To be glad that the Down Syndrome abortion appeal was defeated

[Fififafa]

A woman with DS has twice tried and failed to get the courts to outlaw abortion beyond 24 weeks for foetuses with DS. Under current legislation for England, Wales and Scotland, there is a 24-week time limit for abortion, unless "there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped", which includes Down's syndrome.
I read that she has is being supported by some religious group.

I’m glad that the appeal was lost. This is a personal decision that every woman has the choice and the right to make. What Heidi Crowter et al are doing, is fighting to remove that choice from women. AIBU?

Is HC also campaigning for better care and support for families of those with DS?

@LangClegsInSpace I remember discussing this issue with you on another thread and you were wonderfully balanced and informed then too. That NZ law looks very sensible, thanks for flagging.

The judgement around the case was interesting (fwiw I’m pleased it didn’t pass). as was the fact they didn’t find evidence that the law affected views on disability. Reading this thread as the parent with a child with DS is hard going - not because I think abortion laws should be changed (although the wording around handicap etc is a bit gross) but because I get to see what the world sees when they look at my child. Reading this thread it’s clear that many, many people still think people with DS are a burden and inflict pain and misery and divorce and joblessness on those around them. That in Scandinavia given half a chance no one would choose to have a child with DS (I think extrapolated from the very small number of children being born in DS in Iceland, a country with a tiny birth rate but not based in fact).

It matters because at some point my child will apply for a job and if this is the mainstream view of DS, it’ll be harder. It’s harder to convince a school that it’s worth having high expectations and to adjust to meet their needs, because of lazy assumptions that they’ll be “profoundly disabled”. It’s othering, annoying and with any other minority group would be considered micro aggressions at best and offensive and discriminatory at worst.

We need a seismic shift in how we view disability in this country, which would impact support levels and public perception. Changing abortion laws aren’t the way to go about that.

If it extends to no time limit on abortion for any pregnancy sure. That's the only way. But the reality is looking after a disabled child is harder than a non disabled child. Which is why the option to terminate at any time should be here.

No one is having an abortion at 40 weeks pregnant. That is not a thing that happens.

Too many people quoted me to reply back to everyone but just to be clear, when I said "surely there has to be a cut off point?" Up thread I was referring to healthy pregnancies not TFMR. The current UK laws align with how I feel on this topic. Sorry to everyone who has shared a heartbreaking story.x

Which is implying that a life with downs syndrome or autism is not worth living

@pinheadlarry it really, really doesn't. What the Dutch and Belgian euthanasia laws do is allow someone who has the capacity to take that decision (and this is assessed, not taken for granted) to choose to end their life if they are experiencing unbearable and interminable suffering, i.e. they are not going to get better. Autism in and of itself does not come into this category - but a person who has autism and develops terminal cancer (the vast majority of euthanasia cases are about cancer) has the choice to end their life with dignity if they so wish.

The same principle would apply to a person with DS who is high functioning enough to have capacity and who develops a terminal illness.

You really need to stop talking nonsense on this subject as you clearly know nothing.

The challenge here is who decides if it’s a healthy pregnancy? Lots of people with kids with DS would describe their kids as healthy. As genetic testing improves if we are able to test to see if a foetus is likely to get cancer in midlife, or have mental health challenges, or ASD are these pregnancies healthy ones? Lots of socioeconomic factors dramatically increase the risk of disease. Are pregnancies where we can factor this in healthy ones?

its not as binary as most people like to think, which is why it should be a decision between a woman and her doctor

@IncessantNameChanger and @Emotionalsupportviper Thank you both for your kind words.

In my understanding... : Someone has Down Syndrome or not.

However, how significant the impact on the person varies.

How severe or not their LD.

How severe or not the comorbidities.

@pinheadlarry - the logic you gave takes huge leaps to make that true. What you are claiming is that potentially, someone could. But in the case of euthanasia that would be a persons own decision. That is totally different from abortion.

Thanks for this Lang!

I find aborting up to full term is disgusting!
You can abort quite legally full term, but if you smothered that same baby the day it was born ,you would be murdering it, or infanticide, not sure of the term.
A totally aware being, albeit one with developmental delays, how is that ok?

Have you read through the thread?

It's really worth it when it's about such an emotive subject as people have shared painful stories of late term abortions so comments like yours are hugely damaging.

I would suggest reading through threads before posting so you don't come across as callous.

I've shared my experience a few pages back, and the experience of a friend upthread.

Term, or almost term TFMRs happen (in infinitesimally small numbers) because death and suffering is inevitable for their precious baby. They want for their experience of life and death to be a peaceful and painfree one. They happen because there is no good outcome. They happen from pure love.

This thread must be so painful for you @SnotRag22 and other posters who have had to make such difficult and heartbreaking decisions. I hope this judgement stays. As for posters on here who find you disgusting, well there are enough of us on here who find them disgusting.

@SnotRag22 thank you for sharing your story. So painful and moving, I honestly have no words to describe how brave you are.

Threads like this should come with a 'do not post unless and until you have read the full thread' warnings so that people like @Rubyupbeat have time to have some second thoughts about posting nonsense.

That's because its not a baby and therefore not a person until it is successfully born. If it was a person in utero this would have very serious implications on the mother. Could she be arrested for child neglect if she smoked, drank a alcoholic drink, took medication which wasn't specifically approved for use in pregnancy (so paracetamol only really) ate sushi. And when do we determine when fetus gets personhood. When sperm meets egg, when it gets a heartbeat, when it goes past 24 weeks? But then with medical science can we save 21/22/23 weekers so should the timeframe be earlier?

Ah ok, I didn't know the context behind this case. Yes they are a dangerous, hateful group and mustn't be given any leeway into British policy or law.

A quick look at the twitter site for Heidi shows massive support from the USA. Interestingly there is no negative comment at all. I assume it is all purged?

That's because its not a baby and therefore not a person until it is successfully born

Quite. And if it weee any other way, the implications would be monstrous. @Crazycatlady83 makes some excellent points. And even if you do ascribe the (in my view, wholly unjustified), “right to life” argument to a foetus, does that right to life involve the right to use someone else’s body? There’s no other situation in which that’s the case. If I need a blood transfusion and my DH refuses to give blood because he’d rather go down the pub, then we might think he was a bastard…..but there’s no law to force him to give it. If a person needs a liver transplant and the perfect match is a murderer on death Row? Still wouldn’t be any court in the land that would allow that without the full consent of both. Bodily autonomy is one of the most important rights we have. Any restrictions on abortion conflict with that and are a huge assault on the rights of women.

@WimpoleHat yes! Exactly!

What's incredibly frustrating with this situation is people's complete inability to see past the end of their noses! They might not agree with TFMR up until term but by actively supporting a ban, it has implications for other rights they may hold dear!

Because as sure as night follows day, they won't just stop if they get this law amendment. They will be after your reproductive rights and your bodies.

Yes she's a Mencap advocate.

You don’t speak for everyone STFU.

Hear hear!!

Women's bodies aren't just incubators.