbleymummy if you want equality, we should level up because as I have pointed out above, the complexity of the most serious cases of foetal abnormality and the accompanying slowness of the diagnostic processes mean that those women who will most need an abortion after 24 weeks will end up not getting one. Women like my friend, who under these proposals would have been forced to carry to term knowing that her baby was going to die within the first hours of life.

I notice you have not addressed that matter, so I presume that you think imposing this kind of distress on women is fine by you.

A physiological pain response doesn't mean someone is feeling pain. Bodies are weird like that. Even if it did, surely that means we should consider months of potential agony with certain conditions all the more seriously. I know when my grandmother's medical care was rescinded, there was definitely a chance of recovery, but she'd spent so long in hospital, in so much pain, with so little quality of life, choices were made by the people who loved her the most. Even if it upset me at the time, because I was only 15 and was hanging on to that fleeting chance, my feelings on that don't win out. That happens all the time, it's something many wrestle with, and I do think the comparison has merit when we're discussing this type of abortion of often wanted children.

For those who think 'forced birth' is emotive, the UN, WHO, and pretty much all similar organizations use 'forced pregnancy' when discussing lack of abortion access. Forced pregnancies lead to forced births. Plenty of women who go through it use that language. I had a friend die due to complications from a forced pregnancy and her sisters used that language. I don't think those who haven't been affected should dismiss the language choice just because they don't like the emotions it brings up.

What do people think happens to the kids that result, because guess what - if it sucks to know people would abort you and that it's legal to do so, imagine the pain of the statistics that disabled kids are more likely to be abused and killed by our parents and carers, and those murderers are less likely to face any consequences. If anything, they get sympathy. Honestly, knowing my mother wanted to abort me, but couldn't due to lack of access and acceptability has never been a big issue - I can never make right what was done to her, and she can't make right what was done to me - but seeing so many other adults not only allowed but made excuses for the abuse I suffered as the unwanted fucked up kid, seeing people treat my friend's death as a noble sacrifice, that is what made me feel that we were seen as less valuable as people, our lives were just ideological tools that meant nothing in their reality beyond that.

There are a lot of ways to help disabled kids and their families. Removing abortion access isn't really going do much and personally, I think abortion should be full decriminalized and leave it up to the pregnant woman and the medical professionals.

"I don't think I would continue with a pregnancy knowing the child was disabled because I wouldn't have the resources to care for them properly. It would obviously be a really difficult decision though"

^This. Everyone always acknowledges that looking after a disabled child is harder than a child without disability. Some people are ready for the hardship of children and how that will change their life but not ready for the extra hardship of a child with disability and how that will change their life in even more ways. Because let's face it, having a disabled child does change your life in far more ways than have an able child does. I am not saying that all disabled foetuses should be aborted but if a woman want to on the grounds of disability she should have the right to because she may not be ready for that much of a change and may not have the mental or physical tools to deal with a disabled child but does have them to deal with an able child.

"The way to equalise could be raise the limit for all rather than lower it for disabilities."

This, don't level the field by taking more rights away from women. If you believe the cut off being different or disablist then you should raise the cut off so all are equal.

"Personally I don't approve of abortions over 18 weeks."

There's many things I personally don't approve of but you don't see me trying to make them law.

As early as possible, as late as necessary, for any reason.

If abortion were no longer possible on grounds of disability we would see a return to the lifelong institutionalisation of thousands of disabled people. That's what we had before. I think this girl imagines the parents forced to have a child they don't want will magically become warm, loving and willing parents post-birth. Seems like she's being exploited by MRAs tbh.

@solomummy

"There were 289 abortions after 24 weeks gestation in 2018. As far as I'm concerned that's still way too high. They, if born, statistically, would have survived.
10% of all abortions happen after 13 works.
There were 618 abortions due to Downs syndrome."

So what is an acceptable number to you then? And will you look at those 289 cases and decide which should and shouldn't have been allowed to abort past 24 week based on your arbitrary number? And what medical knowledge, expertise and experience do you have to make this decision.

They may have survived but then what would happen to them? I for one know that I couldn't cope with a severely disabled child so would have given it up. Do you think a child with a sever disability will have any form of a good life in the care system? What are the statistic on adoptions of children with sever disabilities or disabilities at all? Odds are that child would then go into the foster system and be bounced around homes because very few people actually have the tools to care for them.

What's wrong with 10% abortions happening after 13 weeks. That's 90% before and for those that were after I doubt they decided to wait for the fun of it. I once had a pregnancy where I didn't find out until 10 weeks, others 12 or even higher. Unless you expect women to take a pregnancy test every month people do regularly not realise they are pregnant for quite a while.

Who are you to judge those 618 women? Maybe they had other children they had to put first - do you have any idea the impact on a family dynamic a child with Down's syndrome causes? Now if the family is prepared for that then good for them but if they aren't then you can't force them to go through with the pregnancy when it has nothing to do with you. Or will you personally provide respite to all the women with disabled children who you would allow them to abort? Will you personally foster/adopt babies and children which were given up because of a disability because the woman wasn't allowed an abortion instead? Because unless you will you're not providing any support for people and families with these disabilities, you are merely trying to control other people's bodies and choices.

Yes, but a person doesn't get diagnosed just because they "have a bit of trouble socialising."

I never said they did.

@RuffleCrow she’s not trying to remove abortion on the grounds of disability - she’s trying to make the limit the same - 24 weeks for all situations.

@bumbleymummy If you did, you would have learned the 'pain receptors' thing was proven false, hence you wouldn't have repeated that nonsense. And that some hospitals still wrongly use anaesthesia on foetus which risks the lives of both the foetus and the mother, does not make it right, nor does it change the current directive from advisory bodies to not use anaesthesia before the third trimester.

@bumbleymummy If abortion is disallowed after 24 weeks due to a disability picked up after 24 weeks, then that is the very essence of removing abortion on the grounds of disability.

With respect, it is not people with down syndrome that care for other people with down syndrome.

Heidi is not in a place where she will ever have a lifelong caring duty towards another person, she is the 'cared for' person if that makes sense.

Therefore I do not believe she has a full picture of what she is suggesting be enforced upon people (of course, that would also apply to those of us that don't have caring duties either).

It must be a matter for the prospective parents.

Is it any coincidence that USA is full of right-wing neoliberal men who never have to live with the consequences of their decisions, and simply want to control women?

I find this statement very false, in that pro-life organisations, from my experience, are run by a lot of strong-willed women who simply have a different opinion than I do.

I can’t let them win, but I also can’t let people like you completely erase their roles in the pro-life movement. It’s not a movement led by men; in fact polling suggests men and women (in the US) have roughly similar views on this.