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.

@picklemewalnuts

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.

It's not seen as that. The lack of support available makes it that. No appropriate child care, insufficient respite carers, lack of funding.

If I'd had a child with significant disabilities, I'd have had to give up my job, we'd have had to downsize the house, my eldest wouldn't be able to do after school activities. No play dates for him. I'd have had another mental breakdown, may have committed suicide (a stay in hospital and returning to work saved me last time) or I'd have abandoned my children.

I totally agree with you, Tenttalk. That's why I said 'Is seen as/is...'
The issue is the appalling isolation of carers and the dereliction of responsibility of society.

@picklemewalnuts

I totally agree with you, Tenttalk. That's why I said 'Is seen as/is...' The issue is the appalling isolation of carers and the dereliction of responsibility of society.

But there's never going to be a society where it's seen as acceptable for a mother to abandon a baby because of its disability.

[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]
No the issue is not one of terminology.

Loads of medical issues and syndromes that a child can be born with, including DS, can present as very mild or catastrophic or anything in between, and can come with a high risk of co-morbid conditions which also may or may not have a substantial impact on a child's viability and quality of life. The name of any particular condition should be neither here nor there when it comes to a woman's choice to continue or end her pregnancy. What's important is the prognosis which is often extremely uncertain.

The abortion act does not contain a list of named conditions that permit termination past 24 weeks. The part of the act that is being challenged in this case is:

that 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

(Dreadful language but it was written in 1967)

Nobody has to explain to Heidi that her condition allows a pregnancy to be terminated at any point because that is not what the law says.

The issue is women's bodily autonomy and our wider human rights which would be severely curtailed if foetuses were granted personhood and all the rights which go with that.

I am a midwife, I am pro woman and pro choice.

That doesn't mean I don't feel sadness for the loss of any baby, regardless of the circumstances.

As early as possible, as late as necessary.

To those who don't agree/wouldn't or didn't terminate - that's super. Isn't it great that you could CHOOSE. Why would you want to take another woman's choice away?

"As early as possible, as late as necessary." to me implies a necessity, while "woman's right to choose / bodily autonomy" implies no reason needed, and these two things don't seem to fit together.

If a woman is denied a termination & decides she is giving up her baby for adoption, she still has to give birth& care for the baby until they are moved to Foster care. I would imagine that disabled children aren't high on the wanted list for adoption. Termination should be as early as possible & as late as needed, I'm pro choice, women should be able to get an abortion whenever she needs to, as quickly as possible & get the support she needs to get through it & afterwards.

How late is 'as early as possibly, as late as necessary?'
The day before the due date ?

Until the baby enters the birth canal.

Have a look at Ireland, not just the horrific stories about abortion and/or birth but just general life of women and girls when the foetus has rights. Not even a foetus really, the ability to be pregnant.

Imagine taking your 14 year old for chemo and her having to have a pregnancy test each and every time, even if the treatment will leave her infertile.

Not being given the best drug for your condition because it is not compatible with pregnancy. One of my treatments for arthritis is not compatible with pregnancy but I was just told to be extra careful with contraception.

Ok, I don't understand this.

What does any of this have to do with a woman's body/bodily autonomy after 24 weeks, given:

• the physical process of ending the pregnancy is the same - surgery or vaginal birth.
• at 24w+ the fetus will have to be killed with an injection first. He or she doesn't just die because measures are taken to end the pregnancy - active measures need to be taken to prevent its survival, which have nothing to do with the bodily autonomy of the woman.

Whether the baby is born alive at 24+ weeks or dead, the pregnancy is ended. The woman is not forced to stay pregnant. She is not forced to give birth in a different way. The fetus is no longer a parasitic being and has no ongoing requirement if her involvement to survive. She is not forced to raise the child.

If the baby is alive she will most likely end up with that baby , to become responsible for it in every way

She will be "encouraged " to take the baby to full term as the life chances of a baby born at 24 weeks are very small

All that time the risk to her mental and physical health will be increased

@Somuchgoo

Ok, I don't understand this.

What does any of this have to do with a woman's body/bodily autonomy after 24 weeks, given:

• the physical process of ending the pregnancy is the same - surgery or vaginal birth.
• at 24w+ the fetus will have to be killed with an injection first. He or she doesn't just die because measures are taken to end the pregnancy - active measures need to be taken to prevent its survival, which have nothing to do with the bodily autonomy of the woman.

Whether the baby is born alive at 24+ weeks or dead, the pregnancy is ended. The woman is not forced to stay pregnant. She is not forced to give birth in a different way. The fetus is no longer a parasitic being and has no ongoing requirement if her involvement to survive. She is not forced to raise the child.

Because maybe they don't want their child to have a life of pain and suffering, depending on tue disability. Maybe they believe it to be kinder to terminate rather than a child have a painful existence. If I found out late about a disability which would mean a child had a lot of issues or pain, then I would probably have a late term abortion. I believe it to be kinder than allowing a child to endure pain.

If a woman is denied a termination & decides she is giving up her baby for adoption, she still has to give birth& care for the baby until they are moved to Foster care.

No she doesn't - she can walk out of hospital after having given birth (which she must do for a late abortion in anycase) and leave the baby behind. The chances are a disabled baby would need to stay in hospital for a while anyway.

*How late is 'as early as possibly, as late as necessary?'
The day before the due date ?

Until the baby enters the birth canal.*
I think that is horrific. I am pro choice but there should be limits. I also think it is infair to ask medical staff to assist on terminating a late term pregnancy unless there is a sound medical reason.

@Zerogravity The alternative is forcing a woman to continue with a pregnancy that isn’t wanted. We know what that was like before The Abortion act came into place. Really don’t think we should be going back to Back street abortions. Also as already mentioned on this thread, 0.1% of abortions occur after 24 weeks. It should always be the woman’s choice.

Then what happens to the baby/child for the rest of its life? Who is going to care for it?

Agree zerogravity. At that point it is not about stopping a pregnancy, it is about killing a baby as a mother doesn't want to have a baby.

[quote Tubbs99]@Zerogravity The alternative is forcing a woman to continue with a pregnancy that isn’t wanted. We know what that was like before The Abortion act came into place. Really don’t think we should be going back to Back street abortions. Also as already mentioned on this thread, 0.1% of abortions occur after 24 weeks. It should always be the woman’s choice.[/quote]
At term it is not about forcing the mother to continue pregnancy as if the pregnancy is bought to an end at that point the baby will be alive.

In that case if the baby is alive someone else can take charge

@Somuchgoo

Ok, I don't understand this.

What does any of this have to do with a woman's body/bodily autonomy after 24 weeks, given:

• the physical process of ending the pregnancy is the same - surgery or vaginal birth.
• at 24w+ the fetus will have to be killed with an injection first. He or she doesn't just die because measures are taken to end the pregnancy - active measures need to be taken to prevent its survival, which have nothing to do with the bodily autonomy of the woman.

Whether the baby is born alive at 24+ weeks or dead, the pregnancy is ended. The woman is not forced to stay pregnant. She is not forced to give birth in a different way. The fetus is no longer a parasitic being and has no ongoing requirement if her involvement to survive. She is not forced to raise the child.

So I can only presume you have a house full of adopted severely disabled children requiring 24/7 care?

It’s very easy to be so vociferous when it’s not something you personally have to deal with.

If a woman were compelled to give birth to a much-wanted severely disabled child whose entire life experience would be pain and suffering, they would obviously not feel they could just walk away knowing their life would likely be a succession of foster homes at best.

When DT2 was readmitted to hospital at about 9 weeks old, we ended up in the paeds HDU for nearly two weeks. There was a severely disabled girl there whose only occasional visits were from a social worker.

Nearly two years later we went back again - she was still there. She had never left as they couldn’t find anyone with the skills to care for her. We were in for a couple of days, no one came to visit her. It’s been a couple of years since we were last there, I think of her frequently.

@midgemagneto

In that case if the baby is alive someone else can take charge

“Someone else”? Which “someone else”?

@Tibtom

Agree zerogravity. At that point it is not about stopping a pregnancy, it is about killing a baby as a mother doesn't want to have a baby.

Are you honestly saying this on a thread where multiple women have shared their devastating experience of late stage TFMR?

If you knew these women in real life, would you say to their face that they went through this traumatic experience because they “didn’t want to have a baby”? Nobody is terminating after 24 weeks just because they don’t want a baby - that’s against the law.

@Zerogravity

*How late is 'as early as possibly, as late as necessary?' The day before the due date ?

Until the baby enters the birth canal.*
I think that is horrific. I am pro choice but there should be limits. I also think it is infair to ask medical staff to assist on terminating a late term pregnancy unless there is a sound medical reason.

Yes it is horrific. The poor women who have to make that call. Imagine how catastrophic their circumstances must be to be even considering it.

But the alternative may be subjecting an innocent child to a lifetime of pain and suffering, and that is also horrific, probably more so.

Given that 0.1% of abortions occur after 24 weeks, it is very unlikely that a women who carried to term would be having a termination, and you'd be hard pushed to find a doctor to perform it.

Just like women aren't forced into terminations, the doctors aren't forced to provide them.