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.

It would be a whole lot better if tests could be done sooner, if we know sooner we can make choices sooner, all of which is better for women and potential baby.

So you think the 20 week scan should be brought forward to appease people who don't like the idea of later abortions?

Tests can't be done sooner because the foetus has to at a certain point in size and development before it can be observed and measured.

Amnios and CVS can only be done after specific points. You can't expect tests to be reinvented to suit the warped morality of a few people

It would be a whole lot better if tests could be done sooner, if we know sooner we can make choices sooner, all of which is better for women and potential baby.

I agree. No one WANTS a late term abortion. Anyone who has an abortion for any reason wants it as early as possible (physically, mentally and medically possible). BUT we don't have those tests available. We may be able to tell a foetus has DS (as an example) at 8 or 10 weeks, but we can know if they have a heart condition, brain development issues etc (with or without DS) until much later on and whilst someone may be happy to continue a pregnancy with DS if they then find out their child has a severe heart condition later on and will face a life of operations and pain, they may make a different choice.

I wanted to express my appreciation and gratitude to the many women on this thread who've bravely shared their experiences.

@CinderFuckingRe11a

As early as possible, as late as necessary.

#TeamWoman

This and always this.

[quote TheReluctantPhoenix]@Congressdingo,

There are vanishingly few cases of infanticide. This does not mean it should not be illegal.

The bodily autonomy argument (for me) fails on two counts. There is the conflicting right of the near-term foetus. You can axiomatically make this zero, but the vast majority of the population disagree with you.

Also, this is not autonomy in the normal sense of the word. I do not have the autonomy to demand a (free) medical procedure on my body for any other reason.

There will always be those who say ‘as early as possible, as late as necessary’, but they are in the minority, especially among women.[/quote]

Agree wholeheartedly. TMFR is already allowed. I can't understand why we need to allow for other reasons- since it 'just doesn't happen'.

And the fact very late abortions are rare doesn't matter. Either you think it's ok or not, number of incidences doesn't affect whether it should be allowed or not

@sparechange

It would be a whole lot better if tests could be done sooner, if we know sooner we can make choices sooner, all of which is better for women and potential baby.

So you think the 20 week scan should be brought forward to appease people who don't like the idea of later abortions?

Tests can't be done sooner because the foetus has to at a certain point in size and development before it can be observed and measured.

Amnios and CVS can only be done after specific points. You can't expect tests to be reinvented to suit the warped morality of a few people

No I actually think that better tests should be devised. I think (may well have a brain fart now) that the first downs syndrome test was begun in 1989. I don't remember how it was screened for, but before that was there any test at all? Do things like this testing usually progress as better equipment and data comes available? Pretty sure it does.

Maybe if a test is made that discovers any of these, not just downs, at say 12 weeks, it gives much better provision to the mother to decide.
I have no issues with the current anomaly scan or the time they are done. But surely we can all ask for better.

Still even with all that said, I believe that it should be as early as possible and as late as necessary. Even if that means the day before term.

@Congressdingo

But it’s just not possible to accurately assess the development of 12 week fetus

This isn’t a failing of medicine, it’s just simply biological fact

A screening test such as Harmony can detect DS at 12 weeks but that doesn’t show whether it will be ‘just’ downs, or downs with a whole host of heart, bowel and brain problems

You can’t perform a CVS before 13 weeks quite simply because the placenta hasn’t developed before 13 weeks

You can't test fetal development until the foetus has developed 🙄

[quote Sparechange]@Congressdingo

But it’s just not possible to accurately assess the development of 12 week fetus

This isn’t a failing of medicine, it’s just simply biological fact

A screening test such as Harmony can detect DS at 12 weeks but that doesn’t show whether it will be ‘just’ downs, or downs with a whole host of heart, bowel and brain problems

You can’t perform a CVS before 13 weeks quite simply because the placenta hasn’t developed before 13 weeks [/quote]
Yes I already know that it's not yet possible. I am repeatedly saying it should be a work in progress.
Pre 1989 or whenever the first downs screening was, it wasnt possible to know. Now it been possible for 32 years. Things do progress, things get better, faster, easier.

It's also possible to discover catastrophic abnormalities for the first time at ANY stage of pregnancy, which is what the current law allows for

It’s a work in progress to make humans start growing placentas sooner than they’ve done for millennia for the sake of your new tests..?
Alright then…

@Sparechange

It’s a work in progress to make humans start growing placentas sooner than they’ve done for millennia for the sake of your new tests..? Alright then…

Are you always such hard work?

I read a few years ago of a study that mapped the babies DNA via the mothers blood. If that came to pass as an actual thing then the DNA can be looked at for everything.

I have no idea if its anywhere near viable as I'm not about to have any more children so I didnt delve any further.

@Congressdingo not all fetal abnormalities are due to genetic abnormalities. I have been in the position of having to consider tfmr twice, my first son has ventriculomegaly and an absent cavum seotum pellucidium. This is a developmental abnormalitit with no genetic cause. My second son had heterotaxy syndrome and vacter association, again this is not usually caused by genetics. We had a 20 000 gene array done on both of us and both boys, our genetics are completely normal, no chromosome abnormalities, no translocations, no de Novo mutations in either of the boys. Both boys had completely normal 12 week scans and abnormal 20 week scans. With my second son they kept finding new problems each week as he grew, we did not get a firm diagnosis until almost 26 weeks because testing and getting results back takes time.

I am of the 'as long as the foetus is inside the woman then she decides what happens to it' school of thought. It being 'disablist' IMO, is irrelevant. If a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy at 9 months then she can. And if she is disablist - as in if she has chosen this specifically because the baby has disabilities then so be it.
My own concern is for her and any trauma she may have going through it. That's where we need to put our resources.

@Alonelonelyloner

I am of the 'as long as the foetus is inside the woman then she decides what happens to it' school of thought. It being 'disablist' IMO, is irrelevant. If a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy at 9 months then she can. And if she is disablist - as in if she has chosen this specifically because the baby has disabilities then so be it. My own concern is for her and any trauma she may have going through it. That's where we need to put our resources.

Pregnancies are normally terminated at nine months so the question at that point is not whether the woman can terminate the pregnancy but whether the baby should be killed as part of this.

As early as possible, as late as necessary. [fllowers]

I don't quite understand the argument that something is not a womens' rights issue because 'the vast majority of women are against it'. The vast majority of women will not ever need a late term abortion so can't know how they will think and feel until they do. There is an AMA thread on here where a midwife explains why she is in favour of as late as necessary and it changed my opinion of this issue because I realised I am not all women.

Also, abortion is (free) (funded by tax?) because it is universal healthcare and the alternative is vulnerable women going other routes, which is essentially back abortion. Medical intervention provides the autonomy (by law) because without it abortion would still exist and happen just a lot more dangerously.

[quote TheReluctantPhoenix]@Congressdingo,

There are vanishingly few cases of infanticide. This does not mean it should not be illegal.

The bodily autonomy argument (for me) fails on two counts. There is the conflicting right of the near-term foetus. You can axiomatically make this zero, but the vast majority of the population disagree with you.

Also, this is not autonomy in the normal sense of the word. I do not have the autonomy to demand a (free) medical procedure on my body for any other reason.

There will always be those who say ‘as early as possible, as late as necessary’, but they are in the minority, especially among women.[/quote]
I haven't read the whole thread but this resonates with me.

I support the UK position, although they could do away with the 2 doctor rule - given the number of abortions carried out annually in the UK it's pretty much rubber- stamping.

24 weeks is one of the longest periods in the world. Most European countries are far shorter. Canada gets cited on here as being a wonderful example of there being no limits yet I've read articles saying that Canadian women wanting late abortions end up going to the US because doctors won't do it.

Abortion, as far as I'm concerned is a necessary evil and for that reason I would keep the UK law as it is.

However the glib "bodily autonomy" "forced birthers" "as late as possible" arguments leave me unconvinced. If I were not so firmly of the view that the UK law is correct and abortions are a necessary evil, such arguments could even be counterproductive

@Alonelonelyloner

I am of the 'as long as the foetus is inside the woman then she decides what happens to it' school of thought. It being 'disablist' IMO, is irrelevant. If a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy at 9 months then she can. And if she is disablist - as in if she has chosen this specifically because the baby has disabilities then so be it. My own concern is for her and any trauma she may have going through it. That's where we need to put our resources.

I've had an abortion and can't support this view. Can a woman schedule an abortion at 36 weeks? How would they kill the fetus?

I have several friends which child with “non lethal” disabilities. Their lives are a CONSTANT fight for help and support especially around respite and more importantly, adequate education. Battle after battle as the services we have are not up to scratch and are spread too thin, they are failed in every way. Perhaps more efforts should be put into improving these instead of spending energy over late term abortion laws.

I've had an abortion and can't support this view. Can a woman schedule an abortion at 36 weeks? How would they kill the fetus?

They give a lethal injection into his or her heart to kill him/her. That's needed from 20ish weeks to prevent the birth of a live baby.

It’s worth noting 94% of abortions were under 12 weeks gestation in 2020. Only 0.1 percent where performed 24+ weeks - I can’t fathom why people want to explore that incredibly small amount and take away woman’s rights while doing so.

@Planty13

It’s worth noting 94% of abortions were under 12 weeks gestation in 2020. Only 0.1 percent where performed 24+ weeks - I can’t fathom why people want to explore that incredibly small amount and take away woman’s rights while doing so.

I don't think there is any serious suggestion, this particular case set aside, to do so in the UK.

Abortion here is allowed for socio-economic reasons during the first twenty-four weeks of the pregnancy (the highest limit in the EU, together with the Netherlands), and beyond for medical reasons.

Obviously many, many countries don't adopt such an approach. However if one were trying to present an argument for extending abortion rights I really don't think the hard line "team women" "as late as necessary" (when necessary means nothing more than don't want to be pregnant) are particularly helpful.

@Congressdingo Of course it's a work in progress. Improvements are happening all the time - NIPT, for instance. However, genes are only the blueprint, and sometimes things go wrong during the actual building. And sometimes things that are really hard to see - especially in a tiny embryo / foetus that you can't reach - can have really catastrophic consequences.