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.

[quote jlgsy94]@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?[/quote]
But you could say exactly this about a child conceived through rape. So why is it different?

@CinderFuckingRe11a

As early as possible, as late as necessary.

#TeamWoman

This sums it up for me too.

@GoingGently

Surely it would also have implications for medical consent in children? Currently the parents make those choices, but if a foetus trumps the wishes of the parents, what of children?

No, I don't think that's a danger. Children have personhood and human rights but we have a well established framework of parental consent for medical treatment until a child is able to properly understand and consent on their own behalf.

The implications of granting foetuses personhood are well set out in that guardian article:

A woman was convicted of manslaughter because she got into a fight and was shot, she survived but her unborn child didn't.

Instead of being offered health interventions and support, pregnant women with drug or alcohol problems are convicted of chemical endangerment of their unborn children.

Women are closely monitored throughout pregnancy and drug tested without their knowledge. If they test positive for any substance they are reported to the police.

Theoretically, women could be prosecuted for perfectly legal activities such as drinking a glass of wine or playing sport.

Women who have a miscarriage or a stillbirth are placed under suspicion and if it can be shown that something they did contributed to the loss of the pregnancy they can be convicted of manslaughter.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/04/marshae-jones-alabama-fetal-rights-alarmed

It would mean unborn children could be made wards of court, with all that implies for the rights and freedom of the women in whose bodies they reside.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11648578/

Thats all before we get to abortion rights. That's why I keep saying this is a huge deal regardless of your views on abortion.

But obviously it would also have a massive impact on a woman's right to end a pregnancy at any stage. If a foetus is a person then it has protection under the HRA including Article 2 - right to life.

It would also allow men the right to advocate on behalf of their unborn child and to seek an injunction to prevent the mother from having an abortion.

www.womenslinkworldwide.org/en/gender-justice-observatory/court-rulings-database/paton-v-british-pregnancy-advisory-service-trustees-and-another-1978-qb-276

@jlgsy94 I am angry because people who share your incoherent views are attempting to get the law changed to undermine women's rights (and family rights) in a profound way that, if successful, would lead to immense suffering for many.

@azimuth299 Because a man would have forced themselves on a woman, it was non consensual. It would be beyond cruel to expect a woman to live with that.

@LangClegsInSpace that is absolutely chilling isn't it?

[quote jlgsy94]@azimuth299 Because a man would have forced themselves on a woman, it was non consensual. It would be beyond cruel to expect a woman to live with that.[/quote]
Why is it not beyond cruel to expect a woman to give up everything to be a 24 hour carer for a severely disabled child, then adult, when she desperately does not want that?

But it wouldn't be cruel to expect a woman to give birth to a child she know she can't look after properly , can't afford and doesn't want?

@GoingGently I am not trying to get any laws changed. I don’t go sharing my view with politicians or try an influence lawmakers so that the law is consistent with my opinion. Whatever someone else decides to do with their life and their body is their business alone.

@azimuth299 Again, I can’t decide for other people. It’s none of my business. Just stating personal opinion, as if I was talking about myself. My daughter is classed as severely disabled and needs significant support, but I wouldn’t change her for the world.

@whatthejiggeries

I never had any doubts that if I had a foetus with downs i would terminate. You can't tell the extent of it in utero. You can perhaps force women to give birth when they don't want to by shortening the time scales but you can't force them to keep the baby. More early testing is needed for downs for earlier termination but that Sally whatshername was campaigning against that because it would reduce the amount of downs pregnancies. So in other words what's next - don't allow early testing and don't allow late abortion. Force women to have babies with downs and all the pressure that puts on everyone in their family? It's a woman's choice what to do completely

The woman with Down Syndrome who is being presented as a figurehead for this case has previously been showcased in the 'don't screen me out' campaign which sought to ban NIPT.

www.christian.org.uk/news/young-woman-with-downs-syndrome-speaks-against-being-screened-out/

These are extremely complex ethical issues on which even the highest judges have no legal consensus. I mean no disrespect to Heidi when I say that I think that she is being horribly exploited.

[quote jlgsy94]@azimuth299 Again, I can’t decide for other people. It’s none of my business. Just stating personal opinion, as if I was talking about myself. My daughter is classed as severely disabled and needs significant support, but I wouldn’t change her for the world.[/quote]
No one is asking you to.
No one is asking any woman to abort a baby.

What is being asked is that women carry to term,give birth to and possibly raise children they don't want or possibly can't cope with.

Extending the timeline for everyone would harm no one and would solve the discrimination issue too.

@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.

is conceived through rape or incest

So you are not championing the baby here are you? The baby has no choice in how they are conceived.

You are punishing a woman for having sex..... Thats it - you cannot possibly be 'pro baby/life' if the conception method is a factor in how you decide whether a woman can or cannot terminate a pregnancy!

Your view makes me so cross, because it is the height of hypocrisy!

[quote jlgsy94]@azimuth299 Because a man would have forced themselves on a woman, it was non consensual. It would be beyond cruel to expect a woman to live with that.[/quote]
so the method of conception is MORE IMPORTANT than the wee babys life????

It's their business. And yet....

It's one thing saying "I don't think I would do that but i support your right to" and entirely another saying termination should be illegal in xyz circumstances...

You keep talking about disability in very simple terms, and in quite a rosy way. Many of the stories I've heard from women who have TFMR about their babies' conditions and prognosis are absolutely horrific yet may not be deemed 'fatal'.

Whilst you may just be having a casual chat about your opinions, you are talking to women whose lives have been absolutely turned upside down. This stuff matters!!

The subhuman treatment of women in El Salvador is living proof of what happens when the ‘treat the fetus as a living person’ argument is taken to its logical conclusion

www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/mar/12/el-salvador-abortion-laws-on-trial-in-case-of-woman-jailed-after-miscarriage

[quote jlgsy94]@azimuth299 Again, I can’t decide for other people. It’s none of my business. Just stating personal opinion, as if I was talking about myself. My daughter is classed as severely disabled and needs significant support, but I wouldn’t change her for the world.[/quote]
So your personal opinion is that if you had a nice time having sex then you deserve everything you get, your foetus is a person with its own rights and there isn't a limit to how much you should suffer in order to raise it. And if you didn't have a nice time having sex then your foetus doesn't have any rights and doesn't need a chance at life and you're within your rights to abort?

But also you're not punishing women for having sex?

So you are not championing the baby here are you? The baby has no choice in how they are conceived.

I'm a rape baby, alive only because abortion was illegal (for all) and abandoned in hospital.

But "taking a life" wouldn't count when it comes to me, because "reasons". I'm collateral damage I guess for people that use the "except" narrative to make their opinions more palatable.

Ironically, despite my background (or more accurately because of it) I'm fully pro choice, without caveats.

Oh gosh @ObviousNameChage that must be a hard thing to know

@GoingGently

I am really struggling to understand how controlling other people's choices makes life any better for people with Down's Syndrome.

'My family' is not 'your family'. Just because I might not want something for my child doesn't mean I think yours shouldn't be here... that is the beauty of choice. We all get to make them.

I don't get this desire to control other people at all...

So true. It seems that people like Sally Phillips want/need some sort of validation for choosing not to abort their foetuses with DS. How making life harder for another woman facing that difficult choice, is supposed to validate their decision, is beyond me. As you said your family is not their family.

[quote Sparechange]The subhuman treatment of women in El Salvador is living proof of what happens when the ‘treat the fetus as a living person’ argument is taken to its logical conclusion

www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/mar/12/el-salvador-abortion-laws-on-trial-in-case-of-woman-jailed-after-miscarriage[/quote]
This is just horrific. So upsetting. Even if the woman’s life is at risk or the woman has been raped, abortion is still not illegal. and imagine being jailed for having a miscarriage! Honestly I can’t comprehend how things like this still go on in this world.

100% pro choice- anything else is completely unethical. Pro-life means forced pregnancy/birth and zero support afterwards.

Why are so many trying to take away our rights???

I mean still not legal! (Not illegal)

@Tubbs99 yes, like i said upthread... the people TFMR for DS are not the ones judging. I've never met a more compassionate bunch of people in my life. Their target is a little off I think....

May I ask a question?

Some women on this thread have commented saying it is unfair of a women to have to support a child for life with severe disabilities etc, hence why as late-term abortions as wanted are necessary.

Why then is it ok for a women who has a child that develops those very illnesses at 2/3 months old to have to struggle for life with that very same child?

Surely the common denominator here
Is lack of funding/support/investment for carers, children with disabilities and not that one child should die if the mother so wishes before birth, but that if a disability occurs
at 2/3 months old, they will just have
to get on with these very same issues?

My point being, life hands some people awful situations all the time. An elderly parent who needs 24hr care. A partner who's suddenly disabled, also requiring care. A child becoming ill and requiring care. Why is it just in the unborn child that the option exists to end their life, when to all intents and purposes, all the other above scenarios are similar?

I promise I'm not trying to have an argument, it's just something that I have always really struggled with understanding.