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/

@ gimmecaffeine
Really couldn’t be bothered to take you up on every point

Woolybear that's lovely for you and for them. You and they still do not get to dictate that everyone should make the same choice and live that same life.

Parents simply want a healthy baby free of disability. yes because no parent wants to see their children suffer

If we go through the rigours of pregnancy and childbirth, should we not have the best child possible? this however is meaningless tosh.
What is the best child possible? You're suggesting beyond "healthy" or NT, what does make your baby the best?
Smart, well behaved, cute? If you had a 4d scan and the looked ugly would it be OK to abort at 30 weeks because it isn't the best baby possible?

If they find a genetic origin of obesity, asd, diabetes, lower than average intellect without it being a learning disability, dyslexia etc and could test for it in later pregnancy, how many of those reasons would be justified for having an abortion?

My friends baby has a brain injury at birth, should they have been given the option to euthanuase her because she she wasn't going to be "the best child possible" by your standards?

When we were in hospital, a couple were in, 6 month old stopped breathing, mom found him and started resus, paramedics took over and brought him back but it had taken a while, he has significant brain damage. Upon realising this, should they have then been allowed to euthanase him because he wasn't the best child possible?

DS is on perm o2, partly tube fed and had a horrific first 18 months. He'll carry surgery scars for life, along with his random no of chromosomes bit he IS the best possible child ever, as are his brother with no medical needs, no learning issues and a standard no of chromosomes

I’m not dictating to anyone how they should live their lives and every life is different and It’s not the life I originally planned. Of course you have a right to choose what you do with your body/pregnancy and the way you live your life.

Woolybear the problem is that changing the law to ban all abortions after 24 weeks would do exactly that - it would dictate that where a pregnancy is confirmed as involving complex health issues which cannot be diagnosed until past 24 weeks, this pregnancy should always be carried to term. And these are likely to be the most serious medical cases, involving babies who are more likely to die at birth or shortly after. Changing the law would force women to carry to term knowing what awaited them - even if they would want a termination.

Heidi probably doesn't get this. The people behind her most certainly do - they want to chip away at overall abortion rights.

There are two clear options: 1) leave the law as it is (my personal preference) and 2) implement equality by levelling up to term, not down to 24 weeks.

If they find a genetic origin of obesity, asd, diabetes, lower than average intellect without it being a learning disability, dyslexia etc and could test for it in later pregnancy, how many of those reasons would be justified for having an abortion?

There’s currently a rush to find a prenatal diagnosis for autism, you can bet if they find it, most women will choose to terminate.

Anything goes before 24 weeks, you don’t need to have a good reason or any particular reason at all. I can imagine a lot would quietly choose to terminate if they knew their child would have a low IQ, a learning disability, autism, early-onset Alzheimer’s, etc. Even obesity since a lot of people harbour prejudice against fat people. Or even homosexuality.

I’m not saying any of this is right or wrong. But I’m saying that Downs is not terribly different from autism, in terms of life impact to parents. The more we find out what our child will be like genetically, the more we will have to talk about these tricky ethical problems.

Mango I beg to differ with you. I have a DD with autism. It is nothing like DS. She is not at immensely elevated risk of young onset dementia. She has fibro but is otherwise physically well. She is very high functioning, excellent academically, does well socially (though it is hard for her). She will, all things being equal, live the same sort of life as a NT young person will. No comparison.

Gimme I should have been specific. I agreed with your facts about full time careers, some special schools not offering after school clubs etc.

I have a DD with autism. It is nothing like DS

Yes, but there are autistic children who will never progress beyond the level of toddlers, who are incontinent, who cannot speak, who can injure themselves and others, who cannot be left alone for any length of time. They also can have a lot of co-morbidities. In many cases, parents will have to worry about their lifelong care.

It’s a wide spectrum ... just like Downs.

Once we can test prenatally for it, I doubt many women will want to continue a pregnancy with a confirmed diagnosis.

pointythings your post buildingbridge fortunately under UK law you can choose not to have the lemons. You may wish to make lemonade, but you do not dictate that the rest of us should.

Your post did not literally make any sense. Please read my posts further down so that you can get the gist. I do not agree with banning abortions. No. What I was saying, is that anything could happen in life but you have to keep on going. To be honest, having a child is a risk... even you can develop a condition, a stroke, brain injury, cancer... etc. Are you telling me that your going to sit at home, all those years and cry cry cry, become bitter, have no hope, or are you going to accept the life you have and get on and try to make it "better" the best way you can.

Mango it's not very common..Autism does not mean they are stuck in development. If they could find a prenatal test for Autism, that would take a veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery long time. Not only do they not the cause of it ( but there are possible theories", but they have to know the brain, w are very far behind.

What I was saying, is that anything could happen in life but you have to keep on going. To be honest, having a child is a risk... even you can develop a condition, a stroke, brain injury, cancer... etc.

A valid point, I don't think anyone disagrees...but it's not exactly relevant to the situation is it?

Of course parents do the best they can for their children and of course no one can know what might happen to a child. But this is about defects that can be identified in the womb and people being able to choose whether to continue to with the pregnancy or not. It's not the same scenario.

She will, all things being equal, live the same sort of life as a NT young person will. No comparison.

So you have a child who can live an independent life. That's wonderful for you but not the case for all. Many, many kids with autism are not like that. Downs syndrome is the same - huge spectrum involved.

Yet, a fetus diagnosed with Downs Syndrome will never have these protections, so there is a case for discrimination here.

No, because the law on discrimination in itself has no applicability to a foetus. The woman in this case is arguing that it discriminates against her because it implies that she is somehow worth less, but that must logically equally apply to the availability of termination for DS before 24 weeks.

SionnachRua I think it was important to point out as I think many people, blindly forget or take it for granted (it's not their fault) it was mainly to challenge the posters who said quite offensive things or appeared naive.

Again, I do not agree with a ban on abortions. I think some posters, who say quite frankly "I will abort a child with DS", have to keep in mind the parents who had to make that choice, and I suspect, in some cases it was hard. So please be sensitive ,Imagine having to carry a child to near full time and have to consider a choice like that. I just hope I would not be in that predicament, but if I was, I do not know what I'll do.

Parents who choose to abort or keep a DS baby or any condition detected in the womb, are brave.

If they could find a prenatal test for Autism, that would take a veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery long time

Maybe, but research is ongoing and they have made progress here:

www.clarifiasd.com/can-you-test-for-autism-during-pregnancy/

She is a tool in the hands of a movement. It's none of her business what other people do. Who is going to take care of this young lady when her parents die? I know that for many parents of disabled adults, the love they feel for their children is also accompanied by frantic worries and few options for their children's well-being. And that in the U.S., for instance, some states mandate that parents have lifetime financial responsibility for their children. Until the government is willing to devote massive resources to the lifetime care of the disabled that it enforces into being, it has no business getting into the parenting business.

Mango

Hmm... interesting but nothing conclusive really? It's a bit of a slippery scope. I think, unless they know what causes Autism, then they won't really get far. Interesting read though.

Unless ive misunderstood it though, no one in this thread is saying all people should terminate with disabilities such as ds

They are simply advocating for the choice.

The campaigner in the case is about forcing people regardless to continue with pregnancy

In the same way some people have a child in an awful circumstance such as domestic violence etc and raise the child well and would say the child thing is the best thing in their life. We can aknowledge that and apreciate that without then saying that no body in those circumstances should abort and allowing people in similar circumstances to abort.

Yes, I have no problems with parents keeping a disabled baby but just want the current choice the rest of us have to remain. I don't even mind if we equalise to 40 weeks abortion of any kind of baby as that would improve women's rights but changing our abortion law is very very hard so best to leave it as it stands.

SionnachRua agreed - but with the one key difference that the vulnerability to dementia applies to all people on that DS spectrum. The same is not so for autism.

Agree with both Xenia and Hugt that not eroding choice is the key thing. At the heart of this lawsuit is the drive to chip away at abortion rights. We have but to look at the US to see where that leads us.

If you support a woman’s right to bodily autonomy then that’s absolute. The alternative is forced birth which is abhorrent
Exactly this
I support a woman's right to bodily autonomy, full stop.

It's completely evil to remove a woman's right to choose

Just for arguments sake though, if a woman did choose a termination in the very late stages of pregnancy (ie later than 30 weeks or so), she would have to go through the labour process as I understand it. So the only difference if whe was induced is whether the baby is born alive or not. Would there be a case for inducing women that want a very late termination but having the baby removed by social services etc.? If that makes sense.

If pro lifers want that outcome all they have to do is step up and fund it. Whats stopping you? Open a home for people with severe birth defects, make sure its well run. Invite people to use the service you provide.