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.

Why does the individual pregnant woman always have to bear the full moral responsibility of a late abortion?

The reason late abortions happen is overwhelmingly because many serious developmental issues are not picked up until the 20 week scan and women need time to consider their options and medical procedures take time to schedule.

If this individual really cares about stopping the termination of late term pregnancies due to disability, why aren't they campaigning for more early screening such as NIPT to be available routinely on NHS? Or they could also campaign for more support via benefits and social care system for parents with disabled children. Both of these options would arguably reduce late term terminations.

@QuentinBunbury,

What do you mean in saying the baby cannot survive on its own, even if born at term?! Are you arguing for legalising infanticide.

Whomever’s rights you protect impacts society. The destruction/killing (delete as applicable) has impact on the medical staff forced to perform the procedure and, as does capital punishment (for instance), impact on society as a whole.

I know whose rights you prefer to protect, but we do not live in a dictatorship under you (thankfully). We have a complex method of legislating on this type of issue which takes into account everyone’s rights and ethical opinions.

And society (not you, not me) has decided that 24 weeks is where we think it is ok to abort (without other issues such as physical risk to the mother, or severe disability of the foetus). Of course, societal views may change and the law may follow but, from opinion polls on this issue, there is no interest in increasing the time limit on abortion.

As for spending ‘so much time on this’, you can argue that making something illegal is also fine if no one wants it anyway.

When thinking about this particular case where they want to reduce the abortion limit to 24 weeks for Down syndrome, I do wonder whether this would actually increase or decrease the number of abortions?

I know if I was told at 20 weeks that there was a problem with my baby, but I only had days to make a decision to keep it or not, without full information about what the future holds and not enough time to come to terms with what it all means for both our future, I would probably be more likely to abort. I know that is just me but I wonder what the stats would be in general.

What do you mean in saying the baby cannot survive on its own, even if born at term?! Are you arguing for legalising infanticide
No obviously I'm not arguing for infanticide.
I'm saying an infant can't look after itself, even a healthy one. So by saying a foetus is "viable" you are in effect forcing someone to care for it.
Being looked after by someone who is forced to do that is psychologically damaging to a child. See the Romanian orphanages for an extreme example.
The argument you are making assumes a healthy baby will be raised by a loving family. That's just not true.
I'm fed up with this equivalence of "as late as necessary" = "murdering healthy happy babies". It's just bollocks.
I do not ever want to see legislation that forces unwilling women to be pregnant, or very sick babies to live a short painful life. Don't think that's particularly controversial

@UsedUpUsername

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

You didn't read my links then.

Oh well.

I don't understand why you'd assume you know what they say.

At least read the miscarriage/ RC hosps one. Or say CBA not interested.

Guessing at what they say and answering on that basis. I don't get that really.

Yes of course that poster wants to legalise infanticide!

Why on earth would you think otherwise?

Quentin

You have to still put in guidelines and legal standards. So you have to define what ‘late as necessary’ means. This not only protects a viable fetus, but also protects medical staff from potentially unethical situations.

I haven’t forgotten the story on MN where a late-term abortion was performed on a baby with what was implied was a very minor issue (probably cleft palate). It seemed to have worn very heavily on the staff.

You can see this weariness of doctors in the excellent documentary ‘After Tiller’ too. You can sense it would be easier for them to follow clear legal guidelines instead of being gatekeepers themselves (ie deciding for themselves if someone’s reasons are ‘good enough’ for them).

@NiceGerbil

I did, but ultimately a Roman Catholic hospital isn’t going to be a wonderful place for reproductive care. I’d be worried placing my own pregnancies in such a system.

But this has nothing to do with the legal guidance set forth by Roe V Wade that gives some consideration to fetal rights from 24 weeks. This was based on viability not some religion beliefs.

You have to still put in guidelines and legal standards.
There are guidelines at all stages of the process in the UK and I don't hear anyone arguing to remove those.
Maybe go and read up on UK legislation.

If this individual really cares about stopping the termination of late term pregnancies due to disability, why aren't they campaigning for more early screening such as NIPT to be available routinely on NHS?

This individual has also been heavily involved in campaigning against NIPT.

dontscreenusout.org/press-release-woman-downs-syndromes-powerful-message-jeremy-hunt-goes-viral/

The website for Don't Screen Us Out says:

The Don’t Screen Us Out campaign is a grass-roots initiative supported by a collection of people with Down’s syndrome, families and Down Syndrome advocate groups.

This has changed since I last had a good look at in 2016, when it said:

The Don’t Screen Us Out campaign is a grass-roots initiative supported by a collection of people with Down’s syndrome, families and Down Syndrome advocate groups lead by Saving Downs Syndrome.

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20161003022753/dontscreenusout.org/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20161003022753/dontscreenusout.org/

The Saving Downs Syndrome website is a bit fucked now but here's an interesting article on an archived page:

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160819145908/www.savingdownsyndrome.org/ohio-bill-advances-down-syndrome-rights/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20160819145908/www.savingdownsyndrome.org/ohio-bill-advances-down-syndrome-rights/

They seem nice

[quote UsedUpUsername]@NiceGerbil

I did, but ultimately a Roman Catholic hospital isn’t going to be a wonderful place for reproductive care. I’d be worried placing my own pregnancies in such a system.

But this has nothing to do with the legal guidance set forth by Roe V Wade that gives some consideration to fetal rights from 24 weeks. This was based on viability not some religion beliefs.[/quote]
Your response doesn't really relate to my post or to the things I linked.

I pointed out that a massive proportion of hosps in the USA were RC.

Your answer doesn't address the point I've made at all.

It's really hard to discuss if you don't engage with the examples given and the points raised.

You suggest that women should know what they're in for and go elsewhere. That they have made a poor choice. When going into hosp with an emergency, as I think these cases were.

And what of disabilities that are caused by birth (as cerebral palsy often is)? Abortion is clearly not an option then. Should we be campaigning for infanticide so that mothers don't have to deal with a disabled child they weren't expecting/cannot manage? What's the difference between a knowingly disabled foetus at 38 weeks and a disabled baby at term?
I'm sorry but I cannot reconcile with the notion that life is so easily discarded when it is not "perfect". Late term abortion (beyond 22 ish weeks) is appalling in my opinion.

I'm sorry but I cannot reconcile with the notion that life is so easily discarded when it is not "perfect".

Did you read any of the heartbreaking accounts on this thread written by women who took the decision to terminate before posting this horrible comment? I’m assuming not, because if you had, you wouldn’t have called it easy.

You believe suicide is ... A notion you can't reconcile?

What's your view on euthanasia?

Sorry silly question isn't it!

You don't need to answer that obv

I pointed out that a massive proportion of hosps in the USA were RC

This is the part where I tell you that fits under access issues and not time limits (ie when a fetus gets rights)

Your answer doesn't address the point I've made at all

You wanted to bring religion into a discussion, I didn’t think it had a lot to do with when limits are set. It’s set in the US by viability and not by any religious doctrine.

I think the Atlantic article made the case that early
abortion limits (12 weeks-ish) in much of Europe have a lot to do with ideas of social welfare and collective societal good. Not religion—so if you think otherwise, you should make that case. You haven’t (links to American news items when discussing the European situations obviously doesn’t cut it).

It's really hard to discuss if you don't engage with the examples given and the points raised

You don’t have to engage, you know.

@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.

Not sure how that explains the different circumstances various women and girls find themselves in at various stages of life/pregnancy.

Thriving and in NICU are somewhat contradictory...

Thriving for a baby that needs to be NICU surely.

Yet again you show a total lack of real interest and knowledge in the topic.

On a conversation board it's usual to engage in the discussion. Just putting your worldview across however incorrect or lacking in any depth is not the usual way but of course you must post as you see fit.

Good example.

'I think the Atlantic article made the case that early
abortion limits (12 weeks-ish) in much of Europe have a lot to do with ideas of social welfare and collective societal good. Not religion—so if you think otherwise, you should make that case. You haven’t (links to American news items when discussing the European situations obviously doesn’t cut it).'

Well no. They don't. Because what they say is an opinion. From outside. That is frankly nonsense.

I don't 'think otherwise' is a fact. A fact that is extremely well known. A fact that is in the news often, and a lot recently.

If you need the case made for the fact that religion has historically had a massive impact on abortion laws around Europe, and has been in the news a lot in the last year or two... Then sorry but you really have no idea what you're talking about.

Any other posters here who aren't aware of the religious influence of impacting abortion laws in plenty of European countries? Both historically and currently?

I mean for crying out loud.

And religion is the reason for the constant efforts to erode laws in the USA. Or at least the excuse.

The ongoing long term efforts to find ways to undermine roe v Wade...

If you ignore the impact of religion then... You're missing 90% of the picture.

Anyway. Feel free not to engage. Other posters will find your approach interesting though I imagine.