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.

@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

Hi,

As someone who is currently pregnant with a baby which is suspected of having a cleft pallet- what your not taking in to account is often physical development issues are very often markers for many serious syndromes.

Unless you know the facts, it's not fair to judge anyone's decision.

It can't be an easy decision for anyone to make. But I strongly believe the decision should be theirs to make.

The notion of forcing a woman to carry a disabled baby to term end then walk away from it is utterly barbaric and straight out of the Irish catholic atrocity playbook. I am absolutely astounded (and raging) that anyone can think this is in any way kind of morally superior.

@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.

No. It's about understanding that there are worse things than dying.

Make it the same rule for all then, termination until term for all babies.

Well exactly ( I may have been unclear )

There is no someone else to take care of these babies and the rejection and institutionalisation of babies isn't exactly humane

So when people want to take away a woman right to abort , they are taking away that woman's future , her life for a child that society does not value , for a child who is unlikely to have the type of good life that a disabled child raised in a family that didn't choose abortion can have

Anyone who is saying no abortion , how many unwanted , disabled children are you prepared to raise in a living family environment

@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.

How many severely disabled children do you have? Or have you volunteered to take care off? It is about realising a severely disabled child's quality of life will be less, and sometimes the humane thing to do is terminate and save it a life of pain and suffering.

I also cannot get on board with abortions at any stage and not sure what "as late as necessary" means. It's not about necessary is it? It's about a woman having an unfettered right to decide.

I can't think of many situations where a woman couldn't make that decision earlier.

I feel like anyone who isn't fully pro choice he seen to be anti-women but I think we need to also take responsibility for the lives we are creating.

But I also don't think I agree that it's discrimination to allow a parent to abort on the grounds of disability.

I can see why the campaigners feel that aborting downs syndrome babies is discriminatory, given they are living happy and fulfilled lives.

Actually it is because some people with downs syndrome are living happy and fulfilled lives.

A syndrome is a series of medical conditions with several appearing in one person but where all conditions don't appear in any one individual.

Down's includes heart defects and weakened immune systems, there are all sorts of ethical issues in operating on someone's heart when they have DS, particularly transplants because of the anti rejection drugs.

Some people with DS have the functioning as a week old baby.

How many severely disabled children do you have? Or have you volunteered to take care off?
It is about realising a severely disabled child's quality of life will be less, and sometimes the humane thing to do is terminate and save it a life of pain and suffering.

Why then stop at the moment of birth? Why not infanticide too?

@BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz you said:

'The only reason a woman should need for an abortion is "I do not wish to continue this pregnancy." '

Presumably you mean at any stage of gestation?

And that it matters not what her reasons are for not wishing to continue the pregnancy?

Including (for example) that the baby is not the desired sex?

There are many cultures in which boys are preferred to girls. Presumably you want this kind of abortion access available globally?
And would have no problem with large numbers of female babies being aborted?
Even if it results in a skewed demographic male/female split in population (as is already the case in certain countries)?

Do you see no contradiction between the disproportionate aborting of female babies, and supporting female rights?

@ElderMillennial

I also cannot get on board with abortions at any stage and not sure what "as late as necessary" means. It's not about necessary is it? It's about a woman having an unfettered right to decide.

I can't think of many situations where a woman couldn't make that decision earlier.

I feel like anyone who isn't fully pro choice he seen to be anti-women but I think we need to also take responsibility for the lives we are creating.

Then you don't know much about antenatal testing. Some serious things might not be picked up until a late scan. Even if something is picked up at the 20 week scan - you might wait nearly a week for an amnio. You then wait two to three weeks for the result. Culture failure, so it needs to be repeated. Another three weeks. Wait for counselling appointments. Well over 24 weeks by this point!

And a lot of disabilities are not picked up until after birth or are caused by birth. Should those babies be left in a cold room to die too? Or euthanized? And who decides a child's life is not worth living? How severely disabled? And what is beong argued is not just termination for disabled children - it is the mother's right to chose up to birth for any child for any reason. As pp points out that include being a girl.

@ElderMillennial

I also cannot get on board with abortions at any stage and not sure what "as late as necessary" means. It's not about necessary is it? It's about a woman having an unfettered right to decide.

I can't think of many situations where a woman couldn't make that decision earlier.

I feel like anyone who isn't fully pro choice he seen to be anti-women but I think we need to also take responsibility for the lives we are creating.

I feel like anyone who isn't fully pro choice he seen to be anti-women because that's what it is.

How many women have to explain many times that some issues cant be tested for earlier?

Do you want me to spell it out for you?

InTheNightWeWillWish
I’m currently pregnant, my scan is 20+6. If the removal of this exception comes into play, that would mean I have 21 days, including weekends. 21 days to do follow up tests or scans, to talk with consultants and specialists, to process what they are saying to us, ask questions, talk and then make the decision whether we continue with the pregnancy or not.

azimuth299
As to why it's currently set up this way - because most people don't know that there is any issue until the 20 week scan, which often occurs at 22 weeks, then if an issue is picked up, further diagnostic testing may well be required and the mother will then need time to consider her decision. It's cruel to introduce an arbitrary deadline into this process.

Soontobe60
26 years ago I was pregnant. I had amnio at 18 weeks because my blood test results were spoiled and I had to have them re-done; they came back with a very high risk. It then took 4 weeks for my amnio results to come through so I was 22 week’s pregnant. Of course, I’d thought about what we’d do if the results were +ve, but could have had to face. Asking a decision on abortion within 2 weeks. That’s a terrible situation to be in.

ShootingStar94
Women who go through a late term abortion do not make the decision on a whim. They will have likely gone through weeks of stress, heartbreak, probably invasive, unpleasant tests in the mean time.

SinkGirl
The issue is that many anomalies can’t be detected until the anomaly scan (funny that) at 20 weeks. Should an anomaly be detected, you often then need appointments with foetal medicine which take time to arrange, and further tests, and then to make a decision, plan the abortion and have it.

Lunde
Not everyone is offered amnio as so many people find out about non-fatal disability at their 20 week scan - then testing results and specialist appointments can take several weeks. If it is a rare genetic condition you may need to travel to a specialist fetal medicine unit in London or other major city ... and then suddenly you are over 24 weeks ..

SinkGirl
Most of these anomalies aren’t detected until the 20 week scan. Most require further testing then time to decide then arrange an abortion if that’s your choice - that is why the law is as it is. And there are lots of women’s heartbreaking stories here about having to make that decision, so bloody read them before making offensive and ignore at comments.

anon12345678901
But it's not 5 months to decide is it as a lot of disabilities are picked up at the 5 month scan. Then further tests and consulting have to be done, so it isn't a case of 5 months later deciding they don't actually want a baby, it's when they find their baby isn't as healthy as expected and may have severe disabilities.

and if you still dont understand, then you're (i want to put things here that would get me a ban so i wont)

To a PP who asked about sex selective abortion. I absolutely disagree with this on every single level.

However I completely agree with the concept of bodily autonomy and if the woman no longer wishes to continue with that pregnancy then I support that choice. It is her choice to make. She is not making that choice in a vacuum, there may be many reasons why she has chosen it, I support her.

Dealing with sex selective abortions requires massive change culturally, socially, legally. There is the work of decades there.

As early as possible, as late as necessary

I am not arguing for the right to abortion for any reason at any time

I am arguing that later abortion is sometimes needed when factors that materially affect the ability of the mother to raise the child well are detected late

I’m not sure if the sex selection argument really stands. If a woman felt that strongly she wanted to abort based on sex then she can do it before 24 weeks anyway, she would just have to be convincing it’s not for that reason. And who am I to judge why she no longer wishes to continue her pregnancy.

And if the only options on the table are 1) no abortions for any reason after 24 weeks or 2) anyone can have an abortion for any reason after 24 weeks, I would go with the latter. Because I don’t believe a woman should be forced to continue a pregnancy against her will,
and I don’t believe UK law and culture will suddenly see an increase of sex selection abortions post 24-weeks if the legal limit is increased for all pregnancies.

@midgemagneto

I am not arguing for the right to abortion for any reason at any time

I am arguing that later abortion is sometimes needed when factors that materially affect the ability of the mother to raise the child well are detected late

I am not arguing for the right to abortion for any reason at any time

Then, what reason should a woman be forced to continue a pregnancy she doesnt want?

In my view, Its not about allowing a woman to terminate, its about not treating a woman like an incubator.

inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/women/dozens-of-british-women-are-being-denied-abortions-before-24-weeks-legal-limit-135075

I read something like this and think even our current abortion law is very outdated and denies women of their human rights on so many levels. What has happened to these women and children who have been denied abortions? Who is supporting them?

I also read during a study in the US, two women who were denied abortions then went on to die of maternal causes. How on earth is that acceptable in this day and age?

I would say you should be allowed an abortion for whatever reason up till a certain point. But in that case It should be a "blind" choice.

And that time restriction and blind choice can be removed for situations that materially affect the ability of the woman to raise the child

No I don't think that a woman should be allowed to abort a child at 39 weeks because they don't like the eye colour

I see this as an example of conflicting rights once the child is viable outside of the mothers body

@SinkGirl I have read them, and I don't think what I said was ignorant. If you read it, I said that longer abortion limits and added exceptions were sensible things. My main point was that the term 'Team Woman' is stupid, because it implies that people who (gasp) disagree with abortion at any time for any reason hate women.

@sashh

I can see why the campaigners feel that aborting downs syndrome babies is discriminatory, given they are living happy and fulfilled lives.

Actually it is because some people with downs syndrome are living happy and fulfilled lives.

A syndrome is a series of medical conditions with several appearing in one person but where all conditions don't appear in any one individual.

Down's includes heart defects and weakened immune systems, there are all sorts of ethical issues in operating on someone's heart when they have DS, particularly transplants because of the anti rejection drugs.

Some people with DS have the functioning as a week old baby.

How much do you actually know about Down's Sashh? Because I can tell you now that there are very few people with down's who have the 'functioning of a week old baby.' With early intervention and the right support, most people with Down's will achieve many developmental/life goals. It just takes them a bit longer, but they will get there in the end. It's ignorant, outdated views like this that people with down's have to face. Educate yourself before making sweeping statements.

@midgemagneto

I would say you should be allowed an abortion for whatever reason up till a certain point. But in that case It should be a "blind" choice.

And that time restriction and blind choice can be removed for situations that materially affect the ability of the woman to raise the child

No I don't think that a woman should be allowed to abort a child at 39 weeks because they don't like the eye colour

I see this as an example of conflicting rights once the child is viable outside of the mothers body

No I don't think that a woman should be allowed to abort a child at 39 weeks because they don't like the eye colour

I know you have put a trifling thing like eye colour as an example, but using that purely as an example, how many women do you think would terminate at 39 weeks because of eye colour (again, just using same example, not being arsey)

Then you don't know much about antenatal testing. Some serious things might not be picked up until a late scan. Even if something is picked up at the 20 week scan - you might wait nearly a week for an amnio. You then wait two to three weeks for the result. Culture failure, so it needs to be repeated. Another three weeks. Wait for counselling appointments. Well over 24 weeks by this point!

But I'm not talking about where a disability or problem is picked up. Some people PPs are for an abortion at any stage for any reason.

@ElderMillennial

Then you don't know much about antenatal testing. Some serious things might not be picked up until a late scan. Even if something is picked up at the 20 week scan - you might wait nearly a week for an amnio. You then wait two to three weeks for the result. Culture failure, so it needs to be repeated. Another three weeks. Wait for counselling appointments. Well over 24 weeks by this point!

But I'm not talking about where a disability or problem is picked up. Some people PPs are for an abortion at any stage for any reason.

Not any reason, the only valid reason, is the woman does not want to be pregnant any more