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.

Oh you said down a typo I was just s bit ???

@NiceGerbil

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.

Oh and not everyone agrees it's Down's syndrome @NiceGerbil , many individuals and support groups prefer down syndrome.

Ok fair enough. Happy to learn something new.

I really urge you to ask MNHQ to delete those posts you mentioned.

@NiceGerbil e.g. from NDSS
"NDSS uses the preferred spelling, Down syndrome, rather than Down's syndrome. Down syndrome is named for the English physician John Langdon Down, who characterized the condition, but did not have it. An “apostrophe s” connotes ownership or possession."

@NiceGerbil

Ok fair enough. Happy to learn something new.

I really urge you to ask MNHQ to delete those posts you mentioned.

Sorry cross posted - thanks and yes I will report.

There are some thought-provoking ideas being discussed on this thread. Can I ask - what it the rationale for 'as early as possible' if 'as late as necessary' is ok? Why pressurize women to do it early? What is the benefit for whom in doing it 'as early as possible'?

@Feelingmardy

There are some thought-provoking ideas being discussed on this thread. Can I ask - what it the rationale for 'as early as possible' if 'as late as necessary' is ok? Why pressurize women to do it early? What is the benefit for whom in doing it 'as early as possible'?

Medically it is an easier process and the recovery is shorter. This often correlates with an easier emotional recover for the woman involved. It also lessens the risk of pregnancy induced medical issues.

Who pressurises women to do it early?

@Lonel

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.

Hate to be both-sides are bad, but this is absolutely the case. No nuance in these discussions, and if you try to introduce some, you’re accused of being a baby killer on one hand and a misogynist on the other.

Why pressurize women to do it early? What is the benefit for whom in doing it 'as early as possible'?
I don't see it that way. Women should not be bullied into a decision but time counts. An early abortion is less traumatic and medically complicated than a later one. Yes, it is true that some women do not find out about the pregnancy until later but it is also true that a lot of women seek abortions early on but are unable to access them for weeks.

Who pressurises women to do it early?
Having a cut off induces time pressure, if it's 12 weeks as being discussed up thread that is early. Too early to confidently identify a range of medical issues anyway

Medically it is an easier process and the recovery is shorter. This often correlates with an easier emotional recover for the woman involved. It also lessens the risk of pregnancy induced medical issues.

That makes sense. But it should still be the woman's choice. So no need to say 'as early as possible'? People would not say that about other medical procedures people undergo, I don't think.

@QuentinBunbury

Who pressurises women to do it early? Having a cut off induces time pressure, if it's 12 weeks as being discussed up thread that is early. Too early to confidently identify a range of medical issues anyway

The twelve weeks cutoff is usually just for otherwise healthy fetuses.

If there is a medical problem with the baby, then there is obviously more time (but does come with its own ethical issues, as per OP)

12 weeks is still quite early. It can take a couple of weeks to organise a termination so that means decision needs to have been made by 10 weeks.
Regardless of whether or not you agree, q 12 week limit does introduce pressure early to decide whether or not to proceed.

I've always interpreted 'as early as possible' to mean that you shouldn't have to jump through loads of pointless hoops and impediments before you can access an abortion if needed.

Yes it does.

I'm not sure what usedup is talking about.

I'm also not sure which country usedup is taking about. It's not this one.

I've always interpreted 'as early as possible' to mean that you shouldn't have to jump through loads of pointless hoops and impediments before you can access an abortion if needed.

Well that makes sense but then really should be 'as early as you want, as late as you need it'.

I actually think this actually often points to the ethical dilemmas which people feel about abortion. It's a fetus but at some point becomes a baby. People have different ideas about when. Although the pro-choices often say this phrase I think they sub-consciously might retain some ethical concerns - at least some of them. I don't believe it's a helpful phrase and if you're going to take a fully pro-choice phrase then it just needs to be 'whenever a woman wants it'

You think the current wording will be interpreted by women as pressuring?

I wouldn't read it like that tbh.

As early as you want is also not great. Appts are etc involve waiting lists, capacity etc.

You can't have a termination or any NHS service generally 'when you want'.

You are told when they can see you.

It's important not to leave it as if they are very busy you could have to wait. And if you've held off thinking you can call up and get seen quickly, there are various issues if you can't.

With loads of things they say get in touch ASAP. It's standard.

There may also be circs at home etc meaning that you will need to find an appt on a specific day of the week, time of day or similar.

They will of course try to meet that if the circs mean it's important. That will likely mean even more of a wait though. And if course the clock is ticking, as it were. There's also the fact that some women will be in danger if they start to show, or have symptoms of early pregnancy that might be recognised by those who know them.

I think given the range of issues and the time constraint, ASAP is an important message.

Women can and sometimes do change their minds while they wait- it's not like it's a done deal as soon as you get in touch. The priority is to get in the system though.

'. It's a fetus but at some point becomes a baby. People have different ideas about when.'

In UK law it's at birth.

Where laws give personhood before birth, or in plenty of situations due to the personal belief of an org, there have been some horrific results.

Impacts of the fact that the vast majority of hosps in USA are Roman Catholic.

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/18/michigan-catholic-hospital-women-miscarriage-abortion-mercy-health-partners

USA study on women who were unable to obtain an abortion in USA.

www.ansirh.org/research/ongoing/turnaway-study

'In addition, women denied abortion are:
More likely to experience serious complications from the end of pregnancy including eclampsia and death.
More likely to stay tethered to abusive partners.
More likely to suffer anxiety and loss of self-esteem in the short term after being denied abortion.
Less likely to have aspirational life plans for the coming year.
More likely to experience poor physical health for years after the pregnancy, including chronic pain and gestational hypertension.
The study also finds that being denied abortion has serious implications for the children born of unwanted pregnancy, as well as for the existing children in the family.'

Note where women's lives are put at risk in hosp due to hosp not wanting to carry out a termination

Or where it's hard to find anyone to do it

In the USA it's due to ideas about the personhood (rights) of the foetus most usually due to religion.

As soon as the foetus has rights as a person while still inside the woman, then all sorts of issues arise around how the woman's health needs are met.

Note re prevalence of RC hosps USA. Some sources say most others lots. Either way the issues stand.

Ireland brain dead woman kept on life support for weeks because pregnant.

She started to essentially decompose. Naturally this was extremely distressing to her family who did not agree with keeping her in this state. The hospital did it because they were worried about prosecution as the foetus had equal rights to the mother / it had personhood.

'The apology is part of a settlement which also provides for various payments, including €150,000 for Natasha Perie’s daughter who was “horrified” when, then aged six, she saw her mother in a deteriorating and near unrecognisable'

And the full case

www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/26/ireland-court-rules-brain-dead-pregnant-womans-life-support-switched-off

I could go on

Maybe the global toll on women and girls of having no access to safe abortion.

The women in el Salvador imprisoned for life (30 years or so I think) for miscarrying then being accused of trying to abort. Murder because embryo/ foetus has personhood.

Maybe child victims of rape/ incest being forced to give birth to their abusers baby at high risk because their bodies are not fully developed.

The impacts of giving personhood to an unborn child can be very serious. Not least because the people who believe that in general just don't really give a shit about women, or indeed the child once it's born, or the wider family etc etc.

@NiceGerbil

I could go on

Maybe the global toll on women and girls of having no access to safe abortion.

The women in el Salvador imprisoned for life (30 years or so I think) for miscarrying then being accused of trying to abort. Murder because embryo/ foetus has personhood.

Maybe child victims of rape/ incest being forced to give birth to their abusers baby at high risk because their bodies are not fully developed.

The impacts of giving personhood to an unborn child can be very serious. Not least because the people who believe that in general just don't really give a shit about women, or indeed the child once it's born, or the wider family etc etc.

In America, the idea is that viability is the start where a fetus has some rights. That’s at 24 weeks in the US, and hasn’t changed even though viability has been pushed slightly earlier. This is not dictated by religion, but by ‘science’.

Whether you like it or not, most countries recognise that a fetus has some rights. There are horror stories from the early days of abortion in America, where viable fetuses were left to die on piles of medical waste (things are much more civilised now, of course, with routine scanning and such):

www.bbc.com/news/health-44357373.amp

Personally I see no reason why a fetus shouldn’t have some rights at viability. The vast majority of women manage to terminate well before then anyway.

What would be better instead of arguing from an extreme position is to increase access at the early stages.