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.

@Binjob118

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.

How likely is that though, given many, many parents make the decision to continue their pregnancies after getting a DS diagnosis? Some don’t even go for the screening/tests and find out at birth. All of which is wonderful they feel that way and is of course solely their choice and they shouldn’t be repeatedly questioned on it throughout pregnancy.

But even if it was getting to that point, the answer is not forcing women to continue with pregnancies they don’t want. If society supported women and children with disabilities better then maybe fewer abortions would take place. But as it stands support is poor and if a woman feels she will not cope then I will never judge her decision on it or want her to be forced into it.

Nobody with this mindset of reducing the abortion limit seems to be thinking about what happens to the mother and child after birth, and the long term consequences for both.

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

Sex selective abortion isn't that unbelievable, I can believe pop's story. My child's dad suggested an abortion (albeit at 12+weeks) as it was a boy

I mean, you even suggested culture and psychiatric problems, two big reasons. Not unbelievable, I don't think

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?
Well, a society with less Downs Syndrome people tells me we have good prenatal testing and therefore far fewer babies being born with life incompatible conditions, or having short and painful lives. And far fewer parents having to go through the pain of experiencing their child going through that.

It is totally inaccurate to describe it as "eugenics". Eugenics is thinking its possibly to "improve" the human species by removing faulty genes from the gene pool. Downs Syndrome is a chromosomal abnormality that isn't hereditary.

Some parents choose to terminate a Dowbs pregnancy and some choose to continue. That's entirely up to them and I respect their choices, I don't judge the whole of society on that basis and would hate to live in a culture where we forced people to parent against their will.

@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.

No, you're missing the legal significance of this.

We currently have a time limit of 24 weeks for abortion, with the exceptions set out in the Abortion Act. This is not the same as any foetus past 24 weeks having legal personhood or rights of its own.

From the BBC article:

"A baby without Down's syndrome can be aborted up to 24 weeks, but a baby like me and James can be aborted to birth," Mrs Carter said. "It's downright discrimination."

"People shouldn't be treated differently because of their disabilities.

By bringing a discrimination case on behalf of the foetus they are asserting that the foetus has personhood and legal rights of its own.

That's huge.

(I was mistaken before, they're not bringing this case under the Equality Act, they're bringing it under the Human Rights Act. The effect is the same.)

Instinctively, the idea of a very late term abortion (after say 32 weeks) for anything except a baby that absolutely could not survive, makes me very uncomfortable. Which is what I think these cases are playing on. Because in real life, where are the numbers? How many babies with downs syndrome are aborted after 24 weeks? At the end of the day, I feel that almost no woman is going to abort at that late stage on a whim. It just doesn't happen so making a big song and dance about the rules simply punishes the women who don't feel they have any choice and are devastated as a result.

I have two friends who had to have later abortions - one at 17 weeks and one at 22. Relatively speaking, still early. IN both cases, the baby was not, ultimately, viable. And those friends were still devastated. I just don't see a woman strolling into an abortion clinic a week before her due date and saying, "nah, I've decided I can't have a baby with downs, please abort."

Similarly, if we're going to tell woman they can't abort then where's the support for these babies? Because it seems to me that a woman with a disabled child immediately becomes that child's carer and loses out. It's not like society is saying, "look, we'll do a deal - you carry the child to term and then after that, we'll take over." They want all these babies but they aren't interested in actually looking after them.

Which is why, ultimately, I continue to support as late as necessary, even if it does instinctively make me uncomfortable.

@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.

Actually I agree to some extend.

The idea that ‘as late as necessary’ is ok is because we consider ‘it’ an embryo/a foetus rather than a human being.
There is an argument to say that, if a baby is born early and lives then surely we are talking about a baby and not a foetus with no right to live.
There is also a question around what makes a foetus transition into a baby? Is it only when it’s born so a 40 weeks foetus, by all means a fully grown baby, is actually not a baby? It’s not human yet??

There is a huge ethical question behind that. And I find it :( to see some many women just ignoring it ‘to defend women’s right’.

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
Says who?
There will never be a final word on this topic because it's a philosophical issue, not a scientific one. You are basically shutting down any kind of discussion, which is questionable behaviour and no one has the right to do so.

If you won't allow me to call myself pro-choice, then so be it. I am still not against abortion - within certain limits. And me putting a limit on abortion does not make me anti-feminist or not 'team women' (nauseating phrase).

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

I don't think you'll find that many people who agree to complete, unrestricted access to abortion up until birth, if I'm being honest.

I know some do believe in it. But most who advocate til birth are talking about mothers health/severe illness.

(The next point is "nobody wakes up and chooses to abort at x weeks" etc. But it's not beyond conception, that yes, some people will abort after 24w for non medical reasons: culture/shame, sex selection, relationship breakdown. Most people just aren't comfortable with that I.e. literally any reason)

being able to survive outside the womb is no reason to refuse a termination of pregnancy, considering they dont actually give women the option to birth it at that point.
Women with disabled children are overwhelmingly the ones who give up everything to meet that childs needs. Everything is a fight, and its often a lifelong fight, with care passed on to other family members after the parents death.
It isnt ableist to decide before the child is even here that you cant commit to that.
Every late term abortion that ive heard of has been a heartwrenching decision

@Joanie1972

I think it would be a better use of their time and resources to campaign for extra support for women in this position plus specialist adoption services. Then women would feel like they really had a choice.

Very sensible point. I agree

The other part if the discussion @TiredButDancing is what makes a life worth living?

Can we even establish that? How can we evaluate if a baby will be too disabled to live a good life? What if you replace foetus/baby with child or even adult ?

Yes it has a huge impact on women. There is no denying that. There is also no denying that a lot of children with Down’s syndrome for example live life that are good enough by all accounts.

So the question is also: is it ok to use a different scale for an unborn baby and a child or an adult to decide if they should live?
(Vue in most cases, the attitude is try and save a child’s life, no matter what. Including if this means huge disabilities for the child, eg in the case of brain cancer)

I support abortion at any time, for any reason. It's not for me to say to a woman that she has to have a baby she doesn't want.

I have a friend who didn't find out she was pregnant until she was 28 weeks along; luckily she was happy with the situation but if she hadn't been it would have been inhuman to expect her to go through with the pregnancy.

@LangClegsInSpace

This stands out, People shouldn't be treated differently because of their disabilities.

That is not the law and the DDA is unique (or was at the time) in allowing more favorable treatment of disabled people.

We don't let blind people drive, we don't let deaf people work in ATC

I find this young woman's stance quite disturbing, she clearly has not got the intellect to understand the issues and no one is explaining to her what they are.

I believe she is being used.

@Branleuse

being able to survive outside the womb is no reason to refuse a termination of pregnancy, considering they dont actually give women the option to birth it at that point. Women with disabled children are overwhelmingly the ones who give up everything to meet that childs needs. Everything is a fight, and its often a lifelong fight, with care passed on to other family members after the parents death. It isnt ableist to decide before the child is even here that you cant commit to that. Every late term abortion that ive heard of has been a heartwrenching decision

Then what we should be concentrating on is support. Support for PARENTS who have a child with disabilities. Support for people who then have an adult child with disabilities.

We can’t shy away from the ethical discussion because there is no support available surely….

There is an argument to say that, if a baby is born early and lives then surely we are talking about a baby and not a foetus with no right to live.
It only lives with medical support and people to look after it.
The same is true of a newborn to some extent - they can't survive without their parents. But we assume the parents will look after them as they chose to have them.
We have no right to force women to be mothers - how do you propose we look after the babies without parents to do it.

I don't think this issue is for judges to decide - the implications are so enormous that it is for our elected representatives. Especially as the case appears to be trying to to strike down long-established primary legislation.

The people running this campaign are supported/work alongside Don’t Screen Us Out who are anti antenatal testing. When it comes down to it, I just wonder who thinks it’s a good idea to force women to carry children they don’t think they can care for. What kind of life will that child have, especially one that needs more selflessness and care than other children.

Also, 24 weeks is not always long enough for identifying and confirming health issues. It will force women into making decisions without all the facts.

people have been asking for support for parents of children with disabilities, and disabled adults for YEARS @IllForTooLong
The situation is getting worse, not better.
Of course we need more support, but we also need the right to be able to decide what we can and cant cope with and have bodily autonomy.

Noone should be pressured into terminating pregnancies, and noone should be forced into continuing them. Our reproductive freedom is vital

Instinctively, the idea of a very late term abortion (after say 32 weeks) for anything except a baby that absolutely could not survive, makes me very uncomfortable. Which is what I think these cases are playing on. Because in real life, where are the numbers? How many babies with downs syndrome are aborted after 24 weeks?

I heard this discussed on woman’s hour and they had a women from BPAS on who gave figures for a one year period (possibly 2018, not 100% sure but recent). I believe I’ve remembered these figures correctly, there were around 300 post-24 week abortions in the UK in that year, Down’s syndrome was mentioned in 12 of them.

There is an argument to say that, if a baby is born early and lives then surely we are talking about a baby and not a foetus with no right to live.

It comes down to whose rights carry more weight: those of the woman or those of the baby/foetus.

I personally find the idea of abortion even beyond 12 weeks uncomfortable (I have had a second trimester abortion myself, not a judgement, just my personal feelings now) and wouldn't personally do that again under most circumstances BUT I DO NOT WANT THE RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT CHOISE TAKEN AWAY FROM ME. Not at any point in a pregnancy.

Late term abortions can be very traumatic for the woman. No one makes that choice lightly. No one. Let them decide.

I am, and will always be team "as early as possible, as late as necessary".

I heard this discussed on woman’s hour and they had a women from BPAS on who gave figures for a one year period (possibly 2018, not 100% sure but recent). I believe I’ve remembered these figures correctly, there were around 300 post-24 week abortions in the UK in that year, Down’s syndrome was mentioned in 12 of them.

Interesting, so very low. Also, post 24-week to full term has a LOT of wriggle room. Of those 300, how many were 24-26 week, for example?* I just really don't believe that more than a tiny handful are aborted at the point at which they're full term or almost full term and I also don't believe that if they ARE aborted at that stage, that they're done for any but the most extreme of reasons.

*I knew a woman whose 20 week scan picked up a possible issue. They started monitoring. But they just couldn't tell. The problem was that if it was A - baby would die as soon as born, if it was B - baby would have to have very very highly risky surgery at birth with a very high chance of death and if i was C - baby would have to have surgery but it would be significantly less risky. However, it was too soon to say which it was. So a bit part of their challenge as parents was trying to make a decision before 24 weeks with incomplete information.

In the end, they went through a legal process to get permission for a late abortion, expecting to do it at about 25 weeks. It was torture.

pregnantncnc, that's it exactly. It's not necessarily 'easy' in terms of making a decision and living with it; but it IS a simple principle that we must have bodily autonomy. That comes with pros and cons. That's just how it is. Anything else is a slippery slope to Handmaid's Tale territory.

@Thelnebriati

If you want to set a limit on late abortion then first you have to remove all impediments to obtaining an early one. And I don't see that happening.

Exactly.