Mum of baby with Down's syndrome suing government over abortion law

[SharonasCorona]

The mother of a baby with Down's syndrome is suing the government for allowing disabled children to be aborted after 24 weeks of pregnancy.

After 24 weeks a woman can have an abortion if she is at risk of grave physical and mental injury, or there is a severe foetal abnormality, including Down's syndrome.

Maire Lea-Wilson says she was encouraged in hospital to abort her son, who is now 11 months old. She felt the assumption was "that you would want to abort a child with Down's syndrome".

I’m in pro-choice, but I didn’t realise you could abort disabled children until birth. It’s shocking that a woman with a healthy baby with Down’s Syndrome was encouraged to have an abortion, right up until she carried the baby full term.

Sorry haven't RTFT. I've actually avoided reading about this after seeing the threads on mumsnet because assumed she would be fighting for the opposite and wanting to abort past 24 weeks. I was ignorant to the fact that you can abort a baby for having a disability, I genuinely thought it was reserved for conditions which would mean the baby had a high chance of not surviving.

I have views on abortion that are, I believe, quite against the grain on MN and also quite against the grain for my political leanings and age, which is why I avoided reading about this when I thought the woman was campaigning for an abortion.

It's definitely an interesting question ethically. If an unborn baby is deemed to have a right to life, which we can assume it has if abortion is illegal after a certain gestation, is it disablist to say that this law does not apply to a baby because they have a disability? Rationally, and without considering any other factors, surely the answer has to be yes. So in principal I have to agree with the lady's point of view.

And on that, I think I will hide this thread as it's too frustrating when people refuse to see the other side and instead hurl personal abuse at others.

@Timekeeper1 a lot of services are over stretch but it’s not down to someone choosing to have a disabled child is it? There’s many other factors SAHM or family’s. Foreign people who may come to UK and claim benefits lots of things. If somebody wants to continue with their pregnancy they have every right to do so, the same right that maybe a woman would maybe have an abortion.

@CloudyVanilla Of course people terminate due to the foetus having abnormalities/disabilities. What do you think amnio testing is for? To determine if there is a disability, to allow the person to terminate. The whole point of the test is to prevent the births of disabilities. That's the whole point. Why would you not choose to? A read of any mother of a severely disabled child will show you how much everyone suffers.

@Paperchainpopp Of course it's not down solely to that, no, but you must admit it doesn't help the situation.

@Timekeeper1 as specifically said in my post, I'm talking about abortions AFTER 24 weeks. It is not legal in the UK to abort a normal pregnancy after 24 weeks.

I was commenting that due to the logic of it, I would agree with the woman re the ethics of terminating a baby with DS after 24 weeks.

It's definitely an interesting question ethically. If an unborn baby is deemed to have a right to life, which we can assume it has if abortion is illegal after a certain gestation, is it disablist to say that this law does not apply to a baby because they have a disability? Rationally, and without considering any other factors, surely the answer has to be yes. So in principal I have to agree with the lady's point of view.

In the U.K., we don’t ascribe personhood to unborn persons. The human rights of a foetus are therefore not the issue.

What this woman will have to show is that current laws on abortion are harmful to people with disabilities who are already alive.

This is why I believe they will fail - they either have to argue that foetuses are people deserving of human rights (a novel position in U.K. law), or prove that living people with DS are discriminated against by a law which allows the abortion of disabled foetuses later than the abortion of non-disabled foetuses.

@CloudyVanilla but the extra time is BECAUSE the pregnancies are not the same. Because disabilities can take more testing, and it can take longer. Hence the extra time allowed to abort a foetus with DS and other life-limiting disabilities.

@Timekeeper1 I'm reading the thread backwards and I've read a couple of your posts. You definitely have what I would call an extreme view, I think it could use a little more balance. I also have a pretty extreme view on abortion but I go the opposite way. I'm not going berate you or anything just because I disagree with you, abortion is an incredibly emotive topic and I've made a lot of effort to distance myself emotionally from it in an effort to actually see more perspectives on it

I think if you deliberately choose that path, then you pay for it yourself. That is fair enough. I think the alternative, to may the whole of society pay for your choice, is vile.

Well where do you draw the line. With the NHS in the UK?
Should someone who breaks their leg playing football not receive help from our NHS because they chose to play football?
Should a smoker not receive NHS treatment for lung cancer because they chose to smoke?

In the UK people get health treatment regardless of their choices, even if they’ve never paid anything in.

Or does it only apply to naturally occurring disability through no fault of anyone’s?

To be honest @Timekeeper1 it wouldn’t bother me a person who has a disabled child using services. At the end of the day hats off to them! It must be hard work. I think it’s the previous things that would annoy me as they are FAR more common factors. It’s not about money. It’s about the physical strain on the parent which is key but if they are willing to do it who are you to judge or I. We may be faced with that decision one day and it would be our own choice to make

@zscaler I totally get that, that's a really interesting way to put it that makes sense.

I did mean though that we must at least see unborn babies as having a right to life after a certain point, otherwise abortion would not be illegal beyond a certain date.

You are of course right that that isn't the same as being legally seen as a person. I wonder if that will change some day.

Also anybody at any time could become disabled... some people need to think on because you are healthy now. Do you feel you couldn’t have a tragic accident and become disfigured at any given time?. How would you feel if society turned your back on you the with the same view you had before being healthy. works both ways

@AlwaysAnEmptySpace I never understand when people attempt to compare a known situation, with an unknown. Of course anyone can break a leg or choose to smoke. That however is completely, absolutely and utterly different from knowingly bringing a child with life-long disabilities into the world, it is utterly selfish to do so. Especially if you've made no thought as to providing for them and expect to claim benefits or respite, and just expect that any sibling/s will simply take over their care when you pass.

The choices a human being makes once they are born, are on them ie whether they smoke or play football. However it is not even anywhere near the same thing as knowingly bringing a child with disabilities into the world. Nowhere near it.

Does a DS diagnosis take a really long time? Obviously one of the main things the 12 week scan is for is checking for signs of DS. Also as far as I'm aware DS is not usually life threatening in that a baby is unlikely to survive, so again it's quite subjective as what is considered an "acceptable" reason to terminate a pregnancy. In my view ideally there would be a more objective criteria to proceed with late abortions, but I understand that is not a view that is sympathetic towards parents to be of disabled children. It's obviously difficult all round.

@Paperchainpopp As above, knowingly bringing a child with lifelong disabilities, that you had the testing for and know about, is completely different from having an accident and becoming disabled later in life. I think it is disingenuous to argue they can even be compared. One is a knowing and deliberate action, the other a chance of life/fate.

knowingly bringing a child with life-long disabilities into the world, it is utterly selfish to do so.

In your opinion. You keep forgetting that what you’re saying isn’t fact, just opinion.

Thankfully women have a choice to not abort their DS child and I will always fully support that. Equally I support women who choose to abort for any reason.

@Timekeeper1 I have to say your latest post is pretty pick and choosey though. Like in your personal opinion those things (smoking etc) are completely different to knowingly bringing a disabled child into the world. Even though people are knowingly inflicting themselves with things that would cause strains on health and support services. I don't see why those are then different - it seems the only difference is that you personally don't agree with birthing disabled babies, but the other stuff is less unacceptable to you. Because I am pretty sure that obesity is a bigger strain on health services that disabled children. And that is also what people widely consider a choice.

@Timekeeper1 it’s their choice though. The same as people who sit at home and have multiple kids and claim full benefits. This is far more common.

I don’t hear that it’s a strain on the NHS as so many mothers are costing the NHS because of their disabled kids. Everybody has a choice and just because you may not keep a disabled child that’s entirely up to you. I don’t think I could do it either. However you cannot force your own view on somebody else it’s wrong

@CloudyVanilla Whether the baby survives short term is not the point. DS is a lifelong intellectual and physical (almost all DS children have heart defects) disability. It is not a life you would wish to inflict on the child or the parents, and at the basic minimum, they will need a carer for life, even if the DS child is able to live semi-independently. It is the long-term affects on the child, on the family, and on society. Also amnio testing for things like DS often isn't truly accurate until the 20 week scan. And as we know, scans can be delayed, booked on a different day, results take a while, people need to assess and deal with the information, shock etc, and plan a termination if they choose, and book it. Hence the extra time needed.

As much as I disagree with abortion I think women should have the choice, id rather that than a baby being neglected and not loved or even worse brought up in the care system.

It is much harder to find parents for a baby with disability's..

I guess I will never see how perceived necessary societal contribution to someone's existence can ever be justified as a reason to claim it is unethical to allow that person to exist . It seems completely arbitrary and horrible to say really, the vast majority of societies are able bodied people. Disabled people and the parents of disabled children shouldn't be shamed and pressured into literally not letting those babies live. It's actually incredible to me that you feel so strongly about it.

I’m with @KKSlider

Removing other women’s choice is hideous.

I know people with DS who are happy and content. They are disabled intellectually disabled but they are happy. Again it seems odd to me to base a decision on someone being able to live based on whether they will be completely healthy. I at least can see why people would consider that sentiment disablist. For many of these parents their childs life is worth fighting for, even it will not be on the same "level" as a non disabled person. And I can completely empathise and agree with that.

With smoking (excluding passive smoking of course), obesity, breaking your leg etc, you are only really affecting yourself. With knowingly bringing a child with life-long disabilities into the world, (which is very cruel imo as well as selfish) you are affecting so many more people other than yourself. The child who did not ask to be born. Family, and siblings for example.