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’.

I'm a HCP I mostly work with people with learning disabilities. The pro life group always present the best case scenario of a cute child with DS. Not the hormonal large teenager doubly incontinent smearing and physically attacking people then getting dementia at age 40. People should be allowed to say they don't want that life long responsibility. Parents are then doubly shamed when they ask the state to take over the care. I've had frail parents of adult children crying for support as their child is assaulting them but they are too old to safely restrain and look after them. I love my job but it's made me very pro choice , I can go home when I leave work for the parents is 24/7 with pitiful respite.

It's individual choice

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

They do. I support several organisations that do that very thing.
It’s sad we’ve reached a point where advocating for people with a disability to live fulfilled, happy lives is taken as an assault on a woman’s right to choose.

That depends on where they’re located, it’s absolutely true that those who are hired by charities and private termination clinics are able to set their own limits, some go to the legal limits whereas others choose lower, they also set their own rules on who they will or will not perform the procedure on (no more than X c-sections etc).
I’m also talking about choosing to abort a full-term pregnancy for any reason anyway, not due to medical abnormalities, that is a different kettle of fish.

It’s sad we’ve reached a point where advocating for people with a disability to live fulfilled, happy lives is taken as an assault on a woman’s right to choose.

Now that is just disingenuous. You would advocate for late term abortions for all foetuses to create a theoretical parity knowing that the outcomes would largely remain the same.

The campaigners are advocating for restriction on terminations on foetuses with disabilities - knowing fine we'll that the window for an informed is completely changed because of the anomaly scanning dates.

It's not pro choicers building an antagonist narrative with disability campaigners here.

Fair point, but @FarmerRefuted stated they were fine with abortion being legal on the grounds of deafness. I have mentioned my friend, but I am sure there are many partially or wholly deaf people who lead happy, useful lives. Do you think there should have been an option to abort them on the grounds of their hearing not being perfect?

There seem to be a lot of people without disabled children who feel indulgently ‘uncomfortable’ at the thought of disabled fetuses being terminated, because they want to ‘see diverse people around them’ like they’re some kind of art installation. Before leaving the caring responsibilities for those people to others, obviously.

Now that is just disingenuous. You would advocate for late term abortions for all foetuses to create a theoretical parity knowing that the outcomes would largely remain the same.

It’s not disingenuous at all. The outcomes could remain the same, they could change if society’s largely shit attitude towards disability changed.
To me “I don’t want this baby” is valid at any stage of pregnancy, for any reason. The limit for abortion should not be lowered, but it should not be extended for one particular health condition either. It should be extended for all.

@Wouldloveanother My children are noyb. But I do think it's a joyless attitude to reject difference. Again, thank goodness you don't make the laws, where it's acceptable to terminate any one without 100% hearing, 20/20 vision and a nice NT mind.

There is no list of conditions gnilliwdog. Abortion past 24 weeks is allowed if a foetus's condition is likely to result in serious disability. It's an individual clinical decision between a doctor and a pregnant woman, backed up by a second medical opinion.

Canada has no legal time limit. Women there sometimes have problems accessing abortion care in the first place but as far as I know, the lack of time limit itself does not cause any problems.

Like us, Canada has a well regulated medical profession.

No, what I said was that I think women should be given all available information about their pregnancy so that they can make an informed choice about whether or not to continue.

Which choice they make is their own decision.

If the state funded proper respite care , part time placements and behavioural interventions more women might want to continue a pregnancy. You can't expect women to want to have children with disabilities when the support is shocking.

It’s a very good point about all the ‘poster children’ being either very young and adorable, or very high functioning adults such as Heidi or Reuben from CBeebies etc. It does seem like they say they want ‘balanced information’ to be given to expectant parents but simultaneously only show the more ‘socially accepted’ version of DS.

I would have my autistic son over and over again if I could, he is pure magic.

If I'd had the choice before having him, and not knowing what I know and how much I would adore him, I would've aborted him. I'd have imagined a life of misery and drudgery. And if there had been a way to screen for it, and staff kept mentioning how I could abort him, I'd have absolutely been influenced by that and figured it was the right thing to do because they kept saying it so much.

On balance my child makes me feel joy rather than regret. But if his condition were screenable I'm certain he wouldn't exist. And because of that I didn't screen my second child.

Exactly.

I agree! I would have much less hesitation about having a disabled baby if there was great provision in place for them, to help them but also so I could retain quality of life.

This is nothing to do with trying to get rid of disability. It’s to do with giving women the choice and it’s nobody else’s place to judge that choice which must be horrendous to make.

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.

But women know those reasons we’ll before 24 weeks and generally act upon them. It is the very occasional one that is so late and so serious that it is allowed within the provisions of the 1990 Act.

Then there wouldn’t be a rise in post-24 week abortions, @CecilyP so why not extend it to term anyway? If you can terminate for a disability you can terminate for any reason whatsoever. In fact, why have to give a reason at all?

@gnilliwdog it isn't about a list of 'differences', it's about each individual woman being able to assess what she will be dealing with and what she can handle as a parent. I very much doubt that many people would abort for deafness and blindness. Autism - probably a higher number, given it's a range of severity and you don't know where your child will fall. As I said, I wouldn't have aborted. I've been lucky - my autistic child will be able to live independently (though they have physical disabilities too, as of recently).

@Wouldloveanother my youngest is definitely an art installation. They have many piercings, blue hair (to match the blue wheelchair) and writes very good poetry as a hobby whilst doing a marine biology degree.

It's not my choice ,is it as others say if you agree with pro choice ,then it has to be for whatever reason
Personally no I don't think I could have an abortion it unless the circumstances were extreme, but it's not my place to tell others what to do
I also don't think women should be pressured into abortion for disability,either ultimately whatever they decide it should be up to them.

Well, I agree, this is fair - if not unnecessary.

But it seems somewhat of a distraction when disability campaigners highlighted in the op are not proposing this at all.

Because if nobody’s going to do it, what is the point in changing the law? There still have to be reasons, both before and after 24 weeks, and 2 doctors have to agree.

Well no, D&E is also an option when it comes to late term abortion. It is not the case that the ’baby will come out’ in a way that mimics live birth.

I'm not sure giving birth to a decapitated baby would be any easier. It's quite a leap - and rather counter intuitive - to believe most women could believe they hadn't just given birth on the basis that the baby was delivered in parts.

We don't need to talk about forced birth. Birth is what naturally happens and there really is no meaningful way to avoid that. Doctors aren't there to make babies disappear, nor can they.

So much of this thread is horrifically disablist.

But it seems somewhat of a distraction when disability campaigners highlighted in the op are not proposing this at all.

I don't think it is a distraction. The appeal case that was recently heard was on the grounds that having different time limits constitutes unlawful indirect discrimination towards already born disabled people by implying their lives are worth less, and thus stigmatising them.

It's doubtful they will win because, even if the judge decides it does amount to indirect discrimination, this would still be lawful as a a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. But if they lose they will doubtless campaign for a change in the law through parliament.

Removing the time limit altogether would take away this argument, once and for all.

You mean ableist