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’.

But abortion per se is judging which lives should be brought into the world and which shouldn’t. Whether that’s because the mum is a teenager, because she’s broke, because the dad is violent… should a fetus be discriminated against because its mum is a teenager? Why is that any better than terminating because the fetus is disabled?

Honestly, I think you should watch it before commenting, really.

It didn't come across as anti-abortion at all, it was just a person with Downs and a person with spina bifida questioning what pregnant women are told about their conditions (as in, is it sometimes exaggerated) and why abortion is allowed up to term for all disabilities.

It didn't come across as judgemental at all. They sat down with women who had chosen to abort babies, some with their conditions, and were very supportive and empathetic to what they'd been through.

Give it a watch.

Either every foetus has the right to be carried to term or none have that right.

No foetus has the right. Human rights begin at birth.

Crowter and friends tried this argument - that the current time limits are direct discrimination against disabled foetuses. This only works if foetuses have legal personhood and human rights. The judge ruled that they did not and Crowter et al were not given leave to appeal on this point.

I’m uneasy about the hijacking of the Don’t Screen Us Out campaign by pro lifers

It wasn't hijacked, it was started by pro lifers.

It’s the woman’s right to choose in every single circumstance.

My concern is the disproportionate testing and subsequent pressure put on women to abort for Down Syndrome.

So what would you do about that, if anything?

Of course

I'd actively terminate in most if not all of those cases you listed

Why actively bring a child into this world where they will suffer to varying degrees based on something they're born with?

You are fine with making abortion legal for autism, partial deafness or visual impairments? Jeez, that's some Brave New World scenario. To any disabled people or parents reading this - I love the world with difference in it. This is the society I want, not some world where it is acceptable to screen out anyone who doesn't fit some narrow band of 'acceptable.'

Do you have a disabled child @gnilliwdog ?

I would let the voices of people with DS and those of their families be heard, for a start. Stop force teaming them with pro lifers and referring to them in derogatory ways, as on this thread.

No one tells a pregnant teenager their life will be horrendous and not worth living if they give birth. We should stop telling women with markers for DS that, too.

That is not what has been declared.

An allowance has been made to the timeframe for medical reasons, including disability, as these can take time to be detected and the woman needs to be given tike to weigh up her options.

For example, Jane is 20wks pregnant and due her anomaly scan which csn be done anywhere between 18wks and 22wks. She's having it at 21wks. The baby is not in a good position and won't budge for the scan to be complete so she is invited back at 22wks.

The 22wk scan detects a potential issue. Jane sees the doctor to discuss her options and opts for further testing. A week later she has the tests, she is now 23wks. Four days later, at 23+4 she gets the results and it is confirmed that her baby has the issue suspected at the anomaly scan.

If the cut off was 24wks for all pregnancies, Jane has just three days in which to seek a second opinion if she wants it, access counselling services, speak to support groups, obtain information on the condition and prognosis, speak with her partner/family/friends/support network, and make a decision.

Should Jane be rushed into that? Or should she be allowed time and space to come to terms with the news and make an informed decision?

If she chooses to watch and wait to see if the issue remains stable or worsens, should she not be allowed time to do so?

There are less than 280 abortions s year carried out post-24wks and every single one of them is for medical reasons, that flexible time limit is absolutely needed for them.

@gnilliwdog I am the parent of an autistic adult. Would I be happy for autism screening to happen prenatally? (It's not possible because there isn't a single gene, but hypothetically) Yes, absolutely. Would I have aborted for autism? No, but I would not deny another woman the choice to do so.

It's all about the woman's choice and what she feels she is able to cope with when raising a child.

I am fine with women being given all possible information about the pregnancy they are carrying and making an informed decision about whether or not to continue that pregnancy, yes

The timeframe should not just be for medical reasons then. It should be for social reasons, or mental health reasons or Know what, I just don’t want to be pregnant anymore reasons.

@Annieisalright that’s fine, it’s your pov. A woman’s choice every single time, even if I think society would be poorer for eradicating all difference.

I think the timeframe is about right for non-medical reasons seeing as, at present, women have until 24wks to make a decision along the lines of "I don't want to be pregnant anymore" and the overwhelming majority take care of that issue prior to 10wks with the remaining majority of them sorting it by 20wks - only 1% take place at that point.

I am glad we live in a society where you don't get to make the laws. @FarmerRefuted @pointythings Yes, I have a friend who is considerably deaf, who holds a good degree, is a brilliant teacher and an asset to the world. I have friends with autism and ADHD who have a different take on the world that only enriches it. Some of them are highly intelligent, they are all honest and kind people. There is no question in my mind as to whether they should be here or not, or whether a doctor would be justified in offering to abort them because they were different.

My concern is the disproportionate testing and subsequent pressure put on women to abort for Down Syndrome.

There’s testing for all sorts of conditions; early testing identifies Downs Syndrome as well as other trisomy incompatible with life. Other conditions are picked up as a result of routine scans. Amniocentesis picks up Downs, Spina Bifida and some other conditions. If results are positive, the provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 come in to play. Nobody should be pressured and I am reasonably sure most doctors give a prognosis and let parents make up their minds. If parents want more information, there’s loads available on-line.

What is confusing? A child with a disability has far, far greater needs than one without. Surely that bit is obvious. I don't agree with having one if there is nothing wrong with a child.

The timeframe should not just be for medical reasons then. It should be for social reasons, or mental health reasons or Know what, I just don’t want to be pregnant anymore reasons

And, what happens when the late term abortions remain, for the pragmatic reasons around anomaly testing dates, almost exclusively those women who are terminating disabled children? Will disability right campaigners simply adopt a different tactic to manouvere women into birthing babies with disabilities?

I think that one issue is that conditions like autism or even DS cover such a spectrum of impairment. We all probably know people with diagnosed autism who lead happy and fulfilling lives, with minimal support needs. We have probably also all met people with DS who similarly function well and are happy (though very, very few of them will not need significant support and care throughout their lives). However, by definition we will tend to see far less of the non-verbal autistic person who needs 24-hour specialist care and is dangerously violent towards their caregivers, or the severely-affected person with DS who will never walk or talk and whose life will be tragically blighted and cut short by physical health issues. And we certainly don’t see the toll that having a child so impaired will take on a family, and on the child’s mother in particular.

I would let the voices of people with DS and those of their families be heard, for a start. Stop force teaming them with pro lifers and referring to them in derogatory ways, as on this thread.

Who is force teaming them?

I said nothing about people with DS and their families in general. But the people behind the court case, Don't Screen Us Out, the DS Act, the APPG and the NDSPG are pro-lifers. It's the same small, highly organised group of people.

This is a good article, written by a disability rights campaigner who has a profoundly disabled child:

https://makingrightsmakesense.wordpress.com/2022/01/21/a-cunning-fox/

I have a child with severe autism and learning disabilities, he's just as disabled and in many cases more so then a child with down syndrome ,that's the thing you have no way of knowing how a child with a condition such as autism or down syndrome andcmany other disabilities are going to be impacted on one end of the scale you can have a person lead a fairly normal independent life and on the other a person will need 1:1 care 24/7 for the rest of their lives .

I have two disabled children.

They could continue to campaign for greater awareness and support and that would be fine.
The basis for abortion would be fair. Every woman permitted to choose, up to term, for whatever reason. If there are more abortions for a particular reason then people can campaign against that reason. They just can’t block the abortion a woman may want.

That doesn't mean my son isn't dearly loved or doesn't have a great quality of life however

But they could do that, they could rally their resources and push for that very thing today.