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?

So we've had the abortion law in this country for 55yrs. With 0.1% of births after the 24 weeks ( and the majority closer to the 24 wks than 37wks) evidence showing that for half a century women have been making good decisions for themselves with the majority taking place before 10 weeks. The law is it stands seems fine. However if these evangelical groups are attempting to gain personhood for the foetus That is a huge concern. I could see this gaining traction as other groups then start to argue for other conditions. Whipping up more media coverage. Which does make me think possibly there should be consideration as other posters have said to allow termination right up to birth.

I interestingly was sent a shock/ hyperbole link to the "outrageous killing of babies" someone of allowing babies to be aborted right up to birth.

These nutters need to stay in their lane. H.C I see as a vulnerable victim being manipulated.

@twinklystar23 yeah it's been a bit of an own goal for the Christian right I'm afraid. If you'd asked me a week ago I'd have said I thought abortion law in this country was about right. Now because of this I've really thought it through properly, and realized that actually the law is discriminatory, and the only way to make it logically and legally coherent is either that abortion should be available to term, full stop. Alternatively, amend every law in existence to set out the parameters according to which people legally obliged to utilize their organs to support other (hypothetical or actual) people. I don't think the latter is going to happen, so...

@LangClegsInSpace that picture is very manipulative. Notice they don't use an aggressive male adult with DS, as it doesn't invoke the same response. Tbh i look at that picture and just think, you were perfect for your parents, who made the choice. Others don't want a child whose 'perfect' with DS, me included.

Iloveeveryykindofcat my concern with a campaign for termination up until birth is how it will be portrayed by the right wing media. However maybe it's time to be bold and to get the reasons clear, based on over 55yrs of women making their decisions themselves. Or they will continue chipping away at womens rights to bodily autonomy. Scary though, as the gutter press will love it. Making it a distraction from the ongoing shit show of the current government.

@twinkly We could just argue what the logical extension of denying abortion is. Mandatory kidney donation to those in need. I mean you don't need both. Men first in line to donate of course. They haven't even been donating womb time. They owe.

Well said.

There is also something physical that happens to change the status - birth. The foetus is expelled from the mother’s body and someone turns off its life-support system by cutting the umbilical cord. At that moment, the baby is an autonomous being, and os granted the laws and protections of a person.

Bingbangbongbosh - the point that birth is what changes the status. Also has a subtle underpinning that it is the womans body and labour that is giving the gift of life to the infant. Which might be consistent in respect of other concerns such as surrogacy/womb rental & delivery.
In a lighter note, your username really sums up the point nicely!

Sorry but did EVERYONE MISS THE PART ABOUT IF YOU FOUND OUT AFTER THAT POINT THEN YOUVSHOULD HAVE THE OPTION IF AGREED BY MEDICAL STAFF. As in their should be a cut off point for those who are already aware of a problem with their pregnancy but for those who find out after that point they should have an option.

iloveeverykindofcat for some it would be a logical extension. Just trying to anticipate gutter press headlines "but it's a babyeeee" what about trusting women who have been making their own decisions, with the support of fucking expert medical advice, FOR OVER HALF AFUCKING CENTURY @therefore it's not the fucking business of any other fucker.

Sorry for all the fucks but seriously pisses me off that we have to constantly have to look out for our rights.

What is your evidence for that please?

I have a lifetime (so 30 plus years) of experience in the disabled community (personal and professional) and I can tell you with authority that it is crammed full of empathetic, wise women who do not in any way fit your description. Because of their struggles many become real matriarch figures and are enormously supportive of other parents including those with non disabled children.

There's some right bullshit on this thread.

@RodiganReed but Maire and Heidi do want other women to keep pregnancies they do not want/feel they cannot sustain. They argue for 'equality'. but you can bet that if the law changed to allow abortion to term for all, Heidi's team especially would be up in arms about it.

I agree but what I'm saying is that in my experience they are outliers, PP asserted that there's a "lot" of unconscious crab mentality in the disabled parenting community. I want to know what her evidence is for that because in my 30 plus years of experience I can only think of one birth parent who might have sympathy for this case (and one set of Christian foster carers).

Heidi and her Mum's views will be more mainstream in the US disabled community, but they're certainly not mainstream here.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that this thread risks setting up a false binary between the feminist pro-choice lobby and parents of disabled children - when in reality most of us are on the same side and it's the litigants in this case and the Christian right who are the 'opposition' for want of a better word.

Or, alternately, you could just mind your own business and let women get on with making their own personal decisions.

wild concept, I know.

Maybe decriminalisation and a healthcare choice? Would be the way forward? Nothing that could be sensationalist/headline grabbing?

Need to watch any changes to the HRA. Or lobby to reinforce the right to a private and family life (MEDICAL) and correspondence?

Why are you shouting? And honestly, I'd get deleted if I said what I wanted to.

You're clearly not understanding. A "cut off if you already knew" wouldn't work.

Late term TFMRs happen because the child's only option is suffering and death. Saying "Oh well you knew what you were getting into, no TFMR for you" would cause untold suffering to mothers and their babies.

Read my earlier post.
c
Lat term mpassionate inductions happen because the baby won't survive.

You find it unpalatable, you cannot fathom the depths of grief and hell that it causes the parents.

*(I'm SnotRag22)

You mean, like a law saying that terminations are only legal after a certain gestation - maybe 24 weeks - in the event of there being a risk to the woman's health or a severe disability/medical condition? And because some conditions are not discovered or their severity realised until later in pregnancy, termination is legal up to the point at which a severe disability or medical condition can be discovered, assessed, the woman can make that decision or the medical facilities can be accessed for such a procedure during pregnancy?

Seems like quite a good idea, really. I wonder if anybody's ever thought of it before?

I do agree with this, but this thread also shows that a lot of people either don't know or don't want to know what the reality of TMFR is and therefore why the law needs to either stay the same or change to implement equality in the direction Heidi and her people don't want.

Being "aware of a problem" and getting absolute confirmation and a likely prognosis doesn't happen within a couple of days..you do know that right? It took 6 weeks for me to be told "there is a problem" at my 20 week scan to " I'm very sorry Tim but...." at 26 weeks. By which time the 24 week "limit" had been and gone.

Well virtually every single prominent DS parent has backed this campaign. Sarah Roberts, Maire Lea Wilson, Heidi’s mum, Claire Farrington, basically any parent with a platform that advocates for people with DS.

The other problem with a time limit limitation is it does not take into account a change in the woman’s circumstances.

Example - Mary is happily married with 2 children under 5, at her 20 wk scan she discovers that the foetus has a condition which, whilst not incompatible with life, will need high levels of care for the rest of his/her life. She talks with her husband and they agree to go ahead with the pregnancy.

Fast forward 4 weeks, Mary’s husband is involved in a car accident which leaves him with life changing injuries and unable to work. Mary is now faced with the prospect of caring for a disabled husband and 2 young children, as well as the new baby. With her husband losing his job they no longer have the income they anticipated and they feel they can no longer cope with the additional needs of a disabled child.

Should she be refused an abortion because she already knew about the baby’s condition?

Whilst these circumstances might be rare, they will happen to someone.

All I'm saying is if you know the diagnosis and decided to carry on with the pregnancy then you shouldn't be able to change that decision later unless the prognosis is more severe. I think if the baby would survive and have a chance at life then shouldn't they be allowed to live. Sometimes it's a case of the parent does not want a child with DS and that's not to say the child would not lead a happy life with another family. At the very least this should be offered in a separate facility. Think about it this way.. you have 3 women on a ward, one has aborted their baby due to the child's health condition or possible condition at 39 weeks gestation,another has just delivered their stillborn child at 37 weeks gestation whilst a woman has delivered a baby at 29 weeks who is fighting for life in nicu. All mums are on the same ward.

I am betting that anyone who thinks the abortion appeal should not have been defeated does not provide practical support for families who have severely disabled adult children particularly where there is challenging behaviour. In my experience they do not want to think about side of things and how awful the provision is from health and social care.

How is it OK to abort the 39 weeks gestation baby whilst trying to save the 29 week. That 29 week baby could also have severe complications and health conditions in life due to being premature. Their needs to be more clarity regarding criteria and what is considered a good quality of life.