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.

However this is a personal matter. The disabilities can have serious impacts which should not be underestimated.

They idea that women who are happily pregnant will decide to abort at such a late stage unless they really felt for whatever reason that was the right decision is misogynist.

A lot of arguments against this and that essentially rely on an idea that women will have late terminations kind of casually, not consider it carefully etc.

In countries where it is banned women are forced to carry and give birth to babies that they know will not survive. That's incredibly cruel.

The position in abortion till birth is an argument based in logic.

It's never going to happen here in real life.

If it did, again the idea that women would decide to terminate wanted pregnancies all of a sudden for no reason is based in misogyny. Thinking women are in general selfish, flippant etc.

The vast majority of abortion where it's widely available happen early.

There is also the point that for anti abortion groups in general. The strategy of slow erosion of the law is a thing.

So in response

'One question that has come up for me in relation to late term abortion of healthy featuses would be if early delivery of the baby (I guess maybe by c section or induction) would be considered as well as/instead of abortion.'

Not going to be allowed here.
In all cases other options are on the table. Women know the options. Why would they not?

@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)

If you're putting any limits, then you're not pro-choice.

Might not be due to disabilities. Maybe husband is abusive. Maybe husband is frat but dies. Maybe she's raped and suddenly can't go through with it.

No-one wants to have a late abortion. So if they've decided to do it, then there will be a reason.

I've never had one and don't think I could. But I'm fully pro-choice. I'd rather a foetus was terminated than an unwanted child brought into this world and then abused.

As early as possible, as late as necessary.

I'd rather a foetus was terminated than an unwanted child brought into this world and then abused.
Well nobody is saying that a child should be abused so not sure why you are saying this would be the consequence of not aborting?
Are you saying that there is a specific difference between an unborn child at 40 weeks gestation and a newborn baby because I think most people would disagree?

If you're putting any limits, then you're not pro-choice.
I disagree. You're trying to make this into a black and white choice but it is far more nuanced.

The idea that no women make bad or unethical choices is ridiculous, Human beings of both sexes are fallible. Of course women exist who would have a very late abortion for ‘shits and giggles’, the same reason as some mothers neglect and abuse live children, and choose fags and drugs over nutrition for their children.

Laws are made because people are imperfect. Should criminal laws be for men only as we should just ‘trust’ women?

There is very little support amongst women for abortion of healthy foetuses beyond the current limit (thankfully IMO).

No one has said no woman would.

Just that it is so rare that saying it's a large enough risk to ban it completely is misogyny.

Anyone who thinks this would be common enough to make it a real issue does not see women as rational. In the end.

'Of course women exist who would have a very late abortion for ‘shits and giggles’'

Shits and giggles... FFS.

The woman still has to give birth. It's not like it's teleported out of her. Giving birth is not 'shits and giggles' I mean what?

@NiceGerbil,

You just said exactly that!!

And the inverted commas are there for a reason, most will understand my point.

I don't get the argument "well hardly anyone would do that anyway so it doesn't matter ". Surely the law should cover all eventualities? And I disagree that this reveals underlying misogyny - like @TheReluctantPhoenix I see women as human! And so just as likely to make mistakes as men.

Ah I meant in general. Sorry if that doesn't clear. I can see it may have been ambiguous.

I don't think you actually believe I think no women do iffy things ever? I do read the news!

@Lonel

I don't get the argument "well hardly anyone would do that anyway so it doesn't matter ". Surely the law should cover all eventualities? And I disagree that this reveals underlying misogyny - like *@TheReluctantPhoenix* I see women as human! And so just as likely to make mistakes as men.

Then we should ban everything that risks harm to others at all?

Driving a car, women/ girls being alone with men, etc etc?

It's a balance between risk and freedom.

If everything we could do that might cause harm to another was banned then there wouldn't be much left.

And that's before you even get into the fact that any erosion of the legal point that personhood starts at birth in the UK.

And opens the door to the type of things that can happen when anything the mother does that harms the foetus.. seeing it as assault murder etc.

Women go to prison in el Salvador for life for miscarrying. Is based on the same set of ideas.

Has the conversation been diverted to something that will never happen in the UK for a reason?

This is about banning abortion over 24 weeks in certain circs that it is currently allowed.

This is the part of the law being challenged in court

'Abortions after 24 weeks are allowed only if:

the woman's life is in danger
there is a severe fetal abnormality
the woman is at risk of grave physical and mental injury'

What I think is, if you are drawing up a law on abortion you should try and make it fit for purpose. So, yes like driving - we don't ban it although we know there are risks but we do actually have laws regarding driving to protect ourselves and others!

@NiceGerbil,

Yes, (again IMO) because of the posters who insist on stating in bold that abortion should be available up until birth on demand, which I do not recognise as ethical or, in any sense, a feminist position (unless you think about 80% of women are misogynistic).

As I said earlier, I think that the current law draws roughly the right balance, and bringing severely handicapped children into the World with no plan as what to do with them thereafter serves no one well.

Anyway, I agree with the law as it stands now. My comment was really about a pp claiming that "pro choice" meant "until birth" which I think is ridiculous and would be totally counterproductive.

Ah well that's obviously a big row and not on the table so it's a general point of principle being argued rather than a real world discussion.

As a disabled mother of 2 disabled children (all genetic, non-fatal conditions)
As early as possible, as late as necessary. #TeamWoman
Women do not go through a late-term abortion on a whim.

As for 12 weeks - I had an abortion as a young woman (20s)
I found out I was pregnant at 14 weeks and had the abortion the following week, as soon as I could. We don't always know this early.

I wonder how many of the apparent 'experts' on down syndrome on this thread actually have much experience of people with down syndrome? Seems to be a lot of hearsay about how awful it is and how most people with downs are profoundly disabled and suffer every day, bring misery to their families etc etc. I know a lot of people with downs, children and adults. The vast, vast majority are loved and valued by their families and live happy lives - maybe not fully independent, maybe they have more vulnerabilities to illness and more hospital appointments etc. Maybe they have a heart condition (the vast majority of these are relatively minor and relatively easily solved), all have learning disabilities of some sort - but is that so bad? Honestly, some of the views on disability on this thread are massively outdated and hugely ableist.
For what it's worth, I have a dd with down syndrome. I also have a job, 3 other children who adore their sister, a social life, friends etc. My life isn't a tragedy just because my child was born with a disability. Please don't assume it is. Hard work - yes - but in my experience all parenting is hard work.
Anyway - I am pro choice but also pro-equality. Surely the fairest thing is to remove all limits on abortion so there is no discrimination against those with disabilities. Why should it be different for a baby with downs, compared to any other baby?

It's down's syndrome.

Yes I know people with down's syndrome.
I think you'd have to live in a cave not to know that the range of severity is wide. That many people with down's syndrome go through school and go on to work, leave home etc.

Actually downs is fine - providing you're putting the person first i.e person with downs. Absolutely not 'downs person'.

'most people with downs are profoundly disabled and suffer every day, bring misery to their families etc etc. '

Has anyone said this? That's awful. Report to MNHQ and get posts like that deleted. Shitty things to say and yes ignorant.