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.

@GoingGently

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

It is what it is. I only brought it up because according to some people life only matters depending on conception.

Yeah my life was shit and I have more issues than you can throw a psych book at.

I have a lot of sympathy for my BM and I can't imagine what she went through. A kid of 16, starving herself to hide her pregnancy, all alone,too scared to go home or tell anyone, giving birth alone two days before Christmas. Because she didn't have choices. Ofc, everyone will be sympathetic, but no thought is given to hundreds of other reasons why girls or women might not want a baby or feel like they wouldn't cope with one. Forcing one woman/girl to carry a baby to term is just as wrong as forcing another. The circumstances of conception are irrelevant. The possible trauma (emotional,physical,mental,emotional) does not take into account conception.

Fuck that....

I feel very strongly about abortions and choice for women.

I personally think that prior to 24 weeks/viability of the baby as a separate being a woman should be able to terminate no matter the reason. At/after I think she should have the choice to expell the baby/foetus from her body and have the right to have nothing more to do with it, but I think that ending a being that could survive independently rests a bit uneasy with me, but that's just my personal opinion.

I also believe as early as possible, as late as necessary.

I used to believe that abortion was wrong the further on the pregnancy lasted but I have long since realised that the only person who has any say is the woman who is pregnant.

She makes the choice. Whatever that is I will support her. I may not agree with her reason why, but she'd never know that and I would support her.

For all women. For any reason.

Oh bless her, and I totally agree with freedom to choose.

My TFMR was, and continues to be, the worst experience of my life. But it's opened my eyes to just how crucial this choice is

But a baby born at 25 weeks can't live independently.

@hollyangel

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.

The reason is that you can't abort a living child, or a sick parent!

Yes the way that care and disability is dealt with in this country is disgraceful and far more needs to be done to support carers.

A foetus is not a person and is dependent on its mother's body for life. The mother has bodily autonomy so they are able to make decisions about their own body and that includes abortion. Once they are born, they are a person with their own rights and their mother's bodily autonomy doesn't affect them.

@hollyangel

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.

Because a foetus is not a legal person and does not have the same rights in law.

My twins’ disabilities were not known about until after they were born. It’s an entirely different scenario to finding out during pregnancy.

Why can’t people campaign for actual support for disabled people and their carers? Perhaps then some women would choose to continue with their pregnancy knowing that they would be supported. Forcing them into an unbearable situation with prior knowledge is cruelty, to them and their child.

We have an appalling issue in society, if being mum to a child with significant disabilities is seen as/is a devastating life sentence.

I understand, but that is the issue imo.

@GoingGently yep, I agree

@Pissh

I personally think that prior to 24 weeks/viability of the baby as a separate being a woman should be able to terminate no matter the reason. At/after I think she should have the choice to expell the baby/foetus from her body and have the right to have nothing more to do with it, but I think that ending a being that could survive independently rests a bit uneasy with me, but that's just my personal opinion.

So then who do you think would care for a severely disabled 24 week old baby for the rest of its life?

Do you think there are queues of people waiting to adopt such babies?

@LangClegsInSpace "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."

I think I agree, however I'd really struggle to explain to Heidi that her condition allows a pregnancy to be terminated at any point. I think when we say people with DS can be severely disabled, we have to admit they may also have relatively mild disabilities. Is the issue one of terminology?

@Twickytwo

There have been investigations that uncovered late abortions carried out for Cleft Palate www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1126893/ I believe totally in a woman's right to autonomy over her body but I am uncomfortable with a really late term abortion being carried out for an easily fixable disability *@IcedSpice*, what do you think about an otherwise healthy baby being aborted for a cleft palate. They do not show up on early scans

It winds me up no end when cleft palate is wheeled out as an example of a minor reason why a woman would choose to abort.

You may not be aware of this but cleft palate can indicate a very serious genetic condition. Not just downs, but there are also gene deletion syndromes. It's only very recently that a test can detect this condition in the womb, Children with this condition can have a very short life expectancy and those who are minimally affected and seem less affected will still require significant care.

[quote picklemewalnuts]@LangClegsInSpace "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."

I think I agree, however I'd really struggle to explain to Heidi that her condition allows a pregnancy to be terminated at any point. I think when we say people with DS can be severely disabled, we have to admit they may also have relatively mild disabilities. Is the issue one of terminology? [/quote]
But people tell people that were conceived by rape that it's ok to have been aborted all the time. It's one of the most acceptable exceptions.

The mental gymnastics must be exhausting.

Pregnancy and childbirth is risky for women.
Of course, late term abortions aren't without risk either, but I don't believe it is humane to expect women to continue through unwanted pregnancy, or undergo childbirth.

As early as possible and late as necessary.

As early as possible, as late as necessary. #TeamWoman

What happens to all those babies with complex needs, who have been borne of forced women? Are you going to insist the mothers keep them and care for them until adulthood? Otherwise what? Orphanages? Who is going to adopt them? Who pays for their care? Who provides the care?

You will either get back-street abortionists practising on women with pgs which are more complicated anyway because they're late term, or you're going to get a lot of abandoned babies.

Why would anyone argue for the relinquishing of a woman's autonomy, her right to choose what happens to her body?

*So then who do you think would care for a severely disabled 24 week old baby for the rest of its life?

Do you think there are queues of people waiting to adopt such babies?*

I’m aware of someone when looking to adopt did not want not a child with disabilities or significant trauma from early years (their right to choose of course)

But then also believes that it’s wrong to TFMR past 24 weeks, sharing the posts around Heidi’s case. The hypocrisy is astounding.

I do wonder how many of those saying it’s wrong to abort late term would actually step up and take on the care of these children themselves. Why aren’t more people adopting children with disabilities if they feel this strongly about the quality of life both parents and child can lead.

[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]
I've found your previous thread, your little girl is beautiful and I'm so glad she's doing well

I have been cautious about replying to your post because I cannot imagine how difficult it must have been for you and your daughter, and your whole family, to have gone through so much medical trauma and uncertainty.

This needs challenging though because it makes no sense and we are discussing rights which apply beyond your family. You say:

'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.

I agree, there is a huge difference but it's not always clear cut and whatever the circumstances it makes no difference at all to the unborn child. There are many people walking around today, children and adults, who were conceived through rape. They have personhood and human rights, the same as everyone else.

If this is about the rights of the unborn child then it doesn't make sense to say that foetuses conceived through rape should have fewer rights than foetuses conceived through consensual sex.

This argument only makes sense if you view pregnancy, birth and motherhood as a fitting punishment for women who enjoyed sex. The rights of the unborn child are a very long way off at this point.

This is a quote from an article on the case:

Aidan was diagnosed with Down’s syndrome at 35 weeks’ gestation in 2019 and his mother was repeatedly offered an abortion. “The pressure she was put under, the lack of support offered to her, the guilt she was made to feel for not having undergone screening, the impression conveyed that by going ahead with the pregnancy she would be going against medical advice, the negativity about DS and the fear engendered about having a child with DS all conveyed the message to her that a life with DS was of no value,” said Coppel

Women are not only 'allowed' to abort their late-gestation babies, they are being pressured into it. This is terrible.

Why can’t people campaign for actual support for disabled people and their carers? Perhaps then some women would choose to continue with their pregnancy knowing that they would be supported. Forcing them into an unbearable situation with prior knowledge is cruelty, to them and their child

A very good point.

@Jux

As early as possible, as late as necessary. #TeamWoman

What happens to all those babies with complex needs, who have been borne of forced women? Are you going to insist the mothers keep them and care for them until adulthood? Otherwise what? Orphanages? Who is going to adopt them? Who pays for their care? Who provides the care?

You will either get back-street abortionists practising on women with pgs which are more complicated anyway because they're late term, or you're going to get a lot of abandoned babies.

Why would anyone argue for the relinquishing of a woman's autonomy, her right to choose what happens to her body?

Exactly, as someone who cares for a child with a severe disability I can tell you it takes a huge mental, emotional and financial toll. Would I have aborted if I'd known, probably not. But, I chose not to have more children because of the risk of having another child with the same condition. If I'd accidentally fallen pregnant I would have aborted because it would have impacted on my ability to properly care for my existing child. Sometimes pragmatic choices must be made. Limiting those choices only does further harm.

@SoftSheen

This is a quote from an article on the case:

Aidan was diagnosed with Down’s syndrome at 35 weeks’ gestation in 2019 and his mother was repeatedly offered an abortion. “The pressure she was put under, the lack of support offered to her, the guilt she was made to feel for not having undergone screening, the impression conveyed that by going ahead with the pregnancy she would be going against medical advice, the negativity about DS and the fear engendered about having a child with DS all conveyed the message to her that a life with DS was of no value,” said Coppel

Women are not only 'allowed' to abort their late-gestation babies, they are being pressured into it. This is terrible.

Yes this is awful and needs to stop. It’s not a reason to make TFMR over 24 weeks illegal though. The pressure would actually probably become far worse with very short time periods to make a decision. Women need to be supported so they can make fully informed decisions and then have their decisions respected.

I’ve seen many people comment they were asked 10-15 times after deciding to keep the baby if they were sure they didn’t want an abortion. It’s so, so wrong. Still not a reason to take the choice away from other women though.

[quote picklemewalnuts]@LangClegsInSpace "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."

I think I agree, however I'd really struggle to explain to Heidi that her condition allows a pregnancy to be terminated at any point. I think when we say people with DS can be severely disabled, we have to admit they may also have relatively mild disabilities. Is the issue one of terminology? [/quote]
They can be mildly affected, they can be extremely severely affected - one doesn’t know I’m advance.

I don’t understand why we would need to explain or justify anything to Heidi? It’s not her life, not her family, not her business.

And as for your previous comment, perhaps we need to address that having a severely disabled child is often a life sentence for mothers especially, not take away the options of those mothers and then offer no support because once these babies are born, no one seems to give any kind of a shit. Where are all the pro-birthers then? (It’s not pro-life when you only seem to care about them being born, it’s pro-birth).

I work in a medical/ social care hybrid field and I know that supposed non-lethal disabilities can be on such a wide spectrum. Downs can be lethal, but usually isn't and you may not know until after birth. I'm also someone who has had to make this decision.

Non-lethal, a life filled with surgeries, long hospital stays, recoveries. Life in foster care or extreme poverty. Abandoned by their mother.

Who am I to say to say what another woman can cope with?

And decisions about pregnancy are not made in isolation of that pregnancy. They're made in relation to a whole family and the impact that a disabled child would have on that whole family.

#teamwoman as early as possible, as late as necessary.

The lack of social support for people with disabilities and their carers in the UK played a role in our decision. It is quite an individualistic, 'you made your bed and now lie in it' type of society.

We did our research. We talked to people working in adult and child social care, to teachers working with SEN kids, to medical workers. We read about women carers' lives (as it is usually the woman who gives up her work to care) on forums, including here on Mumsnet. The 'fights' for a non-existent school place, the difficulty of getting diagnoses, the waiting lists, the bullying and exclusion, etc. We were shocked by what we came across, and seeing the downward trend in things. Questions of 'How do we bolster our child's life quality?', soon became 'How on earth will we secure their basic safety and security?'.

We were scared that whenever we needed help, society would turn around at us and say, 'What, it is hard? You knew this was going to happen. You chose this life!'. If I had had the guarantee that I would have received every support I needed once baby was born, all possible assistance for a completely out-of-her-depth first time mum, things might have been different. Now, we felt completely and utterly overwhelmed.

@ObviousNameChage

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.

I believe every woman should have the choice, and it should be made without coercion. In every case.

I dont believe method of conception to be any more valid than any other reason.

We are all here on the mercy of circumstances, for whatever reason or greater power I don't know.