Disability And Abortion: The Hardest Choice CHANNEL 4

[Wouldloveanother]

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11155443/DOMINIC-LAWSON-Doctors-stop-pushing-mothers-aborting-disabled-babies.html

I’m planning on watching this in the next few days, but I’m getting increasingly concerned about the amount of anti-choice activity going on under the guise of ‘disability equality’.

Disabled babies?

Many

Also the process to adopt a newborn is different, you'd have to go through foster to adopt if it's immediately post birth which is a whole other type of stress

Plus not many people want disabled newborns

If that’s on the table as an option the choice should be entirely with the woman the surgery would be happening to.

I realise some doctors do perform late-stage abortions. Some people do things that I couldn’t, even though I understand the need for the job.

I absolutely feel no woman should have to give up her body for the good of someone else, even for a short time (eg for a 38-week old feotus). But I also think nobody should be expected to knowingly perform a procedure to end the heartbeat of a feotus once its become capable of continued life post-birth (even if that means with medical intervention). I don’t have the expertise to know what stage that would be - 24 weeks? 26 weeks?

Then why the disbelief that there would be doctors willing to carry out the procedure?

As it stands doctors already aren’t required to perform abortions if they have objections, so why not legalise it and allow the ones that don’t to provide it? No forcing required.

24-26 week babies are often left permanently damaged as a result of their prematurity - boundless, cerebral palsy etc. What would happen then; they just get left on the disabled kids to adopt pile? I suppose something like 28-30 weeks would give them a much better chance of coming through it without lasting damage.

*blindness

I’m talking about allowing any baby to be terminated until 40 weeks disabled or not disabled. It really should be up to doctors to decide whether giving euthanasia type drugs in uterine is in the babies best interest based on quality of life. I believe this is what is currently practiced and shouldn’t be changed

Did you miss the earlier post where I gave the fostering and adoption figures? There is a shortage of both foster carers and adopters. Right now there are 80,000 children in care, 45,000 foster homes, and only 3,500 adoptions a year. There are not enough foster homes or adopters for existing children without then adding in an unknown number of disabled newborns. If birth parents are unable or unwilling to provide the care needed, why do you think prospective adopters will? Most of those hypothetical children will spend their entire childhood in the care system followed by a lifetime in the social care system. "Just have them adopted" is a shitty idea.

Another statistic worth repeating:

In 2021, only 274 abortions took place post-24 weeks and all were for medical reasons.

The vast majority of abortions took place under the category of risk to the woman's mental health (i.e., "I don't want to be pregnant) and 89% of these were carried out before 10wks gestation.

Only 1% of abortions take place between 16wks and 24wks (the legal cut off for non-medical reasons).

Why would women suddenly wait until post-24wks just because it was an option? Right now they can opt out of a pregnancy anytime up until 24wks and yet the figures show that most of them take action as early as possible, they don't wait until 24wks.

FarmerRefuted, my brother adopted and it was very difficult to be approved, there were quite a few other willing couples that wanted the baby the eventually adopted. There are plenty of people who will adopt health babies. Disabled babies are much more difficult I agree and that’s probably one of the reasons late term adoption are allowed. Having said that if adoption is the issue, why don’t we just go around smothering unwanted babies at birth?

I don't think it matters what you think people will do. Many people will find it morally unacceptable to make it a legal possibility to destroy healthy foetuses right up until birth. It doesn't matter if statistics lead you to believe it unlikely anyone will actually do it, the majority reject it as unthinkable, and therefore that it should never even be a legal option.

Because smothering children is illegal

Ffs

Most of them are not healthy children given up at birth; such children probably would be adopted.

But in any case, hardly anyone seeks to abort a healthy full-term baby (if people were so ready to decide against having a baby at such a late stage, there WOULD be a lot more healthy newborns given up for adoption). Only a tiny minority of abortions even occur beyond 20 weeks. And yes, most of those that do, do involve serious conditions that aren't, or can't be, diagnosed earlier.

@ddl1 But I don't think you are allowed to abort a healthy, full term baby without a medical reason at the moment? So we don't know what would happen if we removed the requirement and just said any reason is valid. We can't make laws based on what we think people will do, they have to be based on what is morally acceptable.

Why do you think more people would abort at 40 weeks than currently is seen at 20 weeks

Late term abortions are already rare now

If that term was extended the numbers aborting at 40 weeks would be tiny

But, Annie, we are talking about maintaining the situation we have now and there aren’t very many new borns being placed for adoption.

@Annieisalright I don't know what would happen if we allowed abortions for any reason up until birth. I wouldn't dream of making a law based on predictions, I would base it on what society agrees would be allowable in all circumstances. It doesn't matter if late term abortions are rare now because they require a medical reason. That is completely different to making them allowable for any reason, obviously.

You're allowed to abort a 21-week foetus without a medical reason, and yet hardly anyone does, so yes, I think we do know.

I'm not in favour of allowing people to abort healthy 40-week babies; I just don't think it's a particularly relevant topic, as it's not happening.

It is state sponsored disability discrimination and eugenics to allow a disabled baby to be aborted to full term.

I cannot see why anyone would think it is acceptable.

@ddl1 OK, that makes sense.

Or it’s letting women have control over their bodies, how does anyone else have the right to tell a woman what she must or must not to.

don’t forget the amount of late term abortions is tiny. When it happens it’s for a very good reason.

I'm not in favour of allowing people to abort healthy 40-week babies; I just don't think it's a particularly relevant topic, as it's not happening.

Maybe I’ve misunderstood you but that is what this entire thread is about.

How is that what this entire thread is about

The thread is about medical abortion campaigners trying to restrict the time people can abort due to certain disabilities

Consider the data we already have it's vanishingly unlikely anyone would abort a healthy baby at 40 weeks

If the vast majority of people don't at 21 weeks why would there be a flurry of women doing so much later?

Exactly, the idea that there would be queues of women choosing to go through a full pregnancy to then abort, is ludicrous and frankly insulting to women.

Allowing abortion to full time rather than to what are currently arbitruary cutoff points, given the success of preterm care, would allow a tiny number of women with strong reasons to believe their fetus would be better of not coming in to existence the chance to act on it even in the absence of a confirmed diagnosis.

Examples I can think of is Women pregnant when they get a significant diagnosis in an older child that has a degree of heritability associated with it but that can neither be confirmed or rule out in utero, or a women who has found out she was pregnant late and due to not knowing she was pregnant has exposed her child to significant alcohol (or other recreational or prescribed drugs) in utero, and does not wish to bring a fetus with Fetal alcohol syndrome to term.

These cases will be extremely rare, but the option should be there and the decision should lie solely with the mother.