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’.

@SlagathaChristie because there shouldn’t be a two tier system that sees the life of a child with a disability as worth less than one with no screened disability.
Your emotional hyperbole makes no difference to my view on that. The right of a woman to do whatever she likes to her own body is my main priority, even if the choice she makes is one I wouldn’t choose for myself.

I think you only need to look at how badly society treats disabled people and how little support the parents of disabled children get to understand why people are fearful of bringing a disabled baby into the world. Much better to fix that first.

There isn’t. Once born a disabled child has the same rights as any other.

What a stupid thing to say ,as a gp she should be aware that Down syndrome isn't the only disability.

She told me I had a very HIGH risk of Downs - 1 in 200. Gave me leaflets outlining the LOW risk of miscarriage from the amino of 0.5%.

I'm a bit surprised they told you that. The cut off for high chance starts at 1 in 150. 1 in 200 is not considered high.

There isn’t. Once born a disabled child has the same rights as any other.

Yes, once born. But if you have a higher limit for abortion subject to certain disabilities being picked up by screening then that’s giving a clear message that their life is worth less and it’s better if they don’t get chance to live it.
Raise the limit for everyone to that number of weeks or keep it low for everyone.

Yes, ofcourse not all disabilities are observable prior to birth. I'm not sure how that complicates the ethics around abortion rights for those which are x2boys?

Absolutely but I was horrified in the early days of the pandemic ,when there were concerns about there not being enough ventilators, and there were cases emerging that some people with learning disabilities were being put down for not for resuscitation purely on the grounds of their learning disabilities.

Someone will be along to call you anti-choice but it's a fairly popular viewpoint I imagine

The fact that some disabilities can’t be screened for does not justify removing the options of women in regards to those that can be.

I’m all for equality though, so extend the limit for everyone. Don’t achieve it by forcing women to continue pregnancies they do not want to.

I Agree. It's a personal choice to bring a child into this world, let alone knowing they have disabilities. To force someone to carry a pregnancy they don't want, is an awful thing.
If I was pregnant I'd be specifically asking about disabilities at my 20 week scan, and if DS or SB was found, I'd terminate.

It doesn't but a lot of people seem to think if they have all the prenatal tests they won't have a disabled child .

Yes, but it's impossible to put a definite time limit on that because things can keep changing, after birth too.

I imagine it would be done in the same way it currently is. I think it unlikely that a change in the law would prompt a switch to exposure being the preferred method (for what? Dramatic effect?).

The number of late abortions are tiny.

And there are reasons for a late termination of even a healthy baby. They are to do with the woman / girl and yes the baby has to come second.

A 10 year old who has been abused but doesn't know they are pregnant?

Asylum seekers, who are often sexually abused on their journey to a safe country.

Horrific circumstances we can't even think of.

Fortunately the majority of women get through pregnancy without being told their baby has a serious condition / disability.

Those who are less fortunate deserve our compassion and support whatever decision they make. For some continuing the pregnancy will be their choice but for those that do opt to terminate, it will inevitably have been after much consideration.

you can do it up to term for disability, so why not for a not disabled pregnancy.
I doubt many would do it. but why not. surely its its ok for disability why not for everyone.

There seem to be a small group of familiar names pushing very very hard for our rights to be restricted. It’s very difficult to challenge them directly as it looks like a personal attack on their children; which of course it isn’t.

I absolutely hate these emotive programmes and articles. I had a TFMR three years ago at 16 weeks due to DS. It was my choice and it was the right one for me and my family. The vast majority of women make the same choice. The vast majority of people with DS children did not make (or have to make) that choice because their children were diagnosed postnatally. Of course people with living children who they love very much feel upset about the idea of their child being aborted, but do they have the same strength of feeling about every potential child not born because the woman has an abortion simply because she didn’t want a baby? No.

Quite a lot of these movements if you scratch enough below the surface are funded or supported by religious organisations

That's what I really object to

As it's restricting choice put in a shiny 'don't be a dick to disabled people' wrapper

I agree completely

No one should be pressuring women either way.

To me, this would be the ideal sequence of events:

Doctor explains the likely prognosis, including the levels of uncertainty (because women aren't idiots, and we can factor uncertainty into our decision making)

Doctor presents abortion as one of the valid choices at this stage.

Pregnant women who want to proceed with the pregnancy are not mortally offended by the word abortion, because they understand that other pregnant women will need this option. These women just say "no thank you abortion is not for me", and then the doctor says "absolutely fine, that's a perfectly valid decision. If you change your mind, or if you have doubts, then please know that you can raise this again at any point".

Women who wish to end the pregnancy are similarly told "absolutely fine, that's a perfectly valid decision. We'll book you in for X days time, you can of course change your mind, or discuss this further, at any point up til then".

@sashh The issue with both those situations, horrible as they are, is that the foetus still has to come out; poisoning it doesn’t mean the corpse has “gone away” and just leaving it makes it a massive infection risk. I think what PPs are struggling with is the idea that birth will have to be undergone, no matter what, and so performing a term limit abortion means killing the foetus almost for the sake of it iyswim. What’s the difference, in practice, between performing a term limit abortion and then a C section under GA and just performing the C section and taking the baby away for a closed adoption? As far as I can tell, the only real difference is that, in 18 years, the baby might want contact-and that could be upsetting or inconvenient. However, there are many upsetting or inconvenient people in the world and we don’t just kill them. This is really tricky in multiple different ways.

I think we have great abortion laws in England, tbh.
Just the right balance imo.
I am pro choice, but admit that abortion for no medical reason in late stars sits uneasy with me, so for me it’s the ideal balance.
I do notice more and more the pro life brigade, not sure if they’re become more prevalent or whether I’ve just never noticed before.
It seems to be us copying US discourse

@PicturesOfDogs why is it ok for a disability? I really don't understand.