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?

I wonder - if you are not prepared to look after a child NO MATTER WHAT - whether you should be having children at all. What happens if your perfect, normal child suddenly is not perfect or normal anymore?

Have you read the thread? The heartbreaking posts from mothers who have had terminations for medical reasons and they way they talk about doing it to save their child from pain, and taking on that pain themselves when they make that decision? How those decisions are made with nothing but love? And were absolutely nothing to do with "oh my baby isn't perfect, I don't want them."
I feel like you can't have read them, because to say that those women shouldn't be having children at all is appalling. You should go back and read the thread.

No you didn't🙄
If you have to lie to make a point, it is not a point worth making.

You are either lying or mistaken. the very earliest babies who survived in the UK were 22 weeks 5 days, and they made the Guinness book of records. They are just 1 year old now and both have plenty of problems so neither of them is likely to become a healthy teen.

Mmm, most people that terminate a fetus with Downes syndrome do so because they don't want a child with Downes syndrome, not to save their child from unbearable pain. And this is absolutely their right but let's not pretend it's some act of great personal sacrifice. That would be really offensive.

Agreed.

And you can disagree but have some sympathy for the poor woman who wanted this changed.

It’s like how girls are aborted purely for being girls. A lot of women hate that and would protest against it. However pro choice states that women should be able to abort girls because they don’t want them. And not I don’t like it either.

I'm sure this has been said but the thing about Downs is that it can be mosaic and a child can be very high functioning or they can be non verbal and poo smearing / wanking inappropriately and out of control ( I know this child ) so unless you have experienced this I don't actually think you have much right to say anything

I have a son with sn ( boy downs but there are a myriad of genetic conditions that are similar ) and had I know I would not have had him.

I love him dearly but he has affected all of our lives and badly affected my daughters ..

It's a very difficult life and he hasn't hit puberty yet ..

Everyone should have a choice ... always !

I was referencing specifically Down Syndrome babies, given that's what the OP referenced. Medically-indicated terminations where the child would absolutely be suffering are entirely different and of course should be allowed whenever necessary or desired - with as much compassion and care as you would with any family of gravely ill children.

My specific points referred to how we talk about disabled children as burdens, as less than, as not worth accommodating, and the society we have built to exclude them from the womb right through their lives. Many of these people can and do live full, beautiful lives despite the barriers abled society puts in their way - challenging, yes, but no less valuable and no less worth accommodating and loving than anyone else.

My disabled nephew (missing part of a chromosome) is as healthy as a horse and an absolute delight, but if DNA testing was routine I have no doubt people would be advocating for abortions and talking in reductive, burden-type language for him and those with his syndrome. It is such an obviously offensive inference to those who are actually in the disabled community.

So yes, I can see both sides of this. I can see why the DS community feels they are being targeted and erased, why it feels like eugenics is being practiced against them. This is not a black and white, binary issue. Others' heartbreaking situations with medically indicated abortions don't erase the problematic way we talk about and view disabled babies and disabled people. It doesn't make the complex issues around terminations of disabled but otherwise reasonably healthy babies go away.

@Skydaze every word of this. And ableism is a structural and feminist issue (as women tend to be the main caregivers who are impacted from lack of support and services), not the responsibility of individual women to right through their own pregnancy choices. We can support the right to choose while still acknowledging we live in a deeply ableist society, which DS too often is a focal point for, and that that’s a problem.

I agree that this is morally wrong... but do you really think forcing these women to birth baby girls they do not want would be any kind of better solution?

No, but I don’t think “I know someone who has a girl and she was a nightmare as a teenager” is much of an argument either, which how plenty of people try to debate on this thread. And we should be able to discuss whether or not it’s a problem without that being shut down with “if you say “I’m pro choice but” you’re not pro choice.”

If you want to stop people having sex selective abortions then you need to change the world where people value boys more than girls and eradicate structural sexism. It's a big ask. If you want to stop people having abortions because of Downs Syndrome, you need to change the world so that it provides full support for the parents - logistically and financially - and you need to developt excellent treatments for the things people with DS are vulnerable to. That includes a truly effective treatment for dementia, which the world would benefit from but which is particularly prevalent and early in onset in people with DS.

And even then, the mother should always have the choice of whether or not she wants to carry the pregnancy to term.

However pro choice states that women should be able to abort girls because they don’t want them. And not I don’t like it either.

No. Pro-Choice states that it is a women’s choice to terminate their pregnancies. That’s it. It’s no one’s business their personal reasons behind it. I’m not going to stop someone for doing what they think they need to do for themselves and/or their family. I’m not living their life. They have to live with their choices, I do not. Not my body, not my place, not my business.

However pro choice states that women should be able to abort girls because they don’t want them. And not I don’t like it either

Pro choice means women can end a pregnancy whenever and for whatever reason they choose. To impose restrictions on this for whatever reason to make it "nicer" is to remove choice.

Just because I wouldn't personally abort for reasons A B or C, but would for X Y or Z doesn't mean I get to impose that on anyone else. I'm pro choice. For all women. Who can then make their own choices.

@Hazel16th It can be with many defects, it's a syndrome. Some are non-verbal and in nappies forever. And none of them, no matter how mild they are, can live without some form of carer in their lives as an adult. Imo it is reason enough for abortion. It is a serious condition, and I could not knowingly bring a disabled child into the world. It's unfair and selfish imo.

You said: Obviously you can have an abortion if you can't be bothered to deal with a child. That's still wrong though.

How is it 'wrong' to have an abortion when you know you don't want to deal with it? In fact, that would be the right thing to do.

@Skydaze You say: But disability can happen at any stage for multiple reasons.

This is why that argument is so immature and flimsy. There is a big difference between selfishly knowingly bringing a disabled child into the world, and a disability happening later on in life. A big difference. We have these tests to try to stop DS births. That's why they exist. It is no more "eugenics" than medicine such as Polio vaccines are 'eugenics'. Medicine is about preventing disability, illness and disease. For me, DS is one of the only reasons I'd terminate because it's a profound and lifelong disability that will rely on government/society resources and has a wide range of health problems (hence the term 'syndrome') such as heart defects, lung, eyesight, intestinal problems, early onset dementia at age 40, etc etc.

"I wonder - if you are not prepared to look after a child NO MATTER WHAT - whether you should be having children at all"

One day I won't be able to look after my disabled no matter what because I will be dead.

@ItsShiela you’ve twice said having a child with DS is selfish. Can you explain what you mean? My child with DS has a great life, definitely doesn’t suffer, and enriches our family’s life. You think my child being alive is selfish but you can’t see why people find it a bit close to eugenics??

I think courts even entertaining any arguments on making the laws on abortion more strict, for any reason, is a step in the wrong direction. I don't want any wedge getting a foothold that might lead to making it more difficult for women to have abortions if they want or need them. The idea of that access being restricted genuinely frightens me.

@EightChalk you have only to look at what's happening in the US to realise you are right and we should not mess with abortion rights. A group of lawyers in South Carolina is pushing for the death penalty for women who have an abortion. And an extremist judge in Texas is facilitating a drive to have one of the components of the abortion pill made illegal, despite it having been proven safe and approved by the FDA for 20 years. We mess with this stuff at our peril, and we should all be vigilant against any movement to erode abortion rights here in the UK. This is something I will demonstrate for, get arrested for and go to jail for if needs be.

Huh. That’s quite a take. The idea that the very existence of disabled people is abhorrent is pretty extreme. I suppose at least you’re open about your ableism?

Your vision of society isn’t one I want to live in.

@Demigo I agree that @ItsShiela 's position is on the extreme side, and I wouldn't say it was selfish to continue a DS pregnancy, but I do wonder whether DS isn't romanticised by some of the people advocating for DS children. As someone who watched several family members go through life with dementia, I personally would not continue a DS pregnancy simply because of the massively increased risk of early onset dementia in DS. Of course if you are made fully aware of all the risks and possibilities and still choose to go ahead, that's fine - but not everyone who has DS is like Heidi Crowter.

The US is exactly what I was thinking of. Once anti-abortion ideas get a foothold as legitimate, who knows where it will end. I cannot imagine the fear that women of childbearing age in those states are living in.