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.

[quote 1940s]@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. [/quote]
I feel that she should have been allowed a termination if she felt that strongly and was repeatedly made pregnant by an irresponsible husband.

I may not like the reason, but its still her body.
Doesnt sound like she really wanted a baby at all, but just felt that if it was a girl it would at least be more bearable.

Not like humans are an endangered species.
I cant relate to why so many people seem to think its important we just keep having more of them to the extent theyd force a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy in case the foetus felt sad?

As early as possible, as late as necessary

I think a maximum time (sufficient to research, speak to experts etc) from diagnosis of a disability should be set if it takes you past 24 weeks eg if a scan is delayed past 20 weeks due to the hospital to say 22 weeks and 4 days, you should still be able to abort as long as you make the decision by 24 weeks (giving you 10 days to make that decision, but probably insufficient for the hospital to arrange). It's very emotive Andover personally couldn't abort at that stage for things like downs but I recognise that others have a different opinion

I’m currently pregnant, my scan is 20+6. If the removal of this exception comes into play, that would mean I have 21 days, including weekends. 21 days to do follow up tests or scans, to talk with consultants and specialists, to process what they are saying to us, ask questions, talk and then make the decision whether we continue with the pregnancy or not.

I’m either going to be rushing into a termination without understanding what the limitations of the child will be and how that will impact our lives. Or we proceed with a pregnancy that we potentially don’t want. If people want to remove the exemption, then we need to make sure that every woman experiences no delays with her maternity care and we probably need to look at moving the cut off dates for scans forward.

A very small number of women will be making the decision to terminate at this late stage just because they don’t want the baby. For most late term terminations, this is a difficult decision for the mother to reach. Rushing her into a decision either way is not the solution.

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??

This is more philosophy than ethics tbh. Although it isn't really that complex, a foetus becomes a baby when it is born and therefore an independent organism as opposed to a parasitic organism, essentially.

What you're describing is your discomfort about the very nature of all life including humanity as transient and meaningless. The crushing reality that human lives are not special or any different to all the other forms of life on this planet.

Ultimately, your discomfort with the reality of being a mortal creature. Of all your loved ones being mortal creatures who will one day cease to exist again.

An existential crisis if you will.

Banning abortion or calling embryos and foetuses "babies" does not change the material reality of life on earth and it will not make your discomfort about mortality go away.

It will however inflict needless suffering on many, many other people.

You cannot give a parasitic organism rights over the body of its host. To do so would wipe out everybody's human rights, as well as the humanity you purport to protect.

It should be a woman's choice. I wouldn't abort for Downs and would generally not want to have an abortion myself but it should always be the woman's choice. Most late abortions are of much wanted babies, done with extreme sorrow.

As soon as you start judging the reason you’re policing the choice. What is a ‘good enough’ reason? Would not wanting 3 under 3 count? Would it be an acceptable choice if the mother already had a boy and girl so we were sure the sex of the foetus wasn’t an issue?

There are plenty of people out there who don’t want women to have the choice at all. Part of accepting that women do and should have the choice is accepting that only the woman concerned has the right to make that choice.

As early as possible, as late as necessary.
#TeamWoman

I have a family member who had to have a late term abortion following a scan showing the baby would be serverly disabled and unlikely to survive infancy. It was a heartbreaking descision for her to make as the baby was much loved.

Its not like deciding between ice cream and cheescake for desert. Its not even the same as when a woman makes a choice to have an early abortion, which can be very difficult in its own way. Its absolutely devestating and usually a last resort and I have every sympathy for any family who has to go through a late abortion.

@user432543424532

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??

This is more philosophy than ethics tbh. Although it isn't really that complex, a foetus becomes a baby when it is born and therefore an independent organism as opposed to a parasitic organism, essentially.

What you're describing is your discomfort about the very nature of all life including humanity as transient and meaningless. The crushing reality that human lives are not special or any different to all the other forms of life on this planet.

Ultimately, your discomfort with the reality of being a mortal creature. Of all your loved ones being mortal creatures who will one day cease to exist again.

An existential crisis if you will.

Banning abortion or calling embryos and foetuses "babies" does not change the material reality of life on earth and it will not make your discomfort about mortality go away.

It will however inflict needless suffering on many, many other people.

You cannot give a parasitic organism rights over the body of its host. To do so would wipe out everybody's human rights, as well as the humanity you purport to protect.

I love at how you can decide what I feeling uncomfortable or not. Can you read my mind too??

I’ve been asking a question. When is that foetus becoming ‘alive’ and a human being?
You’ve stated that this foetus is only becoming a human being when it’s born. Before, it’s a nothing with no rights.

I’m saying that many people will disagree with you. Not the least the mother’s who have given birth to a stillborn baby at 39 or 40 weeks…..
Nor the parents who are burying a child born at 32 weeks.

Hence why it’s so necessary to discuss that question. Because you can’t just impose your view on what a human being/baby is to others tbh…

[quote LangClegsInSpace]The most dangerous thing about this case is that if it's successful it would give rights to foetuses. If a foetus has rights under the equality act, what other rights does it have?

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/04/marshae-jones-alabama-fetal-rights-alarmed[/quote]
You don’t need to look to America. Look to Ireland. We only repealed the 8th amendment in 2019. Some of the cases of woman v foetus rights were catastrophic to the woman.

You’ve stated that this foetus is only becoming a human being when it’s born. Before, it’s a nothing with no rights.
Before birth is the only time the mother and foetal rights are directly in conflict.
After birth, if a mother decides she doesn't want the baby there are structures in place to ensure the baby doesn't die.
Before birth that's not possible without great cost and use of medical resources. So basically as soon as you give a foetus "rights" you are enforcing pregnancy on the mother.
You can't logic out of this - it's very simple. Are the rights of a human that can't live without support for its basic life functions, can't communicate its own wants and preferences, important enough to over ride the rights of a fully autonomous adult with capability to make choices?

You don’t need to look to America. Look to Ireland. We only repealed the 8th amendment in 2019. Some of the cases of woman v foetus rights were catastrophic to the woman.

Yes, I was reading this earlier:

www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v40/n10/sally-rooney/an-irish-problem

This is the current law:

The foetus cannot, in English law, in my view, have any right of its own at least until it is born and has a separate existence from the mother. That permeates the whole of the civil law of this country (I except the criminal law, which is now irrelevant), and is, indeed, the basis of the decisions in those countries where law is founded on the common law, that is to say, in America, Canada, Australia, and, I have no doubt, in others.

Paton v. British Pregnancy Advisory Service Trustees and Another [1978] QB 276

You can download the judgment here:

www.womenslinkworldwide.org/en/gender-justice-observatory/court-rulings-database/paton-v-british-pregnancy-advisory-service-trustees-and-another-1978-qb-276

By bringing a discrimination case on behalf of the foetus under the human rights act, they are seeking to overturn this decision and grant legal personhood and human rights to foetuses.

This is a huge deal

It's separate from any arguments we might want to have about where the time limit should be or in what circumstances late terminations should be permitted.

Whether you think there should be stricter controls on late abortions, no late abortions, no abortions at all, earlier time limit, later time limit, full decriminalisation or whatever your views on that debate ... this is a huge deal

Granting legal personhood to foetuses leads to a very dark place.

We are talking about a very tiny percentage of abortions
88% are carried out before 10 weeks
2% are carried out after 20 weeks
0.1% are carried out at 24 weeks and beyond - "Abortions may be
performed after 24 weeks in certain circumstances, for example, if the mother's life is at risk or the child would be born severely disabled"
www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-2020/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2020

I don't see how it can be discrimination because a foetus doesn't have any rights. Do we have to have equal opportunities uteruses now?

If they do decide that it's discriminatory then the only fair solution that I can see is to allow abortion up to birth for any reason, not just disability. I think it should be that way anyway.

As to why it's currently set up this way - because most people don't know that there is any issue until the 20 week scan, which often occurs at 22 weeks, then if an issue is picked up, further diagnostic testing may well be required and the mother will then need time to consider her decision. It's cruel to introduce an arbitrary deadline into this process.

Mothers should always be allowed to abort because the risks of pregnancy and birth are always on them, and let's face it, I don't know any single dads of disabled children but I know plenty of single mums, where the dad has fucked off and left the whole heart breaking, exhausting, expensive and time consuming process to the mother.

I completely am pro choice. The woman is the priority and should have bodily autonomy without limitations.

As many people have pointed out, the actual number of people that would happily have an abortion up until term for no valid/medical reason is so small.

For those that don't agree with this, what support is given post birth for these women who now have children they do not want/cannot cope with? They either have to just deal with it and get on with their lives or put that child into a care system which is already bursting at the seams. And if they have any kind of disability, regardless of how small, their odds of being adopted go down even further.

Additionally in late pregnancy/childbirth, medically the woman is the priority. If anything happens where both the woman and foetus are in grave danger of loss of life, a doctor, will more often than not, prioritise the woman's life. Where does that fit into 'right for an unborn baby'?

I am firmly team woman. If people want to help disabled people then we need to look at the reasons why women are choosing to abort babies after a diagnosis. Parents of children with disabilities have to fork out a fortune if they want decent equipment to make thiers and thier children's lives easier. A child at my son's school had to pay for a decent wheelchair, the one she was offered was rubbish. Barely any respite is available to parents. My friend was constantly given grief by health care and other professionals for trying to fit her DS's appointments around her work schedule. They told her that most mothers they see don't work (notice Mums, not dads). When the DCs become adults they still require care with a pittance from the government in terms of financial support even when the parents are getting older.
Basically we need to make having a disabled child easier.

*a parent of a child with down's syndrome had to pay for the wheelchair, not the child!

@motogogo

I think a maximum time (sufficient to research, speak to experts etc) from diagnosis of a disability should be set if it takes you past 24 weeks eg if a scan is delayed past 20 weeks due to the hospital to say 22 weeks and 4 days, you should still be able to abort as long as you make the decision by 24 weeks (giving you 10 days to make that decision, but probably insufficient for the hospital to arrange). It's very emotive Andover personally couldn't abort at that stage for things like downs but I recognise that others have a different opinion

26 years ago I was pregnant. I had amnio at 18 weeks because my blood test results were spoiled and I had to have them re-done; they came back with a very high risk. It then took 4 weeks for my amnio results to come through so I was 22 week’s pregnant. Of course, I’d thought about what we’d do if the results were +ve, but could have had to face. Asking a decision on abortion within 2 weeks. That’s a terrible situation to be in. I still don’t know to this day what I’d have done had the result been +ve but I know I felt under immense pressure to make a quick decision with very little information. At the time I worked in a special school with children with PMLD, and many of these children had conditions that were directly as a result of premature births. Others had genetic conditions including Down syndrome. Most people who don’t work in education / paediatric health are not aware of how disabled a baby can be - many have experience of children with less life limiting disabilities. Only last week, there was a post on here from a desperate young mother with 3 children, the youngest who was severely disabled, and she was crying out for help because she just could not cope anymore. We don’t do near enough to help mothers (and fathers) like her.

@PomegranateQueen

I am firmly team woman. If people want to help disabled people then we need to look at the reasons why women are choosing to abort babies after a diagnosis. Parents of children with disabilities have to fork out a fortune if they want decent equipment to make thiers and thier children's lives easier. A child at my son's school had to pay for a decent wheelchair, the one she was offered was rubbish. Barely any respite is available to parents. My friend was constantly given grief by health care and other professionals for trying to fit her DS's appointments around her work schedule. They told her that most mothers they see don't work (notice Mums, not dads). When the DCs become adults they still require care with a pittance from the government in terms of financial support even when the parents are getting older. Basically we need to make having a disabled child easier.

Absolutely this. If a child has a significant disability, the parent / carers should have full financial support to house their child comfortably - not shove them in some grotty council flat with no lift or outside space. There should be good quality respite care for families. We are quick to criticise stay at home mothers saying they should be getting a job, but what support do mothers of disabled children get if they want to work? Bugger all! The way people with disabilities are treated as third class citizens in this country is a bloody disgrace.

How late is 'as early as possibly, as late as necessary?'
The day before the due date ?

@TheNameTheWebsiteForgot

How late is 'as early as possibly, as late as necessary?' The day before the due date ?

Do you think that without the legislation there would be a load of women who change their minds about having a baby one day before their due date, and elect to give birth to a full-term dead baby rather than a live one? And do you think that the best thing to do with someone like that, is to refuse and send them home with the live baby the next day?

I had a child who died in infancy, the condition was not one that was able to be diagnosed via antenatal tests, she suffered every single day of her very short life. We were not allowed to let her go peacefully (as euthanasia is not allowed despite the fact that treatments futile)
If I had known in pregnancy I would have terminated. and if I was forced to continue and bring her into a world where she knew nothing but pain I would be feeling immense anger with the people that brought this bill.
Late term abortions are not for the convenience of parents but to save immense suffering.

BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz

By the time the foetus has reached 24 weeks the woman has already become a 'breeding vessel' (or as I prefer to say, pregnant). If she has entered freely and willingly into a sexual relationship, then she hasn't been forced to become pregnant. She will have to give birth one way or another, the choice is between giving birth to an aborted foetus or waiting a few more weeks to give birth to a live baby.

Better to support women by (1) Providing better access to contraception (and relevant education), (2) providing access to early abortions if necessary, (2) providing much better support to disabled children and their families (both and pre-natally and postnatally, and onwards).

I think there is a difference between a woman choosing to end the pregnancy (ie determining what happens to her body), and choosing to end the life of the fetus.

If a woman at 12w pregnant decides to end the pregnant, the fetus dies. This question doesn't arise.

If a woman at 35w pregnant decides to end the pregnancy, the only way that fetus dies, is if it is specifically killed. As it's not being done to the mums body, and the pregnancy is ended anyway, I'm not sure why she should have the deciding say on whether it lives or dies, especially if there are others willing to support it (dad, family etc).

And then there's that gray period between about 21w and 30w where there is a glimmer of survival, to an almost certainly of survival, but only with support.

I guess personally, if the baby has a reasonable chance of survival (so day from about 24w) then the woman's choice is to end the pregnancy, not the fetus, and if it survives birth, then it should be supported the same way as any other fetus born of that gestation. I'm not sure how ethically, for example, in adjacent operating theatres it's ok to recusitate and support a baby born at 23 weeks, and next door perform (non tfmr) abortive surgery on a baby of identical gestation. One is treated as a baby, the other not. One given a funeral, the other not.

An exception should be created for where a baby will die shortly after birth due to disability, or be very disabled and have little quality of life, but let's call it what it is - compassionate euthanasia to stop a child being brought into the world to suffer.