Disability/abortion debate in UK

[Bretontops]

www.itv.com/news/meridian/2022-11-04/teenager-with-downs-syndrome-meets-rishi-sunak-over-abortion-laws

This cause went to the High Court and was rejected, so why is Rishi meeting with her?

I’m getting irritated with this ‘pressure group’ who basically want to ensure more babies with disabilities are born by stealth, by taking choice away from women. I’m also dubious about how many of these disabled people are truly advocating for themselves and how many have been ‘encouraged’ to do so by pro life parents.

In some cases the parents had the screening but slipped through the net - so they didn’t make an active decision to parent a disabled child, but now expect others to do so, to affirm their circumstances presumably?

Prepared to be told AIBU, but I feel we should be able to discuss it as it’s potentially our rights they want to restrict.

I am trying to word this post as sensitively as possible but apologise in advance if I upset anyone.

My experience of having a disabled person in the family is that the experience of having a disabled child can be completely different and infinitely harder than have a baby born without a disability. With something like DS it can represent a lifelong commitment to someone that will probably have some level of dependency on you their whole life even when you age and your own health and independence begins to fade. The reality is that a lot of adults with DS live with their parents for many years and many of those that don't still rely on their parents to offer support with lots of aspects of life. Even those that are considered to be the most independent still need lots of support m

Posted too soon.

Anyway, my point is that I can totally understand how someone that could cope with parenting a non disabled child, would not be able to cope with a disabled child. It is not a judgement of the child or suggesting that they are in any way less worthy, but it is about the parent's capacity to give the child what they need.

Although society seems tolerant and supportive , all too often there are massive holes in the care and support that the state system can offer and it is parents left picking up the pieces. If a parent knows that they are unsuitable to take on such a role then I don't really see how restricting their access to abortion will benefit them or the unborn child. It is a scary world to be born into, especially if you're particularly vulnerable and don't have a parent who is in a position and has the desire to advocate and care for you.

@DayOfTheTentacle, @SnotRag22 and @Badger1970 thank you for sharing your stories. I'm so sorry for your loss

@SnotRag22 i am so, so, so sorry for both your losses, there are truly no words that can ever be enough. Please take care of yourself xxxx

"Abortions may be performed after 24 weeks in certain circumstances, for example, if the mother's life is at risk or the child would be born severely disabled. Abortions where gestation is 24 weeks or over account for a very small number of abortions (0.1% of the total). There were 276 such abortions in 2021"

www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-2021/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2021#:~:text=Abortions%20may%20be%20performed%20after,276%20such%20abortions%20in%202021.

Given the screening for Down's is at 12 weeks, 16 at the latest, and the cut off point for abortion for any reason is 24 weeks, there is really no need for abortion for Down's to be allowed right up to 40 weeks. It isn't about whether you keep the baby or not, there are 10 whole weeks between the results of the screening and the usual cut off point.
Extending the cut off by 16 weeks right up to well after many babies are born for conditions that are screened for well before 24 weeks is unnecessary clinically (because it can be done in a timely manner before 24 weeks) and therefore discriminatory.
For conditions only picked up at an anomaly scan at 20 weeks that then needs further tests you would want a bit more leeway say up to 28. But everyone I know (including myself) who has had something picked up at 20 weeks has had it investigated in time for the 24 week usual cut off.
For serious conditions picked up much later you would want some flexibility in the law at a doctor's discretion, but for conditions picked up early like Down's there is no need for there to be one law concerning disabled foetuses and another concerning (possibly) healthy.

They haven't yet lost their court case.

They originally made three claims: that the different time limit directly discriminates against disabled foetuses, that undue pressure to terminate is a breach of article 8 rights (private and family life), and that the different time limit indirectly discriminates against disabled people by implying their lives are worth less.

In the first judicial review they lost all three arguments but were given leave to appeal on their indirect discrimination claim. That appeal hearing was held in July and we are now awaiting judgment.

I expect they will fail again, not sure if they can go to ECtHR in that case. I think it might depend on the judge giving permission.

@gogoldsparklyChocolate

It would never be a choice just made by a GP to force an abortion or force someone to carry to term. It would always go through the courts given the seriousness of the decision and the person would be spoken with to assess their capacity. (There might be some room in this around if you have a power of attorney in place or are talking about someone not gillick competent but I don't know of any particular cases around this).

The mental capacity act is really clear that making choices for someone is the last resort and people need to be supported to make their own choices in every manageable way. Any capacity assessment is decision specific too so you couldn't say for example that because a person can't manage their own money that means they can't decide if they want to go skydiving.

People are also entitled to make unwise decisions (so I could decide to give away every penny and live on the streets, you might think I was stupid but unless I lacked capacity to decide that you can't take that choice off me).

I wonder if parents of disabled children (and those of very disabled children) are as vocal on the subject.

Have no doubt that it alters the family dynamic and not always positively. Some people cope well, others find it very difficult.

In most cases people will know if a foetus has a disability within the 24 weeks and can make an informed decision. If a condition is a danger to the mother or is incompatible with life a baby can be aborted to term.

We more or less have abortion on demand up to 24 weeks.

Do we actually need any changes to the law?

Abortion purely on the basis of not wanting a boy or girl is so wrong I can’t see there would be many cases like that surely as it’s about as shallow as you could get and I doubt there are that many women like that out there

In certain cultures there is a definite desire to abort girls. When I was pregnant with ds my local hospital had a policy of not telling you the sex of the baby at the 20 week scan, so it was obviously a problem.

I recently had a baby who, at his 20 week scan, was indicated to have soft markers for downs. We needed follow-up with foetal medicine who could not see us until 24 weeks due to case loads. Fortunately he did not have have any conditions but if we had discovered that to be the case I absolutely would have aborted. The thought that 24 weeks could be the absolute limit when the NHS is as stretched as it is and with no private medical cover available for such things is scary.

Just a look at the male:female birth ratios for various countries will tell you that something is going on.

I wouldn't be terribly surprised to find out that those who think it's abhorrent are actually in the minority.

We need to be careful of people from the US pushing the Overton window in the UK. At a point when there are challenges in the US, trying to make abortion rights a topic for debate in the UK isn't actually beneficial, especially when vocal 'campaigners/agitators' are trying to push limits that have been generally accepted.
Whether inadvertently or deliberately, what they are doing is creating space for a pushback by saying abortion is absolute (eg up till birth in all circumstances).
The bandying about of 'choice' is also a bit of a misnomer. If I tell you, you can order anything you want from a menu but actually there's only fish. I've given you the illusion of choice.
There's a deep-seated privilege inherent in presenting the illusion that choice is made independently in a vacuum - it closes down any conversations about coercion; about medical attitudes to disability; about how governments prioritise spending; about cultural and religious pressure (both pro and anti abortion); about workplace culture to pregnancy and mothers, etc. True 'choice' becomes a luxury of financially wealthy, independent, privileged, healthy women at the expense of vulnerable women.
As for abortions because of sex, they do happen. And until the underlying social and cultural issues are addressed, sex selection will continue to lead to a disproportionate number of girls being aborted.

100% agree with this.

@AnnesBrokenSlate I also very much agree with this. In countries with strict anti-abortion laws they are not better at supporting families of kids with disabilities. It does not come from a place of care for the child with disability, it comes from a place of control over women and motherhood.

Exactly!! Also, such countries usually have the death penalty. So they’re not concerned about preserving life, are they?

Forced birthers are using disabled people to push their misogynist agenda and it's disgraceful. If only they would spend more time listening to the voice of women instead of voices in their head "the voice of the unborn".

Rishi Sunak recently appointed a prominent pro-life MP, Maria Caulfield as Women's minister. Our right to abortion is under threat!

The debate isn't even named properly. It should be pro-woman or pro-foetus. Those are the sides. Personally abortion should be for any reason and at any time. I think that women that 'use it for contraception' need to be offered a more permanent form of contraception (ie implants or something of that nature) and the damage to their bodies be thoroughly explained if they are repeat aborters.

When I had mine, the nurse actually said to me that I might not ever be able to have children because I'd had an abortion. I think she must have been pro-foetus but it was not appropriate at that time to voice her thoughts and as it was after the fact, would not have made any difference anyway. This was back in the 90's but still wrong.

Disability is life long and parents are not. The provision for disabled people in the UK is woeful and also something that you have to consider when going ahead with the pregnancy. One of the people I care for is in their 70's and the siblings have spent their whole lives looking caring for them. Something they had no say in either.

Bringing emotive preferences in just damages women's rights imo and gives the pro-foetus's more ammunition to interfere with our lives.

Aborting because you don't like the sex of the baby is abhorrent.

It's a 50/50 chance.

Shouldn't get pregnant in the first place.

And yet the majority of abortions in the UK take place before 13wks, long before its possible to know the sex. Only 1% take place between 20wks and 24wks which is when most people find out the sex. This would suggest that only a very small number of abortions are due to to sex and, those that are, are taking place within the parameters of the law.

As I said upthread, you don't have to like someone's reasons for having an abortion (despite those reasons being none of your business) but they have a right under law to make a choice for themselves exactly as you have a right to make a choice for yourself.

I’m not aware of it being allowed anywhere. It was just in reply to the argument that if I’m pro-choice there shouldn’t be any conditions applied to this otherwise I am not pro-choice.

It’s difficult as the only time I would ever consider an abortion for myself is if the baby would be likely to suffer but I respect the choices of other women. However, since I’d never choose one for myself I do attach certain emotions to abortions (which I’d never share with anyone IRL) and thus would struggle with extension of the limit mentally but would also feel like I had to get behind it in order to protect the choices of other women. If that makes sense..?

You're assuming that all these tests work as planned. Things are often missed, unfortunately, as that's the nature of the tests. Sometimes things are picked up on growth scans later in the pregnancy. It is possible to not get a diagnosis of Down's until, say, 28 weeks.

It's a problem in India and China, due to issues embedded in cultures there. It's actually illegal in India. This demonstrates that the answer is not to legislate abortion, but to solve the cultural issues that force women into it (gender equality in India, disability support in the UK).

Women who do not want to be pregnant should be forced to be

Her body - her choice

her reasons are irrelevant

Think you missed out a “not” there ghost