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 that @LangClegsInSpace (I think) made some interesting comments about full personhood not being appropriate, but the foetus nonetheless having limited rights.

The concept that a foetus is merely a bundle of cells with no rights is not very compatible, though, with some of the amazing ‘life’ saving (but you would not say that) in utero surgery done on foetuses, paid for by the taxpayer on the NHS.

If it really is a worthless bundle of cells, just abort it and start again.

Or, you get into the magical thinking that a foetus is a baby if the mother wishes it so, rather anti what most posters here believe on another section of this board.

This is a complex ethical area where compromises have to be made, as we have now under current UK law. Simple slogans (from either side) won’t get anywhere.

Usedup you didn't think to even glance at my links about the USA did you.

Or the other ones.

My conclusion then is you are just not interested in/ prepared to even consider the impact on women of the foetus personhood impact at all

That's very revealing.

The actual situation, harm done globally by laws, society, religion. The deaths of women.

Due to seeing the foetus as a person at various points.

Those things are from an extreme position? Even though the numbers are vast, I can find them if you want

If you want a decrease in harm due to abortion access, then you will help massively by supporting orgs fighting around the then world often for even modest rights to abortion.

Is that something you already do? I don't want to assume.

The lack of understanding why a pregnant woman who wants a baby will start thinking of it as such- the baby she will have when it is born.

While a woman who doesn't want a baby would prefer not to think of it that way.

Can you genuinely not understand that? I find it quite easy to understand.

Additionally the woman with the wanted baby who thinks of it as a baby, she's generally conceptualising it after birth or when near to birth. A baby looking baby. I can't imagine many women think about holding, caring for etc it as it actually is at eg 12 weeks. They are envisaging it in the future.

Does that help you to understand?

Incidentally your talk about 'worth' of embryos/ foetuses is not sensitive to women who miscarry. I know you are trying to argue that women like me assign worth to babies at (?) all stages of development and find it to be zero.

I'm happy to use the word babies by the way. If the baby is 4 weeks old it's just well. A tiny clump of cells as you state.

If a woman miscarries a wanted pregnancy then who is anyone else to tell her that her child was worth nothing.

I mean FGS.

And do you really believe that women who think easy access to safe abortion feel that way? Because we care about women we must treat women who miscarry callously? I don't think you really think that do you.

And anyway

It's generally an EMBRYO described as a bundle of cells. Which it is. Not a foetus why would you say that?!

I'm sorry, I haven't read the thread. But I've seen posts about this case on social media and felt unable to comment irl due to personal acquaintances and also my job and all the time I've seen this discussion unfold I have felt frustrated accordingly. So I'm going to post here, you lucky lucky people.

My first instinct on this is pro choice and yes definitely as early as possible as late as necessary.

But in addition I will say that I worked for a health authority for a long time in a referral/outreach capacity. It was an inner London health authority so we had the full gamut of all types of engagement and challenges. And in all that time I encountered three instances of women seeking to access late term abortion, referred to us by social workers. It really is that rare. The three cases were particular and tragic. There was no good outcome for any party involved. It was difficult to access because although technically legal, doctors can refuse to provide termination and they overwhelmingly do at late term. It's not like a woman can just rock up at her GP at 30 weeks pregnant and access termination. Mostly, they're refused at that very point because a GP won't sign it off. That's why they'd come to us through social services who would have already done all of the very thorough and necessary investigations. Same goes for Marie Stopes etc. In fact more so there; it's is very difficult to access.

So ime this is one of those situations where everyone involved in decision making is already making complex and multi faceted decisions at every step along the way. And if they're involved at all they're experts, pretty much. It's kind of a self selecting group because most people won't touch it. So they can make good decisions and facilitate good outcomes based on their experience. And because the law is flexible it allows them to do this.

It's not codified anywhere that late term termination should be difficult too access. But through professional expertise and professional practice it has become so, without the need to legislate.

Once you start putting things in law and trying to define matters that are fundamentally subjective and go to the heart of the nature of human existence you lose the ability for people to exercise personal and professional judgement, which is exactly what is required in these situations imo.

So the law should stay as it is, because although it's piecemeal it works.

Thank you for posting.

That is my understanding as well.

Thanks. I've read back a few pages now and agree with your points about the potential adverse effects on women that can arise from codifying the notion of personhood in the context of misogyny - which is ofc where we're at, nationally and globally.

I'm very much "as early as she want it, as late as she needs it". However, I have been thinking about how I feel about late-term abortions of healthy foetuses and trying to think through the alternative where a woman felt like she had no choice to abort her baby at (say) later than 32 weeks, and what the ethical considerations would be about her doctor saying she can induce labour and deliver the baby if she no longer wants (or feels she is able) to be pregnant, but not abort the foetus. Assuming then that the baby would be taken into care, which is a horrible situation for both the baby and the mother.

SeeYaBeYa

Not globally by any stretch of the imagination.

I put a few links up earlier about a couple of the impacts of personhood prior to birth.

If you want to read they give some solid examples. Sadly there are plenty more.

@PearPickingPorky

I'm very much "as early as she want it, as late as she needs it". However, I have been thinking about how I feel about late-term abortions of healthy foetuses and trying to think through the alternative where a woman felt like she had no choice to abort her baby at (say) later than 32 weeks, and what the ethical considerations would be about her doctor saying she can induce labour and deliver the baby if she no longer wants (or feels she is able) to be pregnant, but not abort the foetus. Assuming then that the baby would be taken into care, which is a horrible situation for both the baby and the mother.

For me personally that's a theoretical point as it's not going to happen here any time I can imagine.

A PP put her experience with RL late term abortion, only a few posts back.

The more urgent thing to consider IMO (you may disagree of course!) is the harm caused to a vast number of women and girls all over the world due to abortion being pretty much or totally illegal, or theoretically available but in practice very hard to get.

That for me is the more urgent issue. The (invariably and understandably huge row) over a theoretical situation/ point of principle is interesting but for me an academic discussion iyswim.

Some numbers

Wiki

'An unsafe abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by people lacking the necessary skills, or in an environment lacking minimal medical standards, or both.[1] An unsafe abortion is a life-threatening procedure. It includes self-induced abortions, abortions in unhygienic conditions, and abortions performed by a medical practitioner who does not provide appropriate post-abortion attention.[2] About 25 million unsafe abortions occur a year, of which most occur in the developing world.[3]'

'Unsafe abortions result in complications for about 7 million women a year.[3] Unsafe abortions are also one of the leading causes of deaths during pregnancy and childbirth (about 5-13% of all deaths during this period).[3] Most unsafe abortions occur where abortion is illegal,[4] or in developing countries where affordable and well-trained medical practitioners are not readily available,[5][6] or where modern birth control is unavailable.[7]'

WHO has stuff as well if you look.

From a UK gov doc

'Complications arising from unsafe abortions contribute to 13% of all maternal deaths. Young women are particularly at risk of unsafe abortion. Globally, women and adolescent girls under the age of 25 account for almost half of all abortion deaths.'

That's just really upsetting. All those young women, and that will include children. Dying. The numbers are not small.

I know that's not the topic but just generally. Those who are against abortion. Full stop. The religions, the patriarchal attitudes. All the stuff that leads to this.

This is what they support. This is what happens. These are the FACTS. if anyone has blood on their hands it really isn't those that advocate for timely access to safe abortion for those who need it. Yes need it. Women don't risk their life in general unless the consequences of pregnancy are unacceptable. Serious.

Where contraception is freely available there are fewer pregnancies. Fewer unwanted pregnancies. Where abortion is pretty easy to access the majority are done very early.

Many areas where abortion is very hard to get or impossible, contraception is not easily available. Or women are not free enough to use it even if they get it.

That's no coincidence.

YY agree that this is the real issue wrt termination. Access. Dancing on the head of a pinpoint for the sake of trying to make legal sense of the vanishingly few late term terminations that do occur and which are by virtue of existing law and practice self policing anyway .. is a distraction.

Most people will never find themselves in the situations that the women who avail themselves of this particular law are in. They should count their blessings that this is the case rather than seek to alter it.

This case is brought by a woman with down's syndrome who wants to stop terminations after 24 weeks on those grounds (not sure why just those grounds and not others but anyway).

She absolutely feels that it is appalling trust people like her could be aborted.

I find her arguments a bit strange but I don't have her experiences.

What I do know is that if I had been aborted then I wouldn't exist so... Personally i don't relate to the point but she feels that way and I accept that.

The issue is that currently the law is about a consideration of potential impact on the woman/ family. Quality of life of the child. As a PP said it's not carried out lightly.

There are no named conditions.

If this succeeds then it opens the door to other conditions being on the no termination list. With a precedent set, most conditions you can find those who are less impacted.

And then you get into a quagmire of court cases and exceptions and complexity.

If a foetus has down's syndrome which is predicted to have major impact AND additional issues? Ok or not? Etc etc.

The law is sensible. It leaves the decision to the family and doctors involved.

Incidentally it's a strategy to erode, bit by bit, create precedents to push further etc for some groups.

The best example is the USA.

Agree with that. J don't think the young woman in question intended it, but that will be the outcome. Because, misogyny.

I mean I really can't state that any clearer. Our country is misogynistic. The world is misogynistic. Limiting women's choices for whatever reason just feeds into that.

Maybe at some point in the future when women are able and empowered to make autonomous decisions about their bodies we could start having these conversations. But we're not there yet.

In the end for at least the religions, governments, prob life groups etc.

For me.

IF they want to reduce the number of abortions massively. And that is their genuine concern.

Then why aren't they working for things (globally) like:

Improved access to effective contraception

Change social norms/ laws etc to increase the situation of women and girls. So that they can choose who to have sex with and when. Fight against rape, CSA, forced marriage, position as property of family or spouse. Push for women and girls to not be married very young, or with no say. To outlaw marital rape. I could go on but you get the gist.

Decent healthcare in pregnancy, birth and post natally

Social support for families in poverty. An eye to the situation of children and assistance where needed eg SEN, disability

Erode the preference for male babies embedded in some (large) areas

And (counter intuitively) work to make safe access to abotion widely available

Etc etc.

That is.. tricky. But would reduce abortion. That's how it's done while also improving untold numbers of lives.

But around the world anti abortion tends to go hand in hand with anti contraception and an appalling situation for both women and children.

The activism seems to focus on getting abortion banned full stop.

The reality of the INCREASED harm that means is not addressed. The impact on women, existing children, families is not addressed. Nothing is addressed. Just. Abortion is terrible must be stopped.

And so pro life is a misnomer. The only life they are prob is one that is not born yet. And they are more important than any harm caused by those born and grown and with their own needs and people who love them and they live who will be harmed.

The get a crack then shove your foot in approach is happening around the place.

They are not good people. They are not kind people. They are people (sorry) who fetishise babies that don't exist yet and don't give a flying fuck about massive global harm that happens when what they want is how it is.

@Feelingmardy

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.

Of course it should be the woman’s choice. This refrain typically means as soon as she is sure it should be carried out without “undue delay” being forced on her by the medical or other establishments and also serves as a reminder to those squeamish about the process that no sane woman thinks “i definitely don’t want to be pregnant but CBA getting a termination yet so I’ll leave it a few months.” There’s so much misogyny around this debate with women often talked about as if they are incapable of thinking sensibly about their own bodies in a way you don’t get with other medical procedures. Think about the women who beg for tubal ligation from a young age and are turned down for years and years because somehow the medical establishment seems uncomfortable with women having agency over their wombs.

Usedup you didn't think to even glance at my links about the USA did you

What about them? In the US, the critical problem is not that a fetus is given some rights at 24 weeks. It’s ACCESS. You know it, I know it.

Due to seeing the foetus as a person at various points

Again, the problem is access, not people who cannot support termination of a fetus at late points in the pregnancy. (And if you think ‘no one’ does this, what’s the problem with given those protections to a fetus?)

Those things are from an extreme position?

Yes. You look at surveys of Americans, let’s say, and you’ll find majority support for early terminations (around 12 weeks). This drops precipitously the further along you go. As you’d expect.

If you want a decrease in harm due to abortion access, then you will help massively by supporting orgs fighting around the then world often for even modest rights to abortion

Yes absolutely

“i definitely don’t want to be pregnant but CBA getting a termination yet so I’ll leave it a few months.”

I don't disagree with what you say @Peoniesandpeaches but there may be a multitude of other reasons why a woman might want or need to wait for an abortion. I'm not alone with thinking that the 'as early as possible as late as needed' phrase could actually be seen as supporting an 'early abortion is OK but late should be avoided' stance. Which some women will experience as pressure.

@UsedUpUsername

I think you make some helpful points. I consider myself pro-choice but when I think about how I would actually feel about a 40-week fetus being aborted, I find myself unable to feel the same about it as a 10-week fetus. And if we go entirely down the 'there is nothing to consider other than the woman's choice' idea then that will be a potential outcome. It's a very complicated ethical arena as being forced to continue a pregnancy is clearly horrific for any woman.

I'm not alone with thinking that the 'as early as possible as late as needed' phrase could actually be seen as supporting an 'early abortion is OK but late should be avoided' stance.

You would only think that if you have a very poor grasp of the English language

And if we go entirely down the 'there is nothing to consider other than the woman's choice' idea then that will be a potential outcome.
We are talking about legislation not consideration. Complicated scenarios end up being treated bluntly in law. Given a choice between 2 conflicting things, I'd rather the woman got the legal protection than the foetus, as the baby can't survive on its own, even if born at term. Protecting the foetuses "rights" is essentially inflicting impacts on others (the mother/the state) but that's not the case for protecting the mothers rights.
Plus as shown upthread 1) nearly all late abortions are because the baby has severe medical issues, 2) in the UK we already have protection in law to prevent the hypothetical capricious woman getting an abortion at 8 weeks, never mind 40 and 3) it would be nigh on impossible to find a doctor to do an abortion at 40 weeks for no good reason

So really, why are we spending much time on such an unlikely scenario?