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.

I think that once the baby reaches a viable age (ie about 24 weeks+), the rights of the mother need to be balanced against the rights of the baby. I don't think that late-stage (24 week+) abortions should be carried out unless the mother's health is in serious danger (or the baby isn't viable). I would argue that it isn't, in fact, 'necessary' in other cases.

I don't think that the rights of the baby should be prioritised over the rights of the woman, in cases where they are in serious and direct conflict. However, I do think that the life of an unborn baby (developed to the point of viability) has an intrinsic value that exists whether or not it is 'wanted'.

It cannot be right to invest huge efforts into keeping some 24 week old babies alive in NICU units, whilst aborting others, even if the numbers are very small.

You are not pro-choice, you are partially pro choice, but not enough
Why do you get to decide what is enough and what isn't?

I do not think it is right to abort for non-lethal disabilities past 24 weeks, which is currently considered the limit of viability. imo women do have the right to end a pregnancy whenever they want, but not to end the foetus's life once there is a chance of survival outside the womb.

It really annoys me that there is a school of feminist thought that allows no discussion on this topic. The only 'correct' way of thinking for many feminists is 'as early as etc.' and no different opinions are acceptable. I am a feminist and do not believe women have a right to end a foetus's life in all cases, and I object to other women telling me I cannot be a feminist because of this.

I don't think that the rights of the baby should be prioritised over the rights of the woman

By essentially forcing the woman to continue the pregnancy and deliver the baby, you are prioritising the baby.

That's fine if that is your opinion. But let's not pretend that your opinion does not prioritise the baby over the woman.

Where is the support for women who already have disabled children?

FelicityPike
Having seen babies in the NICU born at 24 weeks and thriving,
I’m pro-choice but I think there should be a limit.

I feel the same, also work in medical field. I’m comfortable with my opinion that I do not feel abortion should be legal for non fatel disability past 24 weeks, I’d rather it 20 weeks but obviously most issues are caught at 20 weeks can.

Who cares for these unwanted, medically complicated babies if the mother is forced to continue?
The problem is it takes time for the tests (amnio etc) to come back and some issues are not found until later in the pregnancy.

I do not think it is right to abort for non-lethal disabilities past 24 weeks, which is currently considered the limit of viability. imo women do have the right to end a pregnancy whenever they want, but not to end the foetus's life once there is a chance of survival outside the womb

Define non- lethal though.

Many women make the choice because non- lethal means a lifetime of pain and suffering, with disabilities so severe there is no real meaning to life. Spent in a hospital, with the collateral damage to parents and siblings.

If someone feels, for whatever reason, their child will not have an adequate quality of life, or they are not able to provide the care needed, better to end it as early as possible than leave a child suffering for years.

By essentially forcing the woman to continue the pregnancy and deliver the baby, you are prioritising the baby

Not in all cases. You’re prioritising life. If that child will not have a life beyond suffering and pain than imo a termination is prioritising the baby.

This isn’t about the right to abortion as such. It’s saying when all other babies have limit to which they are viable we extend same curtesy to babies with Downs. I think there is a difference between a genetic illness where baby will die before or shorty after birth and late term abortions. We don’t go to special baby care and say well all these babies who are born early with life changing disabilities so might as well turn off their machines. Once they are born we fight everything for them. It’s a horrible decision but when we have tests and information it’s a fair to say decide by 24 weeks.

To pick one particular disability after thousands of possible outcomes that by chance we know about pre birth against all those prem babies or starved at oxygen at birth disabilities like cerebral palsy. If I was adult with Downs I’d feel like I want change it to. My disabilities acquired in adulthood so lucky for me.

BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz

Yes, I do think that the life of the baby should be prioritised over the want of the woman, if (1) the baby is viable and (2) the woman's health isn't at serious risk.

If you decide at 40 weeks you can’t face it then you still have to deliver the baby so saying you “force” the women to give birth is strange argument.

A cousin of mine tried to get a late term abortion purely because it was a boy. No issues at all with the child but just because she wanted a girl (22+ weeks)

I have a son who was born at 24 weeks to the day......you'd never in a million years think it now. Having had him and watched countless others I cannot support abortion for non lethal reasons beyond 24 weeks.
It's an issue I struggle with but I cannot in my own mind put women's rights above those of their children - not every time. And I'm aware of the handmaiden like implications of my point of view....as I say I do struggle but Nevertheless I cannot be comfortable with it.

I think it would be a better use of their time and resources to campaign for extra support for women in this position plus specialist adoption services. Then women would feel like they really had a choice.

if someone feels thier child will not have adaquate care

This is the rub for me
The mother isn't just expected to give birth but to potentially give up the rest of her life to care for the child as society will not

@SoftSheen

BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz

Yes, I do think that the life of the baby should be prioritised over the want of the woman, if (1) the baby is viable and (2) the woman's health isn't at serious risk.

It's quite draconian though, surely, to then force the woman to become a breeding vessel.

"Sorry, woman, you cannot end this pregnancy. You must remain pregnant and deliver a living baby who you do not want, as the baby is now number one priority. All you are to us now is the vessel"

It all gets a bit Gilead if we force women to carry pregnancies against their will.

@Mama1980

I have a son who was born at 24 weeks to the day......you'd never in a million years think it now. Having had him and watched countless others I cannot support abortion for non lethal reasons beyond 24 weeks. It's an issue I struggle with but I cannot in my own mind put women's rights above those of their children - not every time. And I'm aware of the handmaiden like implications of my point of view....as I say I do struggle but Nevertheless I cannot be comfortable with it.

Legally the fetus has no rights until it is born. I think this is really important.

@User1357

FelicityPike Having seen babies in the NICU born at 24 weeks and thriving, I’m pro-choice but I think there should be a limit.

I feel the same, also work in medical field. I’m comfortable with my opinion that I do not feel abortion should be legal for non fatel disability past 24 weeks, I’d rather it 20 weeks but obviously most issues are caught at 20 weeks can.

The problem is that antenatal diagnoses don't fall nicely into "fatal" and "non fatal" groups. There are many diagnoses with awful outcomes, but are not fatal 100% of the time, or lead to an awful quality of life.

I’m uncomfortable with it but it’s not my choice to make, it’s the woman’s choice. Women should not be forced incubators.

As the mother to a severely disabled DD I am pro choice too. I think there is a massive moral dilemma here when you are told your child will be born disabled.

What about that child's life? Are they going to suffer all the time?

It's a delicate balance of individual rights but I firmly believe that in the case of this issue that we need to allow the process of abortion to happen as early as possible before we roll back the length of time we cap it at.

In my case we had a healthy baby in utero and it was only 4 months later the seizures started.

Having a choice is every woman's right.

@Thelnebriati

Where is the support for women who already have disabled children?

Not much. It’s expected a parent gives up work to care for the child as there is not much support to help keep parents in work. This nearly always falls on the women. I say this as a single parent carer who is trapped on universal credit due to lack of childcare for my disabled child. He does not even have complex needs but ‘reasonable adjustments’ don’t go far enough to support us and SEN/EHCP funding is limited to school only. My lack of work options has impacted my finances for life (pensions etc). Not sure what adult life will hold for us both. I probably would still have chosen to continue the pregnancy (not diagnosed until birth) but I absolutely totally and fully understand why many feel they can’t. Especially with even more complex health needs and disabilities. Just because a disability is non-lethal doesn’t mean it’s not a lifetime of significant challenges and hardship for the whole family.

If you don’t want an abortion don’t have one. It’s not compulsory if your baby is found to have non life threatening disabilities you can carry to term and have your baby.

The most dangerous thing about this case is that if it's successful it would give rights to foetuses. If a foetus has rights under the equality act, what other rights does it have?

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

If you do not agree with abortion or think it should be capped at X weeks, great. Dont get an abortion or have one early enough to fit in with whatever you feel morally comfortable with.

Rescticting abortion (when you know you wont ever have one/have one that late) just makes things worse for other women.

I'm sorry but I really struggle with some of the comments saying they support abortion right up to effectively the last moment. Ethically I can not get on board with that.
I also think the word 'necessary' is doing some heavy lifting there. Who defines what is necessary? This really isn't as simple ethically as some seem to be suggesting. Legally is of course another matter.