Today's ruling re Down's Syndrome

[Shirazboobaloo]

Sorry to hijack AIBU for this but can someone explain this ruling to me please?

What I can't understand (from press reports) is how this has "come to this".

Who is Heidi Crowther and who are those supporting her?

I am genuinely confused but don't know where to ask

*have the right to say

It obviously benefits prolifers to have Heidi front the campaign but I don’t think it means she’s been manipulated. I think we should give her the respect that her views are her own even if we disagree.

@LaBellina

People also forget it’s about the bigger picture, if the court ruled in her favor, the door would open to others who want to limit women’s right to abortion for other reasons. It’s a slippery slope.

If it's a slippery slope in one direction it's a slippery slope in the other direction too. DS is a spectrum and people with DS can and do live fulfilling lives (especially with proper state funded support). Whats the cut-off point where you say "ok, this baby has a right to live"? Because you can't decide that a healthy baby doesn't have that right which is why there is a 24 week limit on abortions (the point where the baby can survive without the mother).

What about a baby who has a gene that means they'll probably end up with a debilitating illness in, say, their 20s? Is their predicted quality of life sufficient that they can't be denied their right to life?

Don't mistake me for being anti-abortion as I'm not at all. A woman can say at any point that she doesn't want to be pregnant anymore and that should absolutely be honoured. But if the baby can survive without the mother then it should have a right to care.

That right to care doesn't mean the baby gets to stay inside the mother. If she doesn't want to be pregnant then either c section or induce delivery. If the baby is too early to survive, too bad - that's an abortion. If the baby can survive then it's birth.

We agree with each other @Pikamoo.

Look at the alternatives.

If a woman cannot choose to have an abortion, she is being forced to give birth against her will.

I do t want any woman to be forced to give birth against their will. I wish the language around this would change to reflect that.

Pro-lifers are forced-birthers.

Every woman should be allowed to make her own choice. I won’t force my beliefs on you. You can’t force yours on me.

@Pixxie7

I think this was specifically aimed at Down’s syndrome who as we all many can grow up and leave perfectly normal lives.

The law does not mention Downs Syndrome.

I think it’s a good decision by the courts

It’s an attempt to try to reduce the rights of women to abort children for whatever reason they want to. I don’t think any civilised country should force women to give birth to children if they choose not to.

I've posted this on the thread already but just want to reiterate that the law does not mention DS, only severe impairment. The campaign implies that there is a specific clause in the law regarding Downs Syndrome, and this has been pointed out to them many times.

The law mentions "severe impairment", and it's arguable that Downs Syndrome is not as severe an impairment as many parents and clinicians believe it to be. The judgment on what constitutes severe impairment is deliberately left out of the law which allows discretion by clinicians and parents.

I don't know if I would terminate if my baby had DS, and I have supported and worked with people with DS. But even if I personally wouldn't, i want to protect those rights of women to end their pregnancies if their baby is likely to have severe physical or mental impairment.

Also there's a lot of people mentioning babies born at 24 weeks being able to "survive on their own". They cannot. The medical intervention required for babies born below 32 weeks to survive is immense and overwhelming. The cut off for actually being able to survive in their own is much, much closer to 37 weeks. I say this as the mother of a preemie born at 26 weeks.

Great decision from the judges. A woman has the right to retain her body autonomy and make the choice what is best for her.
I wouldn't want a DS child and if I found out after 24 weeks I would want to terminate. I don't apologise for that.
It is no one else's decision what a woman chooses to do. Focus on your own uterus. Heidi does not have the right to decide for others simply because she has DS.

@DifficultBloodyWoman

Look at the alternatives.

If a woman cannot choose to have an abortion, she is being forced to give birth against her will.

I do t want any woman to be forced to give birth against their will. I wish the language around this would change to reflect that.

Pro-lifers are forced-birthers.

Every woman should be allowed to make her own choice. I won’t force my beliefs on you. You can’t force yours on me.

How do you think late term abortion happens? Its not just take a pill and the baby disappears. It's essentially giving birth but your baby is not alive. Pretty much always due to tragic circumstances.

Unless the law is changed to allow abortion of any baby up to birth, the law is disabalist.

At one stage I might have been reluctant to abort for DS, I don't know for sure because I never had to face the decision. Then I don't some time helping at a social club for adults with LDs. I really don't know how some parents cope. In the end I had to leave because 1 young man with DS took a liking to me snd couldn't understand that it wasn't OK to slam me against a wall to try and "have a kiss". That "kiss" involved grinding his pelvis against me as well. One of us had to go and I had other options, he didn't. That group ended up with no female helpers for that reason. Goodness knows how his parents coped.

What people also forget is that Down syndrome varies massively. Some people are very mildly impacted. The people with down syndrome most of us are familiar with are relatively mild cases. Some are massively impacted (physically, cognitively or other things like co-occurance of autism which isn’t rare at all) which impact life of everyone around them massively and can make for extremely challenging individuals. Comparing Down syndrome with dwarfism or missing limbs really not appropriate.
I know I couldn’t do a child with a more severe case justice

I feel that opposing the law, especially using DS as an example was detrimental.(personally I agree with the decision that was reached). DS is on a spectrum and having a child is not just having a cute baby, toddler, it's a commitment that lasts until adulthood, especially when individuals are not self sufficient. Choosing to go ahead with such an uncertain outcome before birth is a much bigger decision. It's like jumping blindfolded without knowing where you will land. I know this may be controversial but sometimes I feel that some people who have disabilities but are high functioning often try to promote ideas ( or are used by others to further their own agenda) about the lives of a whole spectrum of other individuals and their families.

People saying Heidi has been manipulated are incredibly disablist and rude. She's articulate and perfectly capable of taking this position.

Have you seen her interviewed?

Basically she says it makes her sad, and that's it. I wish one of the interviewers had the balls to interview her as an adult and not as a child. To ask some real questions.

Un;ess you mean what she tweets from court? That's not her.

As for living independently, I think that's a matter of opinion.

I know this may be controversial but sometimes I feel that some people who have disabilities but are high functioning often try to promote ideas ( or are used by others to further their own agenda) about the lives of a whole spectrum of other individuals and their families.
So true. A friend’s 15 teen is a more severe case. Massively cognitively impacted, and severely autistic. He doesn’t sleep a lot, is nonverbal, very very strong and quite aggressive. Life was hell for everyone until he moved out in a specialist institution. But now there is a lot of guilt. Not quite the happy, smiling stereotype of down syndrome we are used to.

@Itsanewdah

But what if your child was born with a severe need that wasnt screenable ie extreme autism with other disabilities and health complications? What if this was picked up on tests done in first week could euthenasia be used then? Or at any point in life that the severity became aparent?

What if we get the the stage of screening for autism, deafness, blindness in pregnancy? Would those be reasons to abort after 24 weeks. Each of thise can be be result in people who can live fulfilling lives or come with other health problems which can be long term or require high support? Equally, many can have enriched lives and contribute to society for the greater good.
Where do we draw the line?

Both situations have the potential to be slippery slopes on the one hand we do not want a society where there is a risk of making abortion ileagal or where life limiting/incompatable with life fetus can not have late stage abortion.

On the other hand we dont want a society where diversity and acceptance becomes less, where any disability can be screened for and aborted. Or where thise in car accidents arent treated because their injuries may cause them to have disabilities.

I dont know because it is complicated and i worry about the future of people choosing to abort based on deaf, blind, autism etc

And another thing, in an emergency situation they say that when two people are drowning save the quieter one, the one whose head is barely above water, the one that doesn't have the energy to shout and scream, they will go underwater first.
I believe that anyone should be able and encouraged to stand up for what they believe in, but just because you shout the loudest doesn't make your view the whole truth.

@Pikamoo

That right to care doesn't mean the baby gets to stay inside the mother. If she doesn't want to be pregnant then either c section or induce delivery. If the baby is too early to survive, too bad - that's an abortion. If the baby can survive then it's birth.

That's what I can't wrap my head around with abortions to term. If the foetus is viable and the woman will have to give birth anyway, either via induced delivery or c-section, why does its heart need to be stopped?

@Covidworries it is a slippery slope, no doubt about that. But some syndromes are very much more likely to lead to very challenging outcome. deaf, blind etc - likely to have a positive outcome.
Down syndrome- much more of a mixed bag, but very romanticized in the media. It is in most cases a lot more than a mild learning disability.
Autism we don’t fully understand yet, but certainly a very mixed bag as well, with some extreme suffering (individuals and family) and some very happy individuals.
There is no easy answer.

@PrincessFiorimonde

Heidi Crowter's activism would do much more for the lives of people with Downs if she used her platform to advocate for improved social care and support for these individuals. That - unlike this legal case - could make a real difference.

Totally agree with this.

It actually wouldn’t. The European societies with the highest support standards also have the highest rate of termination of DS fetuses.

This sounds so nice to say but doesn’t actually change a thing. Sorry.

I'm of the opinion why wouldn't you?
I've worked with adults with DS and I would terminate in a heartbeat.
I've seen what happens when mum and dad can't cope any more or die, the disdain and suffering when there's no decent advocacy in end of life, the early onset dementia the violence.
As PP have said, DS is a spectrum and that happy, well rounded, rosy cheeked child/teen drew the best cards.

No one should be forced to go full term with a pregnancy they don't want.

If you ban these abortions you are forcing women to carry to term children they don’t want nor feel they can look after. You run the risk of back street abortions and frankly the number of disabled children placed into the care system from women who would just give them up would sky rocket.

No, it wouldn't, because at the moment the number of babies with DS aborted AFTER 24 weeks is essentially nil. So it would not result in increases in the number of births of DS.

The rights and wrongs of the current law and proposed changes are symbolic/ethical, but have essentially no bearing on the number of people with DS. As the NIPT test and similar become ever easier, cheaper and capable of being done ever earlier in pregnancy, the law will become even less relevant.

FWIW, I did the NIPT test and would have terminated a pregnancy with DS or any trisomy.

That's what I can't wrap my head around with abortions to term. If the foetus is viable and the woman will have to give birth anyway, either via induced delivery or c-section, why does its heart need to be stopped?

Ideology. Whilst living in China a viral video went around of a woman whose child was forcibly aborted at seven months because she’d fell afoul of the one-child policy (it’s no more but was a thing until very recently). They’d clearly given the baby medication to stop its heart and then had her deliver the dead body. They were able to do such cruel things to an individual because of ideology.

It was heartbreaking, and shouldn’t ever be done on a healthy fetus (and in practice, it isn’t really done except in very few places)