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/

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 don't see the merit in this argument. Babies can sadly die at any stage in pregnancy, people die - that doesn't mean they were never alive does it?

To me, life clearly exists once the heart starts beating. That's not me saying I disagree with abortion. I personally think that it's better to terminate a pregnancy that isn't wanted for whatever reason than to bring an unwanted child into the world but then I also support assisted dying because I think that's also a right we should have.

in my native Netherlands euthanasia for newborns is legal in extreme cases.

Jesus Christ, and your writing this out likes it a good thing. Fucking hell, what has the world come to? I would rather have an abortion (early preferably) than to kill my already born, severely disabled child. Literally, I want to vomit.

@pointythings I don't see a problem with euthanasia being allowed in very extreme cases with sign off from doctors and parents.

Some babies are born and litrially sit there in pain waiting for nature to take its course.

My ds wouldn't eat or hold down food and no one could work out why. So their plan was to just send him home and see if he starved to death or not. How is that humane? Just leaving little babies to starve? Leaving them to just slowly die in pain?

Most the time if there is no sign of the baby breathing on its own, they just remove oxygen support and wait for the baby to suffocate.

Heather to be honest, it should not even get to that point. What we need is more vigorous, detectable, prenatal testing. Euthanasia on a live baby ? Fuck that.

@buildingbridge it's not about killing disabled babies, it's about ending the suffering of babies that will not survive and are just slowly dying. Some babies are born without all their organs, large chunks of brain missing, no ability to breath or feed.

They survive in the mother because she is supporting them - but as soon as they are birthed they need to support themselves and they are unable. Usually they will be artificially supported for a time. If its decided nothing can be done and the baby will never be able to support its own life, the machines are turned off and the baby dies.

It would be kinder on child and parents to just end the child's life quickly and painlessly.

I do not want the law to change
Abortions are not my taste at all except in a few very difficult circumstances
They do them way too late in England as it is
My heart breaks

@nasalspray

I don't think you can get pregnant if you have downs

@buildingbridge if you spent any length of time on a neonate ward and saw the suffering of the babies and parents. Saw the conditions some babies are born in, you may think differently.

Agian euthanasia would only be to end the suffering of a baby that is going to die anyway. It wouldn't be to get rid of an unwanted down syndrome baby.

I don't think you can get pregnant if you have downs

Well you can but that wasn't my point anyway. The OP wasn't very clear.

Heather In that case, I apologise. I have never been on a neonate ward, but the thought literally terrified me and I thought... so what next?

buildingbridge we are talking about babies whose difficulties were not diagnosed, for whatever reason. We are talking about babies born with whole sections of their brain missing, multiple organs deformed/absent/misplaced. Babies who are born already dying. This is not about disability. This is about making a process of dying less awful. If you don't get this, and if you don't understand that this is about compassion, you are clueless. As a parent in this situation, I would opt for it in a heartbeat rather than watch my baby die slowly and in pain.

[quote cultkid]@nasalspray

I don't think you can get pregnant if you have downs [/quote]
Seriously?

Of course you can...

It’s an extra chromosome and disabilities not sterility.

@buildingbridge

Heather In that case, I apologise. I have never been on a neonate ward, but the thought literally terrified me and I thought... so what next?

I think you need to bear in mind that lives are already ended by the withdrawal of treatment. In my mind it's much kinder to be able to use euthanasia than to allow nature to take its course by withdrawing food or ventilation.

Certainly, if I'm ever in my last days I would much rather be allowed to drift away via euthanasia than to die slowly after food and fluids are withdrawn.

I completely disagree with those who say it's the woman's body and therefore her choice alone. Firstly I believe life begins at conception so I think the foetus's rights need to be considered. Secondly the father has rights too. That's three people's rights that need to be balanced - one person shouldn't get to call the shots.
There may be circumstances where abortion is the best option for all three or the majority of the three. There may be situations where one person's rights are given more precedence for good reason. But I don't believe it should be a blanket 'my body my choice' either and foetuses being aborted because they are Downs or because 'now is not the right time' just make me feel sick...

It always will be a my body my choice.
Its only a potential life at conception, for it to become a separate life it needs a willing and able host. Like it or not, being that host is no obligation.
No woman has to take on board how the man feels, he can voice his opinion but thats it, he has no right to dictate the womans body or life. She owes him nothing, especially not use of her body
A fetus has no rights to a womans body, it needs ongoing consent to remain
Every woman should have the right to say no, i do not want a disabled child or it not the right time or simply, i dont want to be pregnant. She dont just have to get on with it.
How would people feel if abortion was banned and most women just put their disabled kid in a home cos they cant cope? I dont see these kids being swiftly adopted do you?

I'm saying that I disagree it is all about her rights and that there are worse things than giving birth to a baby you don't want. We normalise abortion too much. It is taking away a foetus's life, no matter how you dress it up. And you have to be able to justify that with something stronger than that the mum doesn't want to have a baby or 'bodily autonomy'. In my opinion. If you disagree, fair enough

Actually there is little worse than being forced to be an incubator against your will, being forced to risk your body and life for a unwanted or unviable fetus, to endure the horror of labour and birth.
We normalise forced pregnancy too much by having such crap limits on abortion. Canada has almost no limits and has a very low abortion rate. Cos they TRUST women, treat them like adults.

They are saying that men might also want a say over what happens to their potential child. An abortion isn't just another medical procedure.
They can have an opinion, sure but the woman can literally ignore him and RIGHTLY so
It is just a medical procedure for an unwanted or unviable condition

Unfortunately most people who are pro choice don't care about how the unwanted child dies, they care more about the 'cHoIcE oF tHe W0mAn!!!' to not be 'burdened' with the child that her choice of actions directly created.
Women's rights begin in the womb. Easy to conveniently ignore that I guess if you can ignore the suffering unborn children go through.

Yes i care more about a womans choice, as a woman i dont want my choices removed
Her actions dont need punishment through forced gestation. Consent to sex is NOT consent to pregnancy. Like you dont consent to an STD, its a risk but unlike some STD, pregnancy is a risk that has a fix, abortion.
Yeah like it or not, pregnancy and kids are a burden to some. Im more concerned with a womans suffering over a mere fetus

I mean heck, our 'perfect' babies might later develop cancer, be brain damaged in a car accident, have an autoimmune disease, suffer debilitating mental illness, have diabetes, underlying heart issues, asthma, allergies etc etc etc..
And if it got too bad for some, they would put them in a care home. Harsh yet true
Siblings may choose NOT to care for the sibling

That line isn’t about punishing women, it’s about knowing the potential consequences of having sex. Yes, women are the ones who can get pregnant so it makes sense to be very aware of what can happen and to try to prevent pregnancy in as many ways as possible if it’s not something you want.

Yes and if them ways fail, women can abort, simples

Sorry, but I have to take issue with those of you using the phrase "potential for life"
Well if it has no willing or able host, what is it? Nothing but goo in the toilet.

Or perhaps we all pay a little more Tax, so that the possibility of having a disabled child isn’t catastrophic for families?
You could throw millions at me, i simply dont want to be a parent to a disabled child. I wouldnt cope, DP wouldnt cope, DD would suffer. I dont want to change nappies on a 13 yr old. And yes while this may happen from an accident or stroke, id never knowingly birth a child with such issues, harsh yet true

Of course you can...

It’s an extra chromosome and disabilities not sterility.

Females with Down’s are infertile at a far higher rate than those without. Males are thought to be generally sterile.

@Soubriquet

I was taught that you can't.

It affects your fertility as a female.

The NDSS says here that about 50% of women with DS are fertile:

www.ndss.org/resources/sexuality/

You could throw millions at me, i simply dont want to be a parent to a disabled child. I wouldnt cope, DP wouldnt cope, DD would suffer. I dont want to change nappies on a 13 yr old. And yes while this may happen from an accident or stroke, id never knowingly birth a child with such issues, harsh yet true

This is the truth, but people don’t want to hear it. They think that, oh, if we just have the money for therapy and respite, more people will chose to have children with DS.

Bullshit. The richest countries are exactly those with high rates of termination. People do not want this for their children, it’s very understandable. It’s not about lack of resources.

Canada has almost no limits and has a very low abortion rate. Cos they TRUST women, treat them like adults

Canada has no legal limits. It’s up to the medical authorities ... not women. It’s actually very difficult to get a late-term abortion for medical reasons in Canada and ironically they often have to go to America to get it done.

They don’t ‘trust women’. They trust medical authorities and hospitals to have strong ethics and draw the lines where appropriate. Hospitals can refuse women terminations, even for medical reasons: www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3904755

I wasn't aware of the new English coronavirus pills by post service although i can understand why it was put in place. See www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8367467/Abortions-post-got-rushed-approval-lockdown-troubling-stories-emerging.html

The Mail is very anti-abortion.

If you dissect that article, here's what happened:

A woman took the pills as directed and they failed. That could have happened under the old system,

Some women lied about how far along they were and had stillbirths as a result. So how desperate were these women to do that, and what were their reasons? Unless you believe that people have late term abortions for the fun of it, these would have been women in desperate situations.

One woman had a bad experience and was in a controlling relationship so couldn't get help. Under the old system she'd either have had to lie, scheme and if she'd had side effects still not been able to get help, or she'd have had another baby in that relationship.

And a Christian anti-abortion activist says it's awful. So what?

No mention is made of the women who used the service successfully and were fine - and that would have been the vast majority.

The richest countries are exactly those with high rates of termination
Exactly, richest and high testing, like Iceland where most women tested and most pregnancies with likelyhood of ds aborted, when in 2017, 2018ish only 2 babies with ds were born. Which to me shows when able to access proper medical care and testing, most choose not to even risk becoming a ds parent. It's not about money, it's about quality of life for not only the women themselves, but also the rest of their family and they have every right to make that choice.

Canada has no legal limits. It’s up to the medical authorities ... not women. It’s actually very difficult to get a late-term abortion for medical reasons in Canada and ironically they often have to go to America to get it done.
They don’t ‘trust women’. They trust medical authorities and hospitals to have strong ethics and draw the lines where appropriate. Hospitals can refuse women terminations, even for medical reasons: www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3904755
Yes, true. No denial from me.
I wasn't very clear when I said trust women. They don't do a blanket cut off out of fear that women just waltz in demanding to abort at 30plus week's. They trust that women only seek late term abortion for a serious medical issue and leave it to medical professionals to decide, not politicians using laws often based in religion with anti women sentiment.

@Pixiefringe

All abortion is abhorrent and should be banned IMO.

Don't have one then, but don't you even dare to tell me what I can do with my own body

we just have the money for therapy and respite

Mango please don't underestimate therapy, it really really works.

[quote Xenia]I wasn't aware of the new English coronavirus pills by post service although i can understand why it was put in place. See www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8367467/Abortions-post-got-rushed-approval-lockdown-troubling-stories-emerging.html[/quote]
Christian Concern can fuck right off.