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 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.'

Misogyny. Only someone who puts the foetus ahead of the women would describe pregnancy to term, childbirth etc in that way. 'discomfort'. Appalling word to use.

I have a disability from birth. It has meant lots of childhood surgery. Missing loads of school. Lots of pain.

It has fucked me up for life. It's really hard.

I have wished at points I'd never been born. That's an ok view and a fair one. I'd just not be here. Appealing at times.

When thev right to life of the foetus is considered equal to the life of the mother it can lead to awful things

Eg
Romania under Ceaușescu

Ireland a brain dead woman kept alive

USA loads of hosps are RC and women die because of a reluctance to end the pregnancy to save her life

Etc etc.

And last.

The quality of life of the child matters.

To force a woman to give birth to a child who will have a short painful life.

Who thinks that is ok?

A child who lives long and is in pain, in and out of hospital, operations, etc etc. A child who can't communicate and pain is all they know.

Again. An awful thing to do to the child and the family.

There is no compassion in that. The reverse. It's callous. Sadistic even.
Nope.

@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.

There are a few very specific cases.

The woman who was raped multiple times in a civil war and sought refuge in Ireland.

When she found out she couldn't terminate she tried to get to England, then she tried to kill herself, then she was hospitalised and started a hinger strike.

She eventually had a caesarean.

Can you imagine being forced to carry your rapists child?

www.amnesty.ie/ms-ys-case/

What about if the pregnancy is killing you? 1/1000 pregnancies result in the mother developing a cardiomyopathy.

A disability that means your child will have a short and painful life.

A woman requiring medical treatment that will induce abortion? Eg methotrexate.

@jlgsy94

The only exceptions where I think abortion is acceptable is if the unborn baby has a lethal condition (anencephaly for example) or is conceived through rape or incest. In any other scenario, I absolutely believe every baby deserve a chance at life. A baby doesn’t have a say in the circumstances in which it is conceived, that is entirely down to the two adults who chose to have sexual intercourse. Yes, even if contraception is used, there will be very rare occasions where that fails. However even so, contraception never will give 100% protection and the adults deciding to have sex should and hopefully would understand this. Essentially, if you’re mature enough to have sex, then you’re also mature enough to deal with the possible consequences or at least you should be.

As for having an abortion due to the unborn child having a non lethal disability - children aren’t some sort of thing being mass produced in some sort of factory where those with “defects” (HATE that word) should be thrown away and discarded. My youngest child was born with Myelomeningocele (severe spina bifida), Hydrocephalus, Hip Dysplasia and Talipes and she is perfect just the way she is! It never once occurred to me to have an abortion, she would be/continues to be showered with love just like her siblings and she is amazing. I’ve kept a thread going since I was pregnant with her so feel free to check it out.

I obviously can’t make decisions for other people, but this is a subject I feel very strongly about and it is just my personal opinion.

How do you justify abortion in the case of rape then? The baby hasn't committed any crime. As you stated, the baby has no say in the circumstances in which it is conceived. Why do these babies not deserve a chance at life, as all others do, in your opinion?

I feel this is just the anti-abortion movement using disabled people to further their aims. I find it interesting that Down syndrome is mentioned so frequently when it makes up such a small percentage of late term abortions. I can’t help but feel it’s because society, by and large, has a favorable perception of those living with it. There’s loads of infantalised statements about how they’re “such happy people” and have “so much love to give.”
I don’t see why we should give any weight to their feelings though as it’s not relevant. If we follow this logic through to its natural conclusion it would mean we should halt research into curing all non-fatal disabilities and end cochlear implants or anything of that nature. Wishing not to parent a disabled person is not advocating to perform genocide on disabled people.
I’d also like to add to those saying that they have seen tiny preemies “thriving” in the NICU that while I don’t doubt that’s the case they will have also seen a great many who have not. They don’t follow the family beyond the NICU journey and dont have to live their lives.

@Themeparklover

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

No abortion after 24 weeks unless the foetus will die in utero or upon birth?

So you think a woman carrying a foetus with a severe disability which will cause that baby's life to be full of pain, possibly dependent upon machines, should be forced to continue the pregnancy?

For what good reason? Quite a cruel punishment for the baby and the woman.

@Themeparklover

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

Are you stepping up to provide financial and emotional support for the woman and the child you are forcing the birth of? For all of them?

Will you be looking after the unwanted child for all of its life, paying for adjustments and care?

Women don't just get to 24+ weeks and think, 'oh I don't really fancy being pregnant any more'

@GreenUp

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.

Greenup your post has really given me hope, thankyou. I really hope my daughter is looked-after by someone like you if she needs it in the future.

Reading threads like this, seeing some people's attitudes towards people with down's, is heartbreaking. People even suggesting it's selfish to decide not to terminate. I'm not trying to speak for everyone, but in my situation, for my family, continuing with my pregnancy was the right thing to do, and I don't regret for a second.

I completely empathise anyone who has had to have a TFMR because their child would have been in pain, or suffering, or it just was not right for them/their family to have a child with disabilities. But this is not the case with my daughter. She only has a diagnosis of DS, nothing that causes pain or suffering. In her case, she needs more help achieving her developmental milestones, but gets there in her own time. I have spent the last few years learning signing, doing physio with her to help her. Again, this was my choice, and I went into the situation with my eyes wide open and this was the right decision for me, to stop working for a while to help her. Again, this was my decision, my choice, and would not be right for everyone.

My daughter has no other health conditions, is not in pain, or suffering. It is really upsetting feeling judged for deciding to continue my pregnancy. I'm not painting a rosy picture, this is just my life. It's bloody hard work some days, but worth it 100%. I think it would really help if some posters could remember that there are real people at the end of their keyboards, these are real lives, and try to imagine how it would feel to feel like you constantly have to justify your child's existence whenever conversations like this come up.

@LangClegsInSpace

'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.'

I think that you make some very fair points. I guess pregnancy and abortion are sui generis.

However, we still do need to find some framework in which to form fair laws based on a general sense of the balancing of rights of the foetus and the mother.

Child destruction is a crime in the uk (interesting name for a foetus..), although it is a rare one. I think no one would accept someone else destroying their foetus and leaving it unpunished (and not just due to the effect on the mother), so we do consider a foetus has more rights than a bundle of cells.

@IcedSpice,

'Are you stepping up to provide financial and emotional support for the woman and the child you are forcing the birth of? For all of them?

Will you be looking after the unwanted child for all of its life, paying for adjustments and care?

Women don't just get to 24+ weeks and think, 'oh I don't really fancy being pregnant any more''

The state will care for any abandoned child. This happens daily to live children. Sadly, in this country it is not necessarily the best quality of care.

I do think it requires some magical thinking (of a kind that is very much frowned upon on a parallel board) to believe that a foetus is a bundle of cells if the pregnant woman wants it to be, but a baby upon whom the state should spend large funds preserving (including even intra uterine surgery), should the pregnant woman deem it to be a much wanted 'baby'.

I am actually not for forcing women to give birth to disabled children against their will due to the quality of life of the unwanted child. It would be hard to find someone to adopt it and it would have an abysmal life in the 'care' system.

A healthy, 32 week old foetus (say), on the other hand, has a right to be born. If the mother does not want it, it will be adopted and probably lead a nice life. It is not for the mother to play god and decide a viable foetus should be destroyed upon her fiat.

And, again, before I am accused of being a misogynist (which would be weird, anyway), this view is in line with about 70% of women. The fact that this board is mainly made up of the other 30% does not alter the fact that destroying a healthy foetus up to birth is horrifying to most women.

Up to a cut off point which, at the moment is 24 weeks, I am very much pro abortion at will, and the sooner the better if the woman does not want to be pregnant.

A healthy, 32 week old foetus (say), on the other hand, has a right to be born. If the mother does not want it, it will be adopted and probably lead a nice life. It is not for the mother to play god and decide a viable foetus should be destroyed upon her fiat.

And how many women do you think get to 32 weeks, and think 'ah fuck it, I dont want a baby, I've changed my mind' ?

It is really upsetting feeling judged for deciding to continue my pregnancy.

Personally, I think you are missing the point. No one is judging you for continuing with all the facts you had, the women being judged are the ones who make a different choice to you.

@IcedSpice,

Even if it is 1 woman who just thinks 'fuck it', it is 1 too many.

How many women commit infanticide unless mentally unwell? Vanishingly few, I suspect, but few would use this as an argument for legalising infanticide.

The idea that 100% of women are intrinsically 'good' and should be trusted makes a mockery of having laws at all. Let's just make all laws just apply to men, as women 'can be trusted'....

@laddyandthetramp

In that case you’re not really pro choice. And that’s OK.

Eh, not everyone believes in abortion right til birth. Doesn't mean they're not pro choice imo.

Some people are pro choice til birth for any reason... others only for severe disabilities/illnesses- you could argue the latter aren't pro choice (enough)

Very few people would be pro-choice with this sort of standard. Ppl should rethink this honestly.

@IcedSpice

It is really upsetting feeling judged for deciding to continue my pregnancy.

Personally, I think you are missing the point. No one is judging you for continuing with all the facts you had, the women being judged are the ones who make a different choice to you.

IcedSpice really I was referring to comments such as Chocolateteapot4444's "Exactly. Terminating is the most unselfish thing to do, family wise and society wise." I have read similar up thread.

@IcedSpice

A healthy, 32 week old foetus (say), on the other hand, has a right to be born. If the mother does not want it, it will be adopted and probably lead a nice life. It is not for the mother to play god and decide a viable foetus should be destroyed upon her fiat.

And how many women do you think get to 32 weeks, and think 'ah fuck it, I dont want a baby, I've changed my mind' ?

You could say this about so many things, doesn’t mean we can’t legislate for it.

Personally I think European countries have it right with the 12 week cutoff

[quote TheReluctantPhoenix]@IcedSpice,

Even if it is 1 woman who just thinks 'fuck it', it is 1 too many.

How many women commit infanticide unless mentally unwell? Vanishingly few, I suspect, but few would use this as an argument for legalising infanticide.

The idea that 100% of women are intrinsically 'good' and should be trusted makes a mockery of having laws at all. Let's just make all laws just apply to men, as women 'can be trusted'....[/quote]
so 1 woman thinks' I dont want to be pregnant', what makes you qualified to decide she has to remain pregnant?

No - I would support any woman any time - you have no idea (obviously) why a woman would get to 32 weeks and change her mind about being pregnant. The woman is important here.

By comparing abortion to infanticide is a bit like comparing taking a free sample to a full on bank robbery

@ChocolateTeapot4444 I sincerely hope you do not work with people with disabilities, with an attitude such as yours.

"It's because many of us have worked with children/adults with Down Syndrome or are the siblings of them that we feel this way. I feel it is wrong to knowingly bring a child with disabilities into the world and it should be discouraged, especially when it's hard enough to access care for children with disabilities who weren't knowingly brought into the world like that. We have vaccines and testing to prevent illnesses and disabilities. The romanticisation of certain forms of disability and the encouragement of it is something I with personal experience, will never understand and will never accept. Prevention should be key. That's why we have the technology we have in 2021."

No - I would support any woman any time - you have no idea (obviously) why a woman would get to 32 weeks and change her mind about being pregnant. The woman is important here

Well, that’s you. I certainly wouldn’t support it, and I would think of the fetus too. A fetus does have certain rights at that point.

Also, the procedure at that late point would be so horrific that only the shadiest, most unethical doctors would do it to a healthy fetus—think Kermit Gosnell.

How about you find out your aggressive breast cancer has returned, you need to start chemo and radiation therapy urgently, you have 3 other children who count on you being alive.

Ummm.....there are lots of reasons why a pregnancy may need to be terminated urgently and at any point

UsedUpUsername

'Personally I think European countries have it right with the 12 week cutoff'

This is pretty random.

Which European countries? Because there is massive variation. Some ban it pretty much entirely and the others have a range of laws.

Do you mean EU or Europe as a continent or what definition?

That statement is totally vague and incorrect however you define Europe.

Saying things like that makes you sound ignorant quite honestly.

Agreed. I tend to skim over any post which talks about "what happens in Europe" as it is obvious that the poster doesn't know what they are talking about.

@NiceGerbil

UsedUpUsername

'Personally I think European countries have it right with the 12 week cutoff'

This is pretty random.

Which European countries? Because there is massive variation. Some ban it pretty much entirely and the others have a range of laws.

Do you mean EU or Europe as a continent or what definition?

That statement is totally vague and incorrect however you define Europe.

Saying things like that makes you sound ignorant quite honestly.

Europe as opposed to the UK (since UK is not part of Europe in any meaningful sense anymore).

Yes, I know that there are a patchwork of laws, same as the US. But generalities can definitely be made.

So I said the cutoff was 12 weeks because that’s the case in the big three EU countries: France, Germany and Italy. Spain is 14 weeks, so slightly longer.

This article, written from a US perspective, gives a nice background as to why: www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/278350/

The UK is the obvious outlier. Make of that what you will.

Lonel Pity you might learn something