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.

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

Yes, for any reason, not just disability etc m

@ElderMillennial

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

Yes, for any reason, not just disability etc m

But at term that doesn't mean killing tbe baby. If a pregnancy was ended at term then the baby would be alive and healthy.

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

Then you’re not thinking very hard, and you certainly haven’t bothered to read the thread - I see someone has kindly collated the relevant comments for you.

Do you understand now?

0.1% of abortions occur after 24 weeks. They are only permitted in cases that would lead to severe disability. And in every one of those cases, those decisions couldn’t have been made earlier because that severe disability has to be established.

Do you understand how traumatic a post 24 week abortion is? Do you think anyone would actively choose to delay past 24 weeks if they could have done it sooner? Why would anyone do that? Nobody is having late term abortions for fun.

I often wonder if people making these comments have ever seen someone dying in agony. I watched my poor mother starve to death in agony for weeks, despite the fact that it was impossible for her to get better, as the law doesn’t allow for her to be euthanised humanely before she suffered that. Our law does allow us to prevent unborn babies from living lives filled with that kind of suffering. Thank goodness for that.

And those going on about sex selection, I can only assume you don’t have a child with a sex-specific genetic syndrome.

Sex selection late term abortion is always wheeled out as this awful thing that would happen often if you allowed anyone to abort past 24 weeks - why would it? NIPT can now establish sex in the first trimester allowing for early abortion (oh wait, the same campaigners want NIPT banned too).

Tibtom Wed 07-Jul-21 11:03:52
ElderMillennial

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

Yes, for any reason, not just disability etc m

But at term that doesn't mean killing tbe baby. If a pregnancy was ended at term then the baby would be alive and healthy.

and can you tell me how many women want to terminate a healthy pregnancy at term?? I'll wait, but I bet you the number is very low

@Rainy365

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.

I was about to say this. Right now, anyone can get an early blood test to definitively know the sex of the baby and get an early abortion if they are so inclined.... the sex selective late abortion argument is fear mongering and masking the real issue at hand.

The case at the moment is regarding Downs isn't it? The lady campaigning has extremely high functioning Downs so she can live independently and work etc. Plenty of people with the condition need a lot more care for life and support/funding from the state just isn't there. That fact seems to be ignored a bit. It must be horrible knowing people abort babies due to a disability you have but I doubt they make the decision lightly!

I don't think today it would be routine for people to abort late for trivialities

I still think that some safeguards are needed
For the viable child and the mothers health

I wouldn't want a woman pressured into late abortion of a child the father no longer wanted for example

I can't see the difference between murder of a child 1 day old and abortion of a child just prior to delivery

Yes it is discrimination to say that a severe disability affects when I think abortion is acceptable. Discrimination is sometimes acceptable

@Charlotte2020

The case at the moment is regarding Downs isn't it? The lady campaigning has extremely high functioning Downs so she can live independently and work etc. Plenty of people with the condition need a lot more care for life and support/funding from the state just isn't there. That fact seems to be ignored a bit. It must be horrible knowing people abort babies due to a disability you have but I doubt they make the decision lightly!

They are aiming for all non-lethal conditions to be illegal after 24 weeks but have told the court that a change for DS only would be sufficient. So far I’ve only seen from their tweets from court that DS and cleft pallete conditions are being used as evidence. (I know tweets give only a very tiny picture of what is happening in court and can also be selective).

I think language really matters in this discussion.

Nobody has a late termination because they do not want their baby.

People who do not want their baby have early terminations.

People who have late terminations want nothing more than to have their baby, but make the agonising choice to take away their baby's suffering.

It is not about what the mother 'wants'. Nobody 'wants' to end their baby's life and to take on that lifelong burden of pain.

To understand this is to understand that the notion of forcing them to deliver their very much wanted and very much loved babies is entirely inappropriate, unacceptable and inhumane on every level. These babies ARE wanted, and abandoning them to 'the system' is not an acceptable alternative.

For those of you who are mothers and have not had to face the utter horror of ending their child's life, I can only say you are in an incredibly lucky position and you have a naivety that we will never have again.

This could happen to absolutely any woman of child bearing age and you never know what you would choose until you are in that very unenviable position.

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)

---

Butting in: even if it's just one, it's the principle. If it never happens (supposedly), then what difference/harm does it do to only allow TMFR?

It's day 2 of the hearing, live tweeting from Heidi's twitter account:

mobile.twitter.com/HeidiCrowter95

Relief (what we are asking) Declaration of incompatibility with Articles 2 3 8 and 14

Declaration in relation to Down syndrome, that it ought not to be considered a serious handicap within section 1(1) d

Info here on the human rights act and what the different articles mean:

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights/human-rights-act

Declaration in regards to funding of abortions by the Secretary of State for Health, by funding abortions they are giving effect to the Abortion Act. We are not sure how the funding of abortion relates to the Act

Again, total strawmanning with an undertone of misogyny
Why are we discussing a theoretical woman aborting a child at 39 weeks because she doesn't like its eye colour. It's just ridiculous and would never happen.

We don't take the most extreme examples when setting legislation for anything else (e.g. You are a father! You can't own a car in case you randomly decide to run one of your children over because you don't like their haircolour!)
It's just stupid. Also very offensive to mothers on here who have had late TFMR

Trust women to know what's best for them and their families, in the same way you trust men.

There is also a vicious undertone towards distressed mothers of "we care more about your babies than you do" which is just so utterly, utterly, disgustingly offensive in the extreme.

@LangClegsInSpace

Declaration in regards to funding of abortions by the Secretary of State for Health, by funding abortions they are giving effect to the Abortion Act. We are not sure how the funding of abortion relates to the Act

I saw this, do you think is this suggesting / questioning the government shouldn’t be funding abortions?

The court is going to the defence QC now.

Yes, looks like it.

Defence:

We submit that the European Court says that the fetus is not a person under Article 2, we will not impose on states that a fetus has rights, it would be inappropriate to impose a moral code because there is no consensus.

but that individual states may consider that the fetus has rights

We submit that the fetus having rights is intensely problematic. The European court has not done so.

It would be an enormous effect for the court to take acknowledging that the fetus can have Article 2 rights

All the consequences social moral and legal, would mean that this is a matter for Parliament

This legislation is fundamental question about choices that confront pregnant women. There is not negative stereotyping of the disabled within this law. We are dealing with the reach of the criminalise law, and when it is right to criminalise the choice of pregnant women

As far as women are concerned their rights are in play. Section 1(1) d was designed to protect the rights of women. It says nothing about their views of disability generally.

relevant part of the Abortion Act here:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/87/section/1

There is nothing approaching a European consensus as to the relative importance of rights at stake

There is no European consensus on the best way of balancing those or weighing those. Other states permit abortion for abnormality without time limits. Either 18 or 16 of the 47 states.

There is not a European consensus against anything that is in our legislation.

The consensus position is significant because if there was a consensus against the postiion it indicates that societa values have moved to a position where individual state rights have been over ridden. This has not happened.

These are matters for Parliament in principle. For all of the reasons already dealt with especially that the European Court itself would afford a broad margin. This makes them inherently legislative.

It is so worrying that this is even up for debate, and on such a flimsy premise too

I find it horrific that what is actually traumatic and difficult, where abuse if the mother is possible , is being infantilised into an all or nothing position

It a very weak argument to say we don't need to protect against trivial late selective abortions because women are too special to allow that to happen.

If it would never happen there can be no problem with legislating against it

Of course the " mission creep" where late abortions are always disallowed and the definition of late gets pushed ever backwards is equally to be watched and avoided

Some very moving stories in this thread for all the women who have had to make heartbreaking decisions.

No disrespect to Heidi who obviously lives a happy life but I hope this case fails in it's purpose.