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.

Until we have unconditional support for families (mothers in particular) of disabled children I think imposing any limit is immoral.

As a parent of a baby who was born at 24+ weeks, struggled for several weeks and finally died I can assure you there are very few if any children who thrive after being born so early, it is usually a race to mitigate the complications of various severity. Some people manage to pull through as some not. There are very few if any who “thrive”. Very ignorant or deliberately misleading to suggest so.

@NeonDreams

Anyway I think I'll hide this thread, as I find it far too offensive and far too upsetting to defend something that is basically common sense and ask many people with experience with DS and they will say the same thing, it should not be encouraged.

Personally I'm very blessed to have my daughter, and to be surrounded with kind, lovely people who love and value her as much as I do. Thank god I do not know anyone with your disgusting views in real life. Yes, go and hide away and take your hateful views with you. I'm just going to spend the afternoon with my beautiful daughter.

Until we have unconditional support for families (mothers in particular) of disabled children I think imposing any limit is immoral

Even then, most will still want to terminate, so it remains tricky. Keep in mind that high social welfare states have the highest rates of termination....

[quote NeonDreams]@pinkpip100 People like you and chestnut have forced my aunt to feel she has no one to talk to if she doesn't make the same excited and over-enthusiastic overtures on the topic. One of my cousins burst into tears to me because her teachers thought she was brave with her brother, instead her brother takes up so much of her family's time, she has had to quit hobbies. She is miserable and said openly she hates her brother. But what would you say if she came to you in tears and said that? You would no doubt call her 'vile', 'bigoted', 'narrow minded', 'disgusting', and type of invalidating and silencing language you can find. Because society has so romanticised DS and the 'cute babies', she feel she has no where to go, no one to talk to because she can't say how it really truly is. People like you are the reason people feel bullied and silenced, because what they say isn't the fantasy narrative that many push on this topic. Sorry, but posters like you and your positive-only narrative is very dangerous in that it leads people in this situation into submission and silence. And that's not good.[/quote]
There are plenty of people who your aunt can turn to for support, has she gone to the DSA for example? Plenty of support on there for supporting positive behaviour and other issues. A helpline. As well as peer support. Lots of local DS support groups too. Run by people with relatives with downs to support each other, warts and all, good times and bad. No bullying into submission/silence there. Has your aunt actually sought support with the issues she's having?

Doctors should be neutral and unbiased. Too many mothers who chose to keep their babies have reported being repeatedly asked for the remainder of their pregnancies if they want to terminate. That is wrong. Doctors should provide as much information and support as possible but shouldn’t encourage or discourage either way.

Have you ever spoken to one or more doctors (or other healthcare professionals) to ask them why they hold this view?

It is worth doing so as they aren't asking in a vacuum.

@RedMarauder

Doctors should be neutral and unbiased. Too many mothers who chose to keep their babies have reported being repeatedly asked for the remainder of their pregnancies if they want to terminate. That is wrong. Doctors should provide as much information and support as possible but shouldn’t encourage or discourage either way.

Have you ever spoken to one or more doctors (or other healthcare professionals) to ask them why they hold this view?

It is worth doing so as they aren't asking in a vacuum.

I don’t think it really matters what their view is. If a woman has informed the doctors she wants to continue the pregnancy then that should be respected. It’s wrong to keep asking, regardless of what the doctor thinks. They aren’t the ones who have to live with the consequences of either bringing up the baby or terminating a pregnancy.

"I don’t think it really matters what their view is. If a woman has informed the doctors she wants to continue the pregnancy then that should be respected. It’s wrong to keep asking, regardless of what the doctor thinks. They aren’t the ones who have to live with the consequences of either bringing up the baby or terminating a pregnancy."

Exactly this. The choice to keep or to terminate must be respected - and that shouldn't be questioned at every turn.

@RedMarauder often the medical viewpoint is based on the 'worst case scenario' - most medical professionals are unlikely to see or hear much about any of the babies/children with down syndrome who don't have complex medical needs - so their sample group isn't massively representative.

@pinkpip100

"I don’t think it really matters what their view is. If a woman has informed the doctors she wants to continue the pregnancy then that should be respected. It’s wrong to keep asking, regardless of what the doctor thinks. They aren’t the ones who have to live with the consequences of either bringing up the baby or terminating a pregnancy."

Exactly this. The choice to keep or to terminate must be respected - and that shouldn't be questioned at every turn.

But doctors also need to make sure that the woman has the opportunity to say if she changes her mind. It can't be that a woman is offered one chance to decide and then if she says she doesn't want to terminate at that stage, that she then feels she can't revisit that decision. Difficult balance to strike for HCPs.

I think questioning at every turn are you sure etc is not great.

I think that reassuring that she can change her mind and that's fine everyone understands and is fine with that (either way) is important as I know there can be s feeling of mucking NHS staff around and wasting their time etc. This should be made clear (once maybe and marked on notes that the info is given).

Sadly lots of HCPs have their own views about an awful lot of things and I'm not sure what to do about that. For this situation I would imagine that neutrality has been hammered in training.

[quote pinkpip100]@RedMarauder often the medical viewpoint is based on the 'worst case scenario' - most medical professionals are unlikely to see or hear much about any of the babies/children with down syndrome who don't have complex medical needs - so their sample group isn't massively representative.[/quote]
This is fair but cuts both ways.

EG the hosp in the press fairly recently where the culture that 'natural' birth was best led to babies dying unnecessarily.

It's often pointed out that with birth the docs see worst case scenario and that gives them bias. But it can work both ways.

We're still talking about England/ Wales and the correct post 24 weeks law are we?

Just that things can get bogged down when people are posting about more general scenarios where they have one thing in mind and others are thinking of other scenarios.

But doctors also need to make sure that the woman has the opportunity to say if she changes her mind. It can't be that a woman is offered one chance to decide and then if she says she doesn't want to terminate at that stage, that she then feels she can't revisit that decision. Difficult balance to strike for HCPs.

Yes of course that needs to be made clear to them, but it doesn’t need to be repeated at every single appointment either. Some women are absolutely certain they want to continue their pregnancies under any circumstances, and they should be listened to and respected, not repeatedly questioned if they are sure about their decision.

Is there any evidence that women making difficult choices in later stages of pregnancy are generally being treated insensitivity, in general?

I mean it's so hard and HCPs are human too but in the end are we talking at length about problems that aren't endemic in this situation here?

As early as possible. As late as necessary. Only way, I am afraid.

@duffmcstockings

As early as possible. As late as necessary. Only way, I am afraid.

🙄

Slogans do not even begin to address the issue discussed in the OP.

@duffmcstockings,

That slogan is about as useful as ‘pro life’, equally literally true (who is anti life, after all) but also fatuous and meaningless.

This entire debate (not just this thread but among legislators) is about how to define ‘life’ vs how to define ‘necessary’.

No easy answers.

@1940s

For those who are pro choice what about sex selection as a reason?

This is already done. Everyone can use sex selection as a decision as to whether to continue with a pregnancy or not.

Sex of a baby can be identified on an 20 week scan and often on the 12 week scan and definitely on private scans pre 24 week of pregnancy.

If people want to abort a baby dependant on which sex the baby is, this already happens. Nothing in the current court case will change this.

It was mentioned to me several times whilst pregnant, as I lived in a Yorkshire city which had many 'missing girl babies' during pregnancy. The hospital I received care at, had changed their policy of telling pregnant mothers the sex of their child at scans, hopeing to change this situation. Aka they no longer would tell us the sex.

But as the midwives said, it was a stupid policy, as:-

1. The hospital shared their site with a private scan clinic, which was doing a booming trade in private sexing scans. Therefore the baby girls were still disappearing.

1. Every baby deserves to be wanted and forcing parents to have a child they didn't want, was hardly a good situation for either mother or child.

I am pro choice up to term. Though it makes me personally uncomfortable, it is more important that ALL women have control over their bodies whatever the situation.

If the government or the charity using this court case want to encourage more babies to be born, which have severe difficulties, then I suggest they give support to these new parents.

Both in terms of money and of child care/respite care.

Enable both parents of disabled children to work full time, by giving them spaces in suitable full time child care places. Including holiday cover and before/after school care and only charge the same as a 'normal' child care facility.

Ensure all medical appointments for children can be made at evenings and weekends and provide babysitters for other children at the family home and free parking at the hospitals sites for these parents too.

Lastly provide good quality free full time residential placements for all disabled children with disabilities, as they turn 18 years old. To be fully funded until they pass on from natural causes in their old age. Located close to their parents home, to preserve family ties.

By removing the additional costs and allowing the parents to do exactly the same amount and length of parenting as they would do with any other child.
Meaning the family unit is supported, as a whole and not plunged into poverty.

If your first instinct is to say that you or the government shouldn't pay such costs, then why should the parents equally forced to bring children into this world against their wishes, shoulder this financial and stress alone!

Clearly the only solution is not to discriminate against any baby, is to allow any termination which is needed up to birth.

I suspect this would not alter the stats one bit, as noone will carry a pregnancy until the last few days and change their mind on a whim. It doesn't happen now.

Frankly this whole topic seems to smack of women not being trustworthy enough to make good decisions for themselves.

Women should be supported to make their own decisions. In every case, whatever that decision is.

I should make it clear that I think the government should be providing childcare/respite care/residential care to all children/adults who need it now!

Before they start to encourage or force more parents into that unsupported sinking boat.

*If the government or the charity using this court case want to encourage more babies to be born, which have severe difficulties, then I suggest they give support to these new parents.

Both in terms of money and of child care/respite care.

Enable both parents of disabled children to work full time, by giving them spaces in suitable full time child care places. Including holiday cover and before/after school care and only charge the same as a 'normal' child care facility.

Ensure all medical appointments for children can be made at evenings and weekends and provide babysitters for other children at the family home and free parking at the hospitals sites for these parents too.

Lastly provide good quality free full time residential placements for all disabled children with disabilities, as they turn 18 years old. To be fully funded until they pass on from natural causes in their old age. Located close to their parents home, to preserve family ties.

By removing the additional costs and allowing the parents to do exactly the same amount and length of parenting as they would do with any other child.
Meaning the family unit is supported, as a whole and not plunged into poverty.

If your first instinct is to say that you or the government shouldn't pay such costs, then why should the parents equally forced to bring children into this world against their wishes, shoulder this financial and stress alone!*

Absolutely all of this! So many privileged people just have no idea how poorly supported families of children with disabilities are. It’s not my son’s disability that’s challenging our lives, it’s society and it’s barriers.

But yes, let’s put all the focus on changing the law to make life even worse for women and disabled children it would directly affect. (Note it’s being pushed by people whose lives it does not impact on whatsoever).

I have not read the whole thread. Maybe someone has already posted the link below. But maybe not.

OP writes,
"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"

OK, here is a paper arguing 'in a sort of objective way' for a woman's choice as determining factor in abortion. (The sadly late) Judith Jarvis Thomson wrote this in 1971; the argument has stood the test of time.

Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 1, no. 1 (Fall 1971)

My own opinion (fwiw as a person (a man) with little or no skin in the game) was influenced by JJ Thomson and this paper when first published (I am an old person) … Any person, so any woman in particular, has the individual and inalienable right to choose what happens to her body to whatever extent such choice be possible; it follows that abortion on demand is permissible as early as possible and as late as necessary, for any reason.

Challenges to this view need to address JJ Thomson’s argument. Attempts to do this have so far failed, as far as I can see.

But yes, let’s put all the focus on changing the law to make life even worse for women and disabled children it would directly affect. (Note it’s being pushed by people whose lives it does not impact on whatsoever).

To be fair, the individuals and groups involved do also campaign for the other things you mention, and as people with down syndrome and their families, their lives are definitely impacted.

I'm not sure how I feel about the campaign - I agree that the current law discriminates against people with ds, but can't support the idea of women's rights being further eroded. So as pp suggested, the fairest option is to remove the 24 week limit for all and in any circumstances, therefore preserving a woman's right to choose what happens whilst not discriminating against any group of people.

To be fair, the individuals and groups involved do also campaign for the other things you mention, and as people with down syndrome and their families, their lives are definitely impacted.

I mean with the abortion limit - whichever way it goes it does not impact them in the slightest. It only impacts the individual women whose pregnancies they are trying to force on them when they aren’t the ones who are going to be responsible for the child for life. How many of them are offering to adopt these extra children?

':10Worrysaboutalot

For those who are pro choice what about sex selection as a reason?

This is already done. Everyone can use sex selection as a decision as to whether to continue with a pregnancy or not.

Sex of a baby can be identified on an 20 week scan and often on the 12 week scan and definitely on private scans pre 24 week of pregnancy.'

I think it's important to note that it is illegal.

I'm sure it happens in private clinics etc. In practice yes. But in law it is illegal.

questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2020-01-21/6069

' January 2020

Sex selection is not one of the lawful grounds for termination of pregnancy. It is illegal for a practitioner to carry out an abortion for that reason alone, unless the certifying practitioners consider that an abortion was justified in relation to at least one of the grounds in the Abortion Act 1967 such as a sex-linked inherited medical condition.

We have no evidence that sex related abortions are taking place in Great Britain. The latest analysis by the Department found that the United Kingdom gender ratio over the period 2013 to 2017 was 105.4 male to 100 female births, which is within the normal boundary. The Department continues to keep this under review.'

'I'm not sure how I feel about the campaign - I agree that the current law discriminates against people with ds, but can't support the idea of women's rights being further eroded. '

Does it discriminate though?

The law is:

'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'

There are no named conditions.

To add an exemption for (all?) pregnancies where down's syndrome is indicated or known. Does not fit well at all with the current law which is focusing on the situation not what condition/s are involved.