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.

@1940s

A cousin of mine tried to get a late term abortion purely because it was a boy. No issues at all with the child but just because she wanted a girl (22+ weeks)

I call bs on this. Either that, or she had some serious psychiatric issues or cultural pressures going on.

If the case wins the baby will have rights after 24 weeks same as every other baby. That’s all they want the same rights.

If your baby is unlikely to live after birth this wouldn’t affect cases this is for Downs and not other conditions.

No woman should be forced to continue a pregnancy that she does not want to.

As early as possible, as late as necessary.

Post 24 weeks the foetus may be viable, but you are still forcing the mother to put herself at physical risk by continuing the pregnancy.

Society could say abortion isn't ethical past this point but not force the mother to remain pregnant - but then there will be costs incurred in who is going to be responsible for caring for and paying for a premature baby, if not the mother?

I am personally uncomfortable with the idea of terminating a pregnancy where the baby might survive outside the womb, but if noone going to volunteer how you look after these viable foetuses then you are just enforcing motherhood on an unwilling woman and that's not ok

If your baby is unlikely to live after birth this wouldn’t affect cases this is for Downs and not other conditions

You know Downs has a massive range of disability? Some live and function very well, others face a short life of hospitalization and medical intervention.

Is it really only for Downs? What about other non- lethal disabilities?

@GrammarTeacher

I'm sorry but I really struggle with some of the comments saying they support abortion right up to effectively the last moment. Ethically I can not get on board with that. I also think the word 'necessary' is doing some heavy lifting there. Who defines what is necessary? This really isn't as simple ethically as some seem to be suggesting. Legally is of course another matter.

I think there is an assumption with some people that there are large swathes of women who would, given the chance, abort close to term, just because they've changed their mind.

The adage "as early as possible, as late as necessary" is more about removing timing barriers to abortions that women feel they have to go through. The earlier the better, for everyone all round, but if needs, then there are no barriers.

Ideally.

What life is the baby being born into when it is unwanted? I'd find it quite scary if they won the case.

Where does it end though? Very soon we will be able to dx potential disorder before birth. If you knew your child would have leukaemia would you abort? If you knew they'd develop schizophrenia would you abort? I have a son who has developed a severe and life altering I get autoimmune condition (not diabetes) age 17 I have another 3 who have autism - one who will probably never be able to live independently.

@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)

Pro choice, as far as I’m concerned, means that a woman is able to choose what to do with her body without any constraints. If restrictions are put on them then they don’t have free choice, they have limits placed on them. Some would argue that if the only options are to keep your baby or have it adopted, that’s a choice.

so basically what they want is an increase of adopted babies with disabilities which will twice as hard to find a home for

Far as I’m aware this case is for Downs yes. So it removes the blanket yes for terminating up to term All other reasons like health of the mother or serious illness to baby when not expected to live will still be allowed it’s not a ban after 24 weeks for everyone.

@LucretiaBorgia
You are not pro-choice, you are partially pro choice, but not enough
Why do you get to decide what is enough and what isn't?

Because pro choice is pro choice, not "pro choice with some bits removed because I dont like them"

I used to be pro choice, except for when women used abortion like birth control (as in didnt do anything to stop getting pregnant in the first place with condoms etc) and then it was pointed out to me, that that isnt pro choice. Because it is not pro choice.

Anytime a pregnant woman does not want to be pregnant any more, she should have the option to terminate if thats what she wants/needs

@GrammarTeacher

I'm sorry but I really struggle with some of the comments saying they support abortion right up to effectively the last moment. Ethically I can not get on board with that. I also think the word 'necessary' is doing some heavy lifting there. Who defines what is necessary? This really isn't as simple ethically as some seem to be suggesting. Legally is of course another matter.

And you have every right to have that belief. Just as those that have the opposite belief are entitled to their opinion.

Joanie1972 I understand that and I have to say, though I struggle with the many issues involved, I am not in principle against foetus' having rights at 24 weeks.
Abstractly I get it, but I look at my son and all the other ex NICU friends he has and my mind is made up.

@onlyreadingneverposting8

Where does it end though? Very soon we will be able to dx potential disorder before birth. If you knew your child would have leukaemia would you abort? If you knew they'd develop schizophrenia would you abort? I have a son who has developed a severe and life altering I get autoimmune condition (not diabetes) age 17 I have another 3 who have autism - one who will probably never be able to live independently.

And the more information you have the better.

@Akire

If the case wins the baby will have rights after 24 weeks same as every other baby. That’s all they want the same rights.

If your baby is unlikely to live after birth this wouldn’t affect cases this is for Downs and not other conditions.

What about all those disorders that mean that the baby lives a shortened, miserable life?

I think the problem is that we as a society do not have an honest debate about abortion and it's ramifications. We could possibly end up in a society with virtually no people born with Downs Syndrome. This is a form of eugenics. What message does this send to disabled people? Many people become disabled later in life. What are we telling them by removing a whole section of people from society? It scares me and doesn't feel progressive in any way.

@SelkieQualia it may make you feel more comfortable to call BS but it happened. She had two boys and then pregnant with her 3rd. All back to back pregnancies because her and her partner took no responsibility with birth control at all. When she found out it was another boy she escalated and made lots of noise to ask for a late term abortion. She told everyone very vocally she didn't want three boys under 3 and wanted the next one to be a girl.

I think this is likely to cause a huge rise in abortions between 20 and 24 weeks.

If there is a hard cut off of an abortion at 24 weeks for any disability which is apparent on the 20 week anomaly scan, but doesn't necessarily mean it will be fatal, I suspect far more women will decide to abort rather than risk having to have a potentially severely disabled baby.

Reducing the time limit will mean that the parents do not have the opportunity to have as many other tests to verify the scan result, they do not have the opportunity to have counselling, and they will not have as much time to talk to other people in the same boat.

@whynotwhatknot

so basically what they want is an increase of adopted babies with disabilities which will twice as hard to find a home for

Exactly ^

They care about the foetus. But not about those children when they’re actually born.

The vast majority of late term abortions are going to be very much wanted pregnancies, and an agonising decision.
I'm Pro choice all the way.

A foetus is not a child, its not independent and shouldn't be judged as the future human it will become. It absolutely has less rights than its mother, because of that.

Totally agree with this. I think it’s a very slippery slope to view a foetus whatever the gestation the same as a person with rights because inevitably it will lead to the chipping away of women’s rights to their autonomy. I believe as early as possible as late as necessary is the only way. Not many people are comfortable thinking about late term abortions but as someone who nearly died giving birth I’m extremely uncomfortable with forced birth.

@GrammarTeacher

I'm sorry but I really struggle with some of the comments saying they support abortion right up to effectively the last moment. Ethically I can not get on board with that. I also think the word 'necessary' is doing some heavy lifting there. Who defines what is necessary? This really isn't as simple ethically as some seem to be suggesting. Legally is of course another matter.

I don't like the idea of late term abortions at all. Actually I don't really like the idea of abortion, full stop. But it's not my decision to make or come to terms to unless it's me in that situation. I'm pro choice and try not to judge. I think abortion should be legal, accessible and affordable for anyone who wants one.

Twickytwo

If you actually look into the reasons and the numbers of abortions you will find that a simple cleft lip, alone is not responsible for any abortion, it has, rightly, been listed either with other disabilities or when it is more complex eg with half the jaw missing.

But that's not the point, as early as possible and as late as necessary should be all that needs to be said.