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.

Yeah exactly pear

@Congressdingo I don’t think you have a full enough understanding of how genetic testing works.

My twins have had their genomes sequenced as part of a study. So far they haven’t been able to find any known genetic issues relating to their disabilities.

It’s not like other tests where you get a positive or negative result. The amount of information in the genome is absolutely huge and they can’t look at it and tell you yes there’s a problem or no there isn’t.

All they can do is run comparisons between the data and panels for known genetic issues. The number of known faults will increase but there isn’t always an underlying genetic cause anyway.

Also worth remembering that the same campaigners are opposed to non-invasive prenatal testing. It’s not late abortions they are opposed to - it’s aborting for reasons of disability full stop. This is just a way of challenging the law.

@CinderFuckingRe11a

As early as possible, as late as necessary.

#TeamWoman

Absolutely this.

I have had a stillbirth and a premature baby who died neonatally.

It's still none of my fucking business what other woman need to do for their own health and circumstances.

Pregnancy is not always easy, welcomed, or straight-forward. I almost died while pregnant. It's made me more certain than ever that what other women decide for themselves is not my business.

As the wonderful RBG said "If you impose restraints that impede her choice, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex." We don't get to pick and choose when another woman makes a reproductive choice that is right for her. Women are not clamouring for late terminations just for the fun of having one.

She also said "the emphasis must not be on the right to abortion, but on the right to privacy and reproductive control." Women must have the autonomy and agency to decided for themselves, and to be allowed to do so with dignity and privacy.

#TeamWoman

I always think, when someone challenges the current abortion law, that they are only considering what THEY want in THEIR circumstances, and that they don't consider what the circumstances of those women having a late abortion might be.

Off the top of my head, those women could be:

1. Not women at all, but girls. Just last month, newspapers carried a story about a girl aged just eleven giving birth. Had the pregnancy been spotted earlier, would those campaigners have said this child must continue that pregnancy?

1. Teenagers who are in denial that they're pregnant, hiding the signs from their families and wishing it away. These pregnancies may not come to light until the 24 weeks have passed.

1. Drug users whose chaotic lifestyle may have interfered with their contraception and their ability to recognise that they are pregnant.

1. Women with mental health issues which interfere with contraception and recognition of pregnancy.

1. Women living in an abusive environment who may not have been able to seek healthcare or communicate to HCPs that they don't want this pregnancy to continue.

1. There was a case in my town a few years back of a woman in a vegetative state who became pregnant because a care home worker was raping her. I can't remember how many weeks before it was spotted or if it was terminated, but those caring for her wouldn't really have been looking for it, would they?

So, none of those would have been in a position to access abortions as early as possible - so they MUST have access as late as necessary, and any measure that would impede these women (and girls) should never ever happen.

6. There was a case in my town a few years back of a woman in a vegetative state who became pregnant because a care home worker was raping her. I can't remember how many weeks before it was spotted or if it was terminated, but those caring for her wouldn't really have been looking for it, would they?

It was only spotted when the woman (who wasn't conscious) went into labour and then gave birth to the baby. The baby is with her family. It's one of the worst stories I have ever heard.

@SinkGirl

Also worth remembering that the same campaigners are opposed to non-invasive prenatal testing. It’s not late abortions they are opposed to - it’s aborting for reasons of disability full stop. This is just a way of challenging the law.

Very good point.

@onlyreadingneverposting8

Where does it end though? Very soon we will be able to dx potential disorder before birth. If you knew your child would have leukaemia would you abort? If you knew they'd develop schizophrenia would you abort? I have a son who has developed a severe and life altering I get autoimmune condition (not diabetes) age 17 I have another 3 who have autism - one who will probably never be able to live independently.

My DD has autism luckily she is high functioning enough she should be able to live independently. However many even high functioning autistic people do not. If my daughter's choose to have an abortion rather than roll the dice if their autistic child would be able to function in society then I would support them 100%

It is a tough ethic dilemma. I was dead set on an amnio (was an old mother, screening results were hmmmm) but when the date came I did not go, I was in full „protection mode“. All things considered, I believe this should be the woman‘s decision, after all it is she, who will ‚carry the burden‘ of care. It is not even like one can give the child in some caring facility and be sure that the child is in good hands - there is so much risk of abuse and neglect.
I have no patience for all those ‚protectors of life‘ who don’t give a shit once the child is born.

Good point @deepwatersolo

I don't see much of a difference between aborting a baby a week before its due date, vs a week after it was born, yet neonaticide and infanticide are considered barbaric, although both still happen now, more often to female babies. And it's what many animals do, for various reasons, in the absence of abortion, cats don't just kill their kittens, they eat them. I don't think any mother would do that lightly, what an awful position to be in.

The problem with "as late as necessary" is, there has to be a cut off somewhere. I think it should be 24 weeks, except in extreme cases, (such as the mothers life being at risk), as that's when the nerve system develops enough to feel pain.

@PrincessNymeria

I don't see much of a difference between aborting a baby a week before its due date, vs a week after it was born, yet neonaticide and infanticide are considered barbaric, although both still happen now, more often to female babies. And it's what many animals do, for various reasons, in the absence of abortion, cats don't just kill their kittens, they eat them. I don't think any mother would do that lightly, what an awful position to be in.

The problem with "as late as necessary" is, there has to be a cut off somewhere. I think it should be 24 weeks, except in extreme cases, (such as the mothers life being at risk), as that's when the nerve system develops enough to feel pain.

As has been asked many times on this thread, and is yet to be answered, what do you propose happening to the baby once a mother who has already determined that she does not want to, or is unable to, care for the baby with significant health conditions? What happens when it's born? Who looks after it for the rest of its life?

what do you propose happening to the baby once a mother who has already determined that she does not want to, or is unable to, care for the baby with significant health conditions? What happens when it's born? Who looks after it for the rest of its life?
But surely this already happens? The baby is taken into care and then put up for adoption. It is possible (at least where I live) to give birth completely anonymously if you prefer and choose to do this.

Right, so we have a baby with significant health issues which requires constant care, and you think it's preferable to leave that baby/child/adolescent languishing in an underfunded, understaffed, often negligent care facility?

@PearPickingPorky

Right, so we have a baby with significant health issues which requires constant care, and you think it's preferable to leave that baby/child/adolescent languishing in an underfunded, understaffed, often negligent care facility?

Exactly! You notice that posters like these never offer to take in these babies, adopt or foster, or indeed to set up a trust fund to care for these babies for the rest of their lives. It’s all talk with them and they never put themselves in the other people’s shoes or offer real support.

'It's still none of my fucking business what other woman need to do for their own health and circumstances.'

This is a glib statement. Do you apply the same principle to a mother who kills their newborn for the sake of their MH?

In addition, in the case of abortion, taxes (on the whole) pay for it. What taxes are spent on is every single taxpayers benefit. I could (also glibly) argue that non taxpayers should have zero say in who is eligible to abortion, on the basis that it is not their money.

Finally, late term abortion has to be performed by someone. It is a highly stressful procedure for the doctors concerned. You could either make this a compulsory part of being a surgeon or ask people to opt in, in what case you may get no one (as happened in Canada, I believe, when very late term abortion was legalised on the basis of want, not disability).

This is a very complex argument that everyone in society has a stake in. My personal view is to keep the status quo; don't make abortions either harder or easier to come by, and keep the 24 week limit for viable healthy foetuses.

It is so easy for 'pro-life' campaigners to say that life begins at conception, and thus abortion is murder. Equally, however, it is easy to say that women should be able to abort any foetus at any point for any reason, as it is her body. Both these statements rely on disputed axioms: for most of us, life does not begin at birth. Equally, for most of us, life begins far earlier than the delivery date.

This is a glib statement. Do you apply the same principle to a mother who kills their newborn for the sake of their MH?
What kind of fuckery is this? No mothers kill their newborn for the sake of their mental health. A very tiny number of mothers kill their babies because they are mentally very ill. In the same way as a very tiny number of people go out and kill strangers because they are mentally ill. It's in no way relevant to a debate about abortion.

The taxpayer thing is also irrelevant. The whole point of tax is everyone pays for the common good, not you pay for what you need.

and you think it's preferable to leave that baby/child/adolescent languishing in an underfunded, understaffed, often negligent care facility?
Well I am not actually against late term abortion for serious health problems and did I specify that the care facilites should be understaffed and negligent? No, but don't let that spoil your outrage.

@QuentinBunbury,

It is a fine distinction between 'for the sake of their mental health' and because 'they are mentally very ill'...

The taxpayer thing is not irrelevant. The point is everyone pays for the common good and WE ALL decide what this common good is.

A reasoned argument, regardless of whether you strongly disagree with it is not 'fuckery'.

It is fuckery, because you are implying women kill babies just because they can.
Read the link I posted up thread about just who has late terminations.

Women who kill newborns are very rare, and very ill. They haven't made a choice at all.

You are being beyond offensive in your quest to prove a strawman.

It is so easy for 'pro-life' campaigners to say that life begins at conception, and thus abortion is murder. Equally, however, it is easy to say that women should be able to abort any foetus at any point for any reason, as it is her body. Both these statements rely on disputed axioms: for most of us, life does not begin at birth. Equally, for most of us, life begins far earlier than the delivery date.

Only one however offers choice,options and allows for personal views ,circumstances and feelings when those decisions are made.

@QuentinBunbury,

'Beyond being offensive'.

It is easy to play the man when your arguments are weak.

I have never implied that 'women' kill babies just because they can. Laws are constructed to deal with the rare cases of people who are not willing to stay within societal norms, not to deal with the law abiding vast majority.

It is easy to argue that most murderers are very ill; after all what sane person would take another human being's life?

The idea that no woman is feckless or heartless or makes random decisions is not realistic. Women are people, just like men, and consist of the best of us to the very worst of us.

The arguments to retain the current system are in agreement of what the vast majority of women want. In fact, women want more control of abortions than men. So, maybe not in this forum, but across womankind in the UK, you are the outlier in wanting the ability to terminate a baby up until birth purely based on a mother's opinion.

If you want the law to change (which it won't) your appeal will have to do better than ad hominem attacks and axioms which are not axioms to most women.

@ObviousNameChage,

'Only one however offers choice,options and allows for personal views ,circumstances and feelings when those decisions are made.'

Not to the foetus, it doesn't, which is why the assumptions matter. Most believe, regardless of current law, that the foetus is a person at some point before birth (at what point, exactly, is the hard argument).

And most would not allow a murder regardless of views, circumstances and feelings.

@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 unless medically recommended.

24 weeks is viable now. In the future, it will be a younger age. Do we move the abortion limit every time? (I don't necessarily disagree with you, just asking).

The issue is not when the fetus gains personhood. The issue is whether the woman should be deemed to lose her personhood at any point, and should be legally reduced to a vessel for the duration of the pregnancy.

Murder has been brought up. Murderers are people but I'm legally entitled to defend myself against one, and if the only way to save my life is to kill him, then the law is on my side.