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/

Anyone pro-life is not going to think an abortion is ‘appropriate’ for that reason, no

Well honestly they’re pretty stupid quite frankly.

It’s possible to use more than one method of contraception or @pointythings to consider sterilisation if you don’t want any more children

I did. I was on the pill because I was refused sterilisation. If we’re saying medical mistakes resulting in pregnancy doesn’t warrant an abortion, it’s safe to say some people just aren’t very bright.

I’d rather be pro-choice and have the ability to apply some critical thinking, than rigidly pro-forced birth.

Ultimately there's a choice to be made. I choose the wellbeing of the human who is already here and the people around her.

Other people feel that a right to life trumps the right to choose to end another life/potential life.

But why does the babies life trump the mothers life. In the case of disability, having that child could litrially ruin the mother's life, leading to depression, alcoholisum, self harm. Existing children may be severely effected. Why does the babies life trump everyone else's. A baby that has no awareness of who it is or what life is. It would be terminated without ever knowing there is even a world outside its mother.

What about in cases where the mother will commit suicide if forced to have the child. Why does the babies life trump the mothers.

And what if we stop abortion, what happens to all those unwanted babies. With surrogacy (urgh) and ivf, not many people actually need to adopt any more, and most people want a brand new baby that they know where its been, not one who many not have good genes or mother may have been drinking.

It's all well and good saying all fertilized eggs have a right to life. But the world is not set up to care for all these unwanted babies, unwanted children are often very damaged by their start in life - and woman can't be expected to carry and birth babies they don't want.

Sorry, but I have to take issue with those of you using the phrase "potential for life". When 2 people have sex there is the potential to create a life. Once the sperm has wriggled into the ovum, the potential for life has increased greatly, jump 4 weeks and a viable embryo's heart will start beating. Some people will consider life starts at conception (and yes living organisms are circulating within the womb by then, but I personally would not consider that to represent the life of a baby yet), others will think that once the heart starts beating, that is the beginning of human life as we know it; to me when the foetus starts sucking it's thumb, and/or recoiling from needles inserted into it for any medical procedure, then that life is no longer a potential life; both of those things can happen before the 12 week gestation period, therefore we now have human life, it is definitely no longer a potential for human life. Just because it cannot yet survive on it's own if it were to be born at that time, does not mean that it is not a tiny live human being.

Some people will consider life starts at conception (and yes living organisms are circulating within the womb by then, but I personally would not consider that to represent the life of a baby yet), others will think that once the heart starts beating, that is the beginning of human life as we know it; to me when the foetus starts sucking it's thumb, and/or recoiling from needles inserted into it for any medical procedure, then that life is no longer a potential life; both of those things can happen before the 12 week gestation period, therefore we now have human life

It's hard to say when life starts, but for all pregnancies there is a 25% risk of miscarriage (and there is evidence this is actually much higher). There is a reason people don't tend to share news of their pregnancy until after the 12 week scan.

I think you are attaching sentimental feelings of infants thumb sucking to a fetus developing reflexes. Sucking is a powerful reflex that will go on to keep (what becomes) a baby alive, a 11 week pregnancy developing a sucking reflex is not the same as an infant choosing to soothe herself by sucking her thumb.

Beyond 12 weeks I feel it becomes murkier but that there are still cogent reasons to end pregnancies.

It's hugely subjective and I feel more akin to climbing a hill towards life and consciousness than a 'I'm alive!' moment.

Gimmecaffeine, I am not going to 'argue' whether a foetus sucking it's thumb is just a reflex, or to give comfort, as I don't know, but I do think that it is much more likely to be a reflex, that by the time it is born it has learned to realise that it gets pleasure from the sensation. However, my point was that to be able to such a thing (for whatever reason) shows to me that the child is now fully alive, and should not just be considered a "potential life". I am well aware that a small minority of women may have to have their baby delivered quickly up to 40 weeks gestation, because the mother's life is at risk eg pre-eclampsia. If the baby (surely after 24 weeks gestation everyone calls it a baby?) has very severe physical defects, found whilst it is still in the womb, and if the parents of the child and 2 Dr's agree, then as long as the baby is killed without suffering, whilst still in the womb, then yes, under these strict regulations, I do believe that late abortions should be allowed. I do not agree with abortion as a method of contraception, once the chance of an early medical abortion has passed.

I agree, that there is no need to get into the samatics of whether it is alive or a "life".

What's important is that the life of the baby does not trump the life of the mother while it is still being hosted by the mother's body. What is also important is women to be able to make the hard but often needed decision to end that life past the 24 week mark, if the baby will be born with a painful condition and/or potentially have a low quality of life. Or if the mother feels she can't cope with an ill or disabled child.

I also think it's abhorrent to use abortion as contraception after 24 weeks. So I wouldn't do it myself. But I also think other women should have the right to if they want. Unlike the pro life movement, I don't think my personal opinion should affect how other women live their lives, and I don't want babies born to mothers that don't want them; so much so that they would abort them and give birth to them dead after the 24 week mark.

It's hugely subjective and I feel more akin to climbing a hill towards life and consciousness than a 'I'm alive!' moment

Very well said.

Some religions tend to say life begins at the point of conception (so in a lab for some babies) and therefore there is no difference between abortion at 1 week or 40. I can understand that point of view. I can also understand a view point that says an unborn child and a mother are two equal lives. However I don't think we should change current English abortion law as it is a can of worms best left alone.

Perhaps the answer is for pro-life people to adopt the babies once they have been born?

After all, you can’t describe yourself as “pro-life” if you aren’t also concerned with the quality of that life.

It’s not just about money, and it’s not just about children with disabilities. It’s about taking away people’s choices. If you want to do that because you value the life of the unborn over the life of the living, then you should be prepared to look after that unborn child. Not just to dictate to someone else that they must do it, and then wash your hands whilst going to protest against the next woman.

Paying more tax to support the families of children with complex needs is, of course, something that should be happening, I agree with that.

I think an awful lot of people are pro birth - not pro life. I think that’s shown especially in America where there is so little financial support for the poor, they don’t give a shit about them once they are here.

Some religions tend to say life begins at the point of conception (so in a lab for some babies) and therefore there is no difference between abortion at 1 week or 40. I can understand that point of view. I can also understand a view point that says an unborn child and a mother are two equal lives. However I don't think we should change current English abortion law as it is a can of worms best left alone.

It doesn't need leave as is because it's a can of worms. It needs leaving alone because under the current law women with religious beliefs that life begins at conception can follow that belief freely and those who decide abortion is right for them are also free to make that choice.

It is a can of worms as well, though as in practice it is abortion on demand for most babies up to the limit but the law talks about medical issues, mother having to show she will go mad or whatever the law says if she has the baby, 2 doctors needed etc. It would be simpler to say abortion on demand up to XYZ weeks and ABC weeks for disabilities.

But if you believe that something is morally wrong (and just because something is legal does not make it morally right) then you are going to campaign to change it. If people were happy to just let others do something that they disagree with and just not do it themselves then we wouldn’t have a lots of things - bans against fox hunting, animal protection laws, laws against FGM etc. People campaigned for changes because they felt things were wrong the way they were - there are always people on the other side of the argument against those changes. It doesn’t stop people from wanting the changes - and that’s the way some people feel about the current abortion laws.

bumbleymummy

If people were happy to just let others do something that they disagree with and just not do it themselves then we wouldn’t have a lots of things - bans against fox hunting, animal protection laws, laws against FGM etc.
None of those things are campaigning to reduce other people's bodily autonomy.

Campaigns to force women to give birth are rooted in the belief that strangers who have nothing to do with a woman should have more of a say over her body that she does.
It's not a question of pro life or pro choice. It's a question of limiting women's bodily autonomy or accepting women have autonomy over their bodies (and sometimes autonomous people make choices about their body that others may disagree with).

It's total arrogance for anyone to say 'because I wouldn't do X to my body, I want it to be made illegal for anyone else to do X'

It is essentially saying to a woman that she has no control over her own body.

It is very insidious.

When I was pregnant my combined testing came back as high risk for Down’s syndrome, but on the lower end of ‘high risk’ If that makes sense?
There was never anything seen on a scan which showed that the foetus had any health issues (long short bones, cardiac etc) so we decided to continue with the pregnancy and not undertake any testing that carried a risk of miscarriage. Our baby didn’t have DS.

However,
If I got pregnant again and the same thing happened I would undergo testing and maybe (you can never be sure) undergo a termination if we got a positive diagnosis of DS.
When it was just my husband and I we were happy to take the ‘risk’ of a disabled child but now that we have an existing child we wouldn’t KNOWINGLY burden her with a disabled sibling. Not just because of the effect on her childhood but because the care of her sibling could be left to her in later years. Of course you never know what’s going to happen in the future, maybe we will have a baby who has a disability that isn’t evident until birth or much later, maybe our existing child already has a disability that we don’t know about or maybe our existing or hypothetical future child would befall an accident which would leave I’ve having to care for the other in the future. But it’s not just the parents who are affected by ‘having’ (I’m sorry that sounds callous) to raise a disabled child. It’s not black and white. You aren’t a superhero for raising a disabled child, despite the fact that you apparently have to be due the appalling lack of support from the government.
If abortion laws were to be altered in the UK then government support would have to be overhauled in a massive way otherwise the whole things reeks of pro-birth.

And yet the “people” referred to in Bumbley’s post would compel you to do that, Blue, because to them the unborn life takes precedence over everything. Even if the family do not want it. Even if the mother does not want to have to go through pregnancy and birth, one of the hardest things a woman has to do. Even if the quality of life would be unknown and possibly very poor. Somehow all this is irrelevant.

It’s a very warped belief, to me.

@LolaSmiles No, they’re not. However, none of those things involve ending another life either. Pro-life people could argue that this is even more important than any of those issues because a life is at stake.

I really disagree that this is about control. It just happens that the foetus can only grow inside the woman so the two issues become linked.

I think the difficulty with allowing abortion to term for disabilities opens another can of worms wrt euthanasia of babies born with undetected conditions/Disabilities caused by birth trauma etc. If you’re using the considering the quality of life/burden on parents as a reason for terminating pregnancy due to disability - why stop at birth? There is no difference between a newborn and a 37 week pregnancy except location. The baby could survive if born.

It’s a very warped belief, to me
100% agree.
It's seems to stray awkwardly close to 'well you had sex so you asked for it'. It also pushes women's sexuality back decades if sex should only be considered acceptable for procreation, certainly not for mutual pleasure.

Very well put @LolaSmiles - totally agree.

BumbleyMummy - “why stop at birth?”

Funny, that’s exactly when “pro lifers” stop caring about what happens, isn’t it?

In my native Netherlands euthanasia for newborns is legal in extreme cases, with the consent of both parents. It has been used. The babies in question were all much wanted and would have lived short, painful lives. The rules are very strict. I am grateful that this is possible. Life at all costs is a moral position lacking in empathy or compassion because sadly the reality is that sometimes there is no possible good outcome.