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.

@PurgatoryOfPotholes,

I think you are, again, not being precise. A woman would not lose her 'personhood' if forced to carry a foetus from 25 weeks to term. She would have 15 weeks (max) of discomfort and (very moderate) additional risk. That is not being 'reduced to a vessel'.

There are many situations where lots of people have to endure this type of loss of autonomy, including joining the army, for instance. You cannot leave whenever you like.

There is no argument (at least not from me, and from very few others) that a mother should not be allowed to terminate if her health is at meaningful risk from the continuation of pregnancy. So, your analogy about self defence is moot.

When 'personhood' begins is very germane to the debate. If you believe it starts at birth, then terminating a pregnancy at any point is a non event (except physically). If, however, you believe it starts earlier (as most do), it does become a conflict of rights with a degree of compromise required balancing the foetus's right to a chance of life vs the mother's bodily autonomy.

I suspect you will never see it like this, as the debate is so polarised. However, what I am saying is where the law stands, and it is regularly debated in parliament. Women, if anything, would prefer to lower the limit- lots of polling data to back this up.

[quote TheReluctantPhoenix]@PurgatoryOfPotholes,

I think you are, again, not being precise. A woman would not lose her 'personhood' if forced to carry a foetus from 25 weeks to term. She would have 15 weeks (max) of discomfort and (very moderate) additional risk. That is not being 'reduced to a vessel'.

There are many situations where lots of people have to endure this type of loss of autonomy, including joining the army, for instance. You cannot leave whenever you like.

There is no argument (at least not from me, and from very few others) that a mother should not be allowed to terminate if her health is at meaningful risk from the continuation of pregnancy. So, your analogy about self defence is moot.

When 'personhood' begins is very germane to the debate. If you believe it starts at birth, then terminating a pregnancy at any point is a non event (except physically). If, however, you believe it starts earlier (as most do), it does become a conflict of rights with a degree of compromise required balancing the foetus's right to a chance of life vs the mother's bodily autonomy.

I suspect you will never see it like this, as the debate is so polarised. However, what I am saying is where the law stands, and it is regularly debated in parliament. Women, if anything, would prefer to lower the limit- lots of polling data to back this up.[/quote]
Past 24 weeks, do you propose the woman should be forced to continue the pregnancy to term? Or should she be allowed to decide to deliver the baby alive and then hand it over to the State and walk away?

On a purely practical level, I think the law at the moment strikes the right balance. Allowing termination after 24 weeks for non-medical reasons doesn't really make sense to me as many medical staff would probably object for conscience reasons. It also wouldn't save the woman from having to go through labour and birth.

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

Nice try, but fuck off with that shit.

I trust women who want or need terminations to do the right thing at the right time for their own health and circumstances and we should provide them with every resource necessary to help them get the care they need.

Mental health conditions severe enough to cause a woman to kill her newborn are entirely different to terminations at any point, but yes, I hope if a woman is suffering mentally to the extent that she might harm her newborn child, she gets the help and support she needs to prevent a tragedy before it happens or recover from it afterwards.

How fucking awful do you have to be to compare these two entirely different situations and think you're scoring points though?

I can’t accept that terminations after 24 weeks are morally acceptable. For me, it is no different to killing a newborn- please explain how it is, @SnoopyLights. I’m open to changing perspective.

@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.

My daughter was viable at 23 weeks and did well in NICU. Lots of hospitals now help babies born from 22 weeks+

The 24 week limit needs to be removed. My daughter was just as much a baby as a newborn.

All abortion should be available as late as the woman wants it. Her body, her choice! It really is that simple

I’m open to changing perspective.

I don't believe you are, to be honest.

You've already said you can't accept terminations after 24 weeks so I won't waste my time other than to say that terminations after 24 weeks are more needed than wanted and, once again, I respect other women enough to make that choice for themselves based on their own health and circumstances and beyond that, it's not my business or yours why they are making that choice.

@Greenmarmalade

I can’t accept that terminations after 24 weeks are morally acceptable. For me, it is no different to killing a newborn- please explain how it is, *@SnoopyLights*. I’m open to changing perspective.

You don't have to accept it - no one is asking you to have one. What someone else wants to do is NOYB, so don't worry yourself.

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.

It's questionable that a lot of that will ever be detectable - Certainly autism.

Anyway, my daughter was a 23 weeker, my son is autistic and severely so, non verbal and high care needs.

Still, not my decision what any other woman chooses to do with her body. It isn't me carrying it, birthing it, nor raising it. So I stand by my usual phrase, as early as possible, as late as necessary (early as possible for the woman's benefit, not a fetus)

@Greenmarmalade

I can’t accept that terminations after 24 weeks are morally acceptable. For me, it is no different to killing a newborn- please explain how it is, *@SnoopyLights*. I’m open to changing perspective.

You can’t accept them at all? Under any circumstances?

@PurgatoryOfPotholes

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.

Are you actually a Fifth columnist for a "pro- life" group?

[quote GoingGently]@BrandineDelRoy none of your experiences are comparable to finding out during pregnancy that your child is going to live a life of suffering [/quote]
I'm curious how you know this about my experiences.

When 'personhood' begins is very germane to the debate. If you believe it starts at birth, then terminating a pregnancy at any point is a non event (except physically). If, however, you believe it starts earlier (as most do), it does become a conflict of rights with a degree of compromise required balancing the foetus's right to a chance of life vs the mother's bodily autonomy.

No, that doesn't follow. It's not necessary to ascribe personhood to a foetus in order to have laws which govern what happens to it.

The current law does not permit abortion past 24 weeks except in a few very specific circumstances AND the current law does not recognise foetuses as persons. Similarly, we have laws which govern what happens to embryos, and even eggs and sperm, in fertility clinics and research labs. That doesn't mean that embryos have personhood, or that gametes have some sort of semi-personhood. We have laws which govern how we treat animals without ascribing personhood to animals. etc. etc.

Personhood is a huge deal because if the law says you are a person then you have full human rights.

Theoretically there still should not be a conflict of rights between the woman and the foetus because there is no law that permits another person to use your body without your consent, even if they will otherwise die. E.g. you cannot be forced to donate blood or an organ to save someone else's life.

That's not what happens in practice though. As we have seen in NI and in some US states, when the foetus is regognised as a person its rights are treated as more important than the rights of the woman.

As Sally Rooney said, 'If the foetus is a person, it is a person with a vastly expanded set of legal rights, rights available to no other class of citizen: the foetus may make free, non-consensual use of another living person’s uterus and blood supply, and cause permanent, unwanted changes to another person’s body.'

www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v40/n10/sally-rooney/an-irish-problem

I can see why the campaigners feel that aborting downs syndrome babies is discriminatory, given they are living happy and fulfilled lives
I disagree strongly with this. DS is a spectrum and those who are at the severely disabled end of the spectrum are not living happy and fulfilled lives. The people with DS who you see in public are less severely disabled - you’re not seeing the people with DS who can’t walk, speak, use the toilet, participate in simple activities or even watch tv because they can’t follow a story.

I have a relative with severe DS who is unable to move or communicate and has spent most of the last 40 years sitting in a wheelchair staring blankly at the wall. It’s not an exaggeration to say that level of caring responsibility means the mother’s life is basically over. For that reason I fully support the mother’s right to choose termination.

It's relevant to remember that a foetus is potentially viable from 24 weeks in the context of a huge amount of medical intervention and support being provided, often for a very long time. Not all foetuses born at that age survive even with that huge amount of medical support.

It's also relevant to remember, as repeatedly said by pps, that while those with Downs who are referred to as examples of the successful healthy lives that may otherwise be lost, the other side of the picture, which is the experience of people who are severely to profoundly disabled with Downs is not being shown. This success and health is not the outcome for every baby born with Downs, and there is no way to know whether the family are preparing to raise a child with a significant disability, or a profound disability.

The family also are making decisions about: the impact on other children in the family, especially if they already have a child with additional needs. A friend of mine had to decide whether to continue a pregnancy when it was confirmed through testing that the foetus had the same disability as their older child, who was profoundly disabled. Parents will think about the ability of one of them to stop work and care for a child who will need intensive medical care, surgeries, therapies, appointments. Many families currently are finding one parent leaving work because EHCPs are heavily messed up and school placements don't always work, and one parent needs to be available full time to fight the appointments and tribunals and the reduced school time table or even to home school if they have to give up on the school system. These are major current issues. The benefits and income side is a huge issue. Parents considering whether they are able to commit to a child with a serious disability will be talking to these parents on forums and hearing about the realities of parenting a child with significant additional needs. The stability of the relationship, finances, not every family can do this on heart and hope however lovely an idea that may be.

Children born by forcing the mother against her will to carry it to term and deliver it to be.... presumably adopted? How is that going to work? Who is going to pick up the pieces of the mental health of the mother and whatever this does to any children she already has? What happens to these children who will need months of high level painful medical intervention without a parent with them, to then presumably go into the foster care system? Anyone thinking this actually looked at the number of children needing fostering compared to the number of foster families, and the hard fact that already county councils' budgets are on the edge trying to foster the children they have in the system, and children are already left too long in bad situations because the expense and the dearth of beds for the night for a child make it a last ditch option? Resorted to only when remaining in the situation they are in is even worse? Particularly in view of the awful outcomes for children in the looked after system?

Its all very nice and feelings centred, but as with much of this stuff the grown up realities to be faced are much more complicated and the implications have to be very, very thoroughly considered. And that's not even touching on the basic right of a woman to decide what happens to her own body.

@Binjob118

I think the problem is that we as a society do not have an honest debate about abortion and it's ramifications. We could possibly end up in a society with virtually no people born with Downs Syndrome. This is a form of eugenics. What message does this send to disabled people? Many people become disabled later in life. What are we telling them by removing a whole section of people from society? It scares me and doesn't feel progressive in any way.

What exactly are the 'ramifications' of abortion? I don't feel that presenting births with a disability is 'eugenics' any more than I see preventing Covid or Whooping Cough or preventing any other disability or illness is. These tests/vaccines are there to prevent these births/diseases, to discourage them. The old comparing people becoming disabled in later life with knowingly bringing a disabled baby into the world is disingenuous and weak. We have these prenatal tests to prevent these things, to not encourage them. Down Syndrome and Spina Bifida is the number one reason I support exemptions in abortion limits.

@Branleuse

being able to survive outside the womb is no reason to refuse a termination of pregnancy, considering they dont actually give women the option to birth it at that point. Women with disabled children are overwhelmingly the ones who give up everything to meet that childs needs. Everything is a fight, and its often a lifelong fight, with care passed on to other family members after the parents death. It isnt ableist to decide before the child is even here that you cant commit to that. Every late term abortion that ive heard of has been a heartwrenching decision

This. It's also selfish for any siblings that are expected to take over the carer role when the parents pass and so give up their own lives, and that's even not considering the sacrifices siblings make growing up, the resentment, etc. If we can prevent it, we should.

@JoanOgden

I don't think this issue is for judges to decide - the implications are so enormous that it is for our elected representatives. Especially as the case appears to be trying to to strike down long-established primary legislation.

True, but I'd rather Judges who are independent and not beholden to party politics, political deals and agendas, to make those decisions.

Saddens me to see so many people discriminating against people with Downs. I worked with loads of adults with Downs - they all needed constant care so weren't at the most "able" end of the spectrum. Most had additional health needs (heart, dementia) and yet they led lives that were more fulfilling than plenty of "able-bodied" adults I know.

Any one of your kids could become disabled, or grow up with disabling conditions. The Downs syndrome adults I worked with were more happy and get more enjoyment out of life than adult friends I have with depression or ADHD.

Sure they won't ever join Mensa or compete in the the Olympics but they have occupational interests, friends, parties, outings, partners and in one case a kid.

In any case I don't see why it's okay to discriminate on this basis. We should fight for more money for social care, not just exterminate a group who most have little contact with and don't understand.

And if you're a parent of a child with Downs, I'd like you to know that care staff I worked with bent over backwards to make a good environment for the people they worked for even though it was often to the detriment of their own health or family. They'd go the extra mile putting their own family life second in order to make sure the people they cared for were getting what they needed.

Of course a care situation can never replace parental care but it can provide different experiences (friends, boyfriends, girlfriends, independence around maintaining your own house or job) and has different things to offer.

After having an abortion and 2 m/c's I believe that that the woman should fully have right to abortion within legal means, ie if mental/physical health is effected at a later term than the first trimester. However no abortion should not be allowed after 24 unless the foetus is inevitably going to die in utero or upon birth

@whatthejiggeries

I never had any doubts that if I had a foetus with downs i would terminate. You can't tell the extent of it in utero. You can perhaps force women to give birth when they don't want to by shortening the time scales but you can't force them to keep the baby. More early testing is needed for downs for earlier termination but that Sally whatshername was campaigning against that because it would reduce the amount of downs pregnancies. So in other words what's next - don't allow early testing and don't allow late abortion. Force women to have babies with downs and all the pressure that puts on everyone in their family? It's a woman's choice what to do completely

Exactly. Terminating is the most unselfish thing to do, family wise and society wise.

Not read the he whole thread sorry just the last page or so.

This is s topic that causes division obviously.

I understand why parents of children with various disabilities and people with various disabilities can feel this way. It feels personal. Like it's saying the people born with certain conditions have no worth.

That's not right though. It's not about the baby really, but the woman, the family. The realities of having a child with potentially serious disabilities. The capability to do that around time, money, the impact on the family, the emotional and psychological toll.

The child will not exist. That's the point of abortion. If you don't exist then what harm is being done to you? You don't know do you.

This sort of conversation always goes off to really late abortions. That are rare. And done in extreme circs. Women are not feckless idiots. The assumption that go around casually aborting really late in the day because they feel like it is misogyny.