Late term abortion, high court

[Anycrispsleft]

I saw this on the BBC this morning - it's High Court review of the rules on late term abortions. The campaigners are seeking to remove the exception to the ban on post 24 week abortion that allows it in the case of "non-lethal" disabilities. The woman who is asking for the review wants the law to be changed on the grounds that it's discrimination against disabled people.

Apologies if this case has been covered before, I'm a newcomer to FWR having been radicalised by you people on Twitter. I just wanted to express this thought that occurred to me: the trans debate has shown me that whatever good-thinking progressives think, rights are sometimes like pie, in that giving one person more rights can mean less rights for someone else. And this is also like that, isn't it? There's a balancing of the rights of the foetus (not that a foetus has legal rights, at least not yet) and the rights of the mother. Until now I used to sort of shy away from this bit of the ethics of abortion. I am very strongly pro choice, but I always wanted to be able to justify that stance in a sort of objective way, considering the cases of the foetus and the mother as though I had no skin in the game. And I realised I can't actually do that, because I do have skin in the game, because I am a woman, I have two girls, and I want all of us to have control over our own bodies. It's not that I think I am objectively right. I want to win this. I don't care about the rights and wrongs from an academic point of view. I don't want my children to have to carry a child they don't want to term. Full stop. I'm sure others would be able to put this in a much more eloquent way but I feel like I've reached a new point in my feminism and I wanted to share it. I'm not neutral. I'm team woman.

For me the key issue at stake is this:
Recognising fetal personhood, in civil or criminal law, would be a significant curtailment of pregnant women’s liberty and would create incentives for vulnerable women to evade medical and social care, putting themselves (and their fetus) at risk"

Regardless of the emotion surrounding this issue, abortion is a medical need and the time period for medical abortion allows for the reality of diagnostics.

Having considered abortion myself (didn't go through with it ultimately) it was really quite difficult to find a provider. And that was before I had paid for private abnormalities tests which the NHS said I was too late for.

I can absolutely see why women have them later than ideally they would otherwise.

So for that reason I think the mantra as early as possible, as late as necessary has to be applied. I think the 24 week rule should be scrapped for everyone. I imagine it would be an absolutely tiny % who abort after this period.

If you don't want an abortion, great. But for many, the decision needs some time to consider and that's before you have what may be a longish wait for a slot.

@nocoolnamesleft - you don't want to judge, but tell us (many women, who have been in this position, who have commented on this thread) that it is 'physically nauseating' to you?

To be fair @somanyncs it's physically nauseating to me too, and I had to do it. That's just the reality of the misery of the situation I guess

@jlgsy94

The only exceptions where I think abortion is acceptable is if the unborn baby has a lethal condition (anencephaly for example) or is conceived through rape or incest. In any other scenario, I absolutely believe every baby deserve a chance at life. A baby doesn’t have a say in the circumstances in which it is conceived, that is entirely down to the two adults who chose to have sexual intercourse. Yes, even if contraception is used, there will be very rare occasions where that fails. However even so, contraception never will give 100% protection and the adults deciding to have sex should and hopefully would understand this. Essentially, if you’re mature enough to have sex, then you’re also mature enough to deal with the possible consequences or at least you should be.

As for having an abortion due to the unborn child having a non lethal disability - children aren’t some sort of thing being mass produced in some sort of factory where those with “defects” (HATE that word) should be thrown away and discarded. My youngest child was born with Myelomeningocele (severe spina bifida), Hydrocephalus, Hip Dysplasia and Talipes and she is perfect just the way she is! It never once occurred to me to have an abortion, she would be/continues to be showered with love just like her siblings and she is amazing. I’ve kept a thread going since I was pregnant with her so feel free to check it out.

I obviously can’t make decisions for other people, but this is a subject I feel very strongly about and it is just my personal opinion.

Why do you hate babies conceived by rape or incest?

I think you either think a foetus should have human rights or you dont.

Some of the stories on here are heartbreaking and absolutely show that the law needs to remain.

Here's my twopence worth.

I had a 11 month old baby. I had been seriously ill after their birth and was told I would be unlikely to conceive again. I was on a shit ton of medication to stabilise my post partum endocrine condition. I was in no way aware I was pregnant again, despite condom use, until hospital tests for my condition suggested it. I had continually lost weight, not resumed periods, and felt ill anyway. I was 22 weeks.

I'm not an idiot. I'm a professional and sensible person. But there I was, 22 weeks with a baby that could potentially by brainless, given my condition. We scrabbled around for the money for private tests. Finally had them at 4 days from 24 weeks. Slight spine malfunctions but a brain.

I am so thankful my baby was fine. However, they might easily not have been, and I would certainly have struggled to get tests quickly without cash.

There's a Woman behind every late term and they are all deserving of it if needed. I would not have hesitated a minute to have one if needed. And I wouldn't have felt guilty. The reality of care is not what you see in mainstream media. It is relentless and perpetual. In my own family i've seen it grind people to the floor. And those children too.

In conversations with my aunt, whose youngest Downs child, my loved cousin, recently died, we have covered this in depth. Although very loved and cherished, my cousin was mostly non verbal, frequently violent, often ill and in pain, and never able to live independently. Although we all have fond memories of them, my aunt acknowledged that it ended her career, the strain took her marriage, and without familual support she would have given up. We could say bye on a visit, she cared 24 hours. Although she got help she was entitled to, it was not enough. When I gave her respite afteroons or days, i'd need my dh or d sis with me and come home exhausted. If she had her time over, and had had the choice, she would have chosen her own life over the childs. As would I. I don't judge. And it's an absolute line in the sand for me. My body, my choice.

Yeah...a baby conceived by rape or incest has no say in its conception either...why is it ok to terminate that pregnancy but not others? Why don't those babies deserve a chance at life?

I am 100% team woman.

No one should have the right to decide that it is ‘too late’ or that a disability is ‘not severe enough’ to justify pregnancy termination. The only person who get to decide where to draw the line is the pregnant woman herself. We need to trust women to make the right decision for them, even if we wouldn’t make the same choice.

Can’t justify a termination for cleft palate? Then don’t have one, I probably wouldn’t either but I would defend the right of the pregnant woman to make that choice for herself. The thought of women forced to continue with pregnancies they don’t want makes me a hell of a lot more uncomfortable.

The only exceptions where I think abortion is acceptable is if the unborn baby has a lethal condition (anencephaly for example) or is conceived through rape or incest. In any other scenario, I absolutely believe every baby deserve a chance at life. A baby doesn’t have a say in the circumstances in which it is conceived, that is entirely down to the two adults who chose to have sexual intercourse. Yes, even if contraception is used, there will be very rare occasions where that fails. However even so, contraception never will give 100% protection and the adults deciding to have sex should and hopefully would understand this. Essentially, if you’re mature enough to have sex, then you’re also mature enough to deal with the possible consequences or at least you should be.

I think this comment is very telling. Either a foetus is a person @jlgsy94
with its own rights, or it isn't. Why on earth would it matter whether the mother had enjoyed the sexual encounter in which it was conceived? Or is this all about punishing women for having sex?

@Branleuse When ever did I say I hate those babies? Are you condoning the act of forcing a woman to have sexual intercourse against her will? Are you condoning the sick act of a parent having a child with their child, or their child having a child with them?

I think there is a clear cut difference between two non related parties having consensual sex who happen to get pregnant, but because it doesn’t suit them to have a child, choose to take that life away, versus one of those heinous acts.

@1940s

For those who are pro choice what about sex selection as a reason?

We were offered the option of aborting a child by sex as one option when we went through genetic counseling. However this was based on the fact that our dd's epilepsy is 100% passed from dad to daughters and 50/50 to sons.

It wasn't something I was prepared to do though as not something I think they offer unless severe disabilities are involved.

[quote jlgsy94]@Branleuse When ever did I say I hate those babies? Are you condoning the act of forcing a woman to have sexual intercourse against her will? Are you condoning the sick act of a parent having a child with their child, or their child having a child with them?

I think there is a clear cut difference between two non related parties having consensual sex who happen to get pregnant, but because it doesn’t suit them to have a child, choose to take that life away, versus one of those heinous acts.[/quote]
Because if you consider it taking a life ,then it's taking a life regardless of how that baby was conceived.

So either you believe that entirely, but adjust your thinking to be "socially acceptable ".

Or you don't and just use it to cast judgement and prejudice.

@GoingGently, fair enough. I just took issue with the 'physically nauseating'. I thought that insensitively phrased.

@azimuth299

It is not at all about punishing women for having sex. There is a clear difference; one is where it was consensual with the potential consequences understood by the involved parties. The other being impregnating a woman against her will, which if she had the baby, would be forced to forever live with having to look at her abuser through a child.

@jlgsy94 so, just to check, you're ok with killing a healthy baby because it hadn't been conceived in the right way, but you want to force mothers to birth babies that could live a shortened life of horrible pain?

And the parents don't get to choose this but you should decide for them?

@ObviousNameChage

I have explained why I have the opinion that I have. You have a different opinion. We could discuss this till the cows come home and still not agree.

[quote jlgsy94]@azimuth299

It is not at all about punishing women for having sex. There is a clear difference; one is where it was consensual with the potential consequences understood by the involved parties. The other being impregnating a woman against her will, which if she had the baby, would be forced to forever live with having to look at her abuser through a child.[/quote]
Is that worse than being forever forced to care for a child/adult that she would have spared from pain?

[quote jlgsy94]@azimuth299

It is not at all about punishing women for having sex. There is a clear difference; one is where it was consensual with the potential consequences understood by the involved parties. The other being impregnating a woman against her will, which if she had the baby, would be forced to forever live with having to look at her abuser through a child.[/quote]
I can see that it could be traumatic for a woman to have to raise a child conceived through rape. But it's also traumatic for a woman to have to live in poverty in poor accommodation with a child, eventually an adult, with 24 hour care needs and no break. How can you be so cruel as to say that she should have thought about that before she had sex?

If you believe that women should be able to abort in the case of rape you are telling us that you don't really believe that every foetus is a person with their own rights. And that the deciding factor to whether a woman can escape from her terrible situation should be whether or not she enjoyed her sexual encounter. That's awful.

@GoingGently

No of course I shouldn’t get to decide for other people, it is not my place and frankly none of my business. I stated what is my personal opinion, just like others have shared theirs. My personal opinion is exactly that, it is what I would choose to do/not do.

A disability doesn’t automatically equal pain or a shortened lifespan. Spina Bifida once upon a time did indeed mean a shortened lifespan but not resulting directly from SB itself, but rather through secondary complications (renal being the main thing). However, medicine has advanced so much and it is managed much better with complications happening less.

Again, all I have done is state my personal opinion. Whatever someone else decides to do is their choice entirely and again none of my business.

You are effectively blaming women for problems with the foetus along the lines of 'well it's your bed so you lie in it'. Disgusting

If I was paralysed in a car crash would you say i should have thought about that before I got in the car?

If you believe that women should be able to abort in the case of rape you are telling us that you don't really believe that every foetus is a person with their own rights. And that the deciding factor to whether a woman can escape from her terrible situation should be whether or not she enjoyed her sexual encounter. That's awful.

This. 100% this.

@GoingGently Actually no, it is saying that an unborn child, even if they have a disability, deserve a chance at life. With appropriate support, there is absolutely no reason why they shouldn’t be able to flourish and lead a fulfilling life. If you choose to interpret it differently that is entirely your prerogative. I’m not attacking you for not sharing the same opinion as me, so why are you?

As for your theoretical question, that is not quite the same thing now is it?

I'm another who had a late termination. I was 29 weeks along, but originally had planned with consultant to wait to 32 weeks. You see I was pregnant with twins- one wonderfully healthy girl and a little boy who after a 20 wk scan noted club feet and then many more scans over 4-6 more weeks detected further and further issues which were not strictly speaking fatal but significant and life limiting nonetheless.

In my case the doctors let us keep thinking- termination can cause early labour which is not what you want when there's also a healthy baby involved. So we kept on thinking till my son's condition put me at risk of early labour and I was told it was time to make a call on termination before I went into early labour and no longer had the choice. For many reasons we decided the better scenario for our family was to continue pregnancy with one healthy baby.

Fact is any woman who is considering a termination after 24 weeks is in a hellish and very nuanced situation. It is complicated and messy and we don't win no matter what the outcome. We are thinking about this and living with what happened and grieving our babies for the rest of our lives. It would have been so much worse if we were forced to make a fast decision as opposed to an informed one- or ended up with the procedure causing early labour resulting in my healthy baby being born before 24 weeks too. There's a reason why there's limited but valid reasons for termination beyond 24 weeks and we must absolutely fight to ensure they remain protected.

But children of rape do not?
Your beliefs are strikingly incoherent

Unless it is an unborn child conceived by rape?