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.

@Twickytwo

There have been investigations that uncovered late abortions carried out for Cleft Palate www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1126893/ I believe totally in a woman's right to autonomy over her body but I am uncomfortable with a really late term abortion being carried out for an easily fixable disability *@IcedSpice*, what do you think about an otherwise healthy baby being aborted for a cleft palate. They do not show up on early scans

I know a family whose baby was diagnosed with a cleft palette in utero. It turned out when baby was born that the cleft palette was indicative of a whole raft of medical issues, baby needed 24hr care for years, is profoundly disabled and mum had to give up work permanently to become her full time carer.

I couldn't support a women to have an abortion the day before her due date.
I can't believe this would ever happen. Its just used as an argument to not allow late stage abortion.
Nobody is going to decide to go ahead with a Downs pregnancy then at 39+6 go, actually, kill the foetus.
And no doctor would go ahead with the procedure if they did.

This is a US article but very relevant. Dr Gunter is amazing
www.vox.com/first-person/2016/10/21/13352872/donald-trump-abortion-wrong

I think the thing to focus on is the total lack of support for parents of disabled children

This 100%.

@BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz

The worry with saying "permitted in cases where the baby will have a poor quality of life" is then you have to start quantifying existences. What is "worth" living with?

It's too open to interpretation, emotion and pressure.

Everyone will have a different barometer for this based on their beliefs, life experiences and research. It is the parents right to decide for their child. No one is going to force them to have a late term abortion if they don't want to

Everyone will have a different barometer for this based on their beliefs, life experiences and research. It is the parents right to decide for their child. No one is going to force them to have a late term abortion if they don't want to

I didnt suggest that anyone would. My argument is quite the opposite - that women should be permitted to undergo an abortion at any point in the pregnancy

I know a family whose baby was diagnosed with a cleft palette in utero. It turned out when baby was born that the cleft palette was indicative of a whole raft of medical issues, baby needed 24hr care for years, is profoundly disabled and mum had to give up work permanently to become her full time carer.

I have a child with a cleft palate and, while most of the time, if unaccompanied by other markers, it is an isolated issue and fairly straightforward to deal with ( not as trivial as people suggest though) but it can also be one of many issues a baby has.

I know from my TFMR that doctors often just pick one thing to put on the reasons for termination form, my baby had several issues, I think the one they put on the form might make people think it was a silly reason to terminate but it just didn't show the full picture

@MattyGroves

@BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz

Everyone will have a different barometer for this based on their beliefs, life experiences and research. It is the parents right to decide for their child. No one is going to force them to have a late term abortion if they don't want to

I didnt suggest that anyone would. My argument is quite the opposite - that women should be permitted to undergo an abortion at any point in the pregnancy

My mistake, I thought you were saying that quality of life was too open to interpretation and therefore wasn't a valid argument

@MattyGroves
I have never regretted my TFMR either. I grieve, still, six years on but I don’t regret sparing her and my other children the pain.

I cannot accept a healthy full term baby being aborted. I guess that means I am not pro-choice. It is not as if the mother has to go through less once the baby/foetus has been killed/pregnancy ended. The baby still needs to come out. At that point I do not accept the mother's right not to be a biological mother to a child she may choose to have nothing more to do with, outweighs the babies right to life. Working back from the point of birth though to where I think the line should be is a tricky one.

As a mother of a child who has Down's, all I want is for my child's life to be equally valued. By allowing babies with Down's to be terminated until birth, feels like another example of society saying children like mine are not seen as equal.

Throughout my pregnancy, even until I was 30 weeks, I was continually offered termination, even though I had said I wished to continue my pregnancy (my daughter has no life-limiting conditions, just down's, and I completely understand that other babies with a diagnosis of down's might also have other life-limiting diagnoses).

I am however fully in support of abortion, including TMFR for life-limiting conditions/where the baby would suffer, and I feel for any woman in this situation, it is truly a heartbreaking situation to be in.

However my daughter's diagnosis in her case is not life-limiting. Yes, she needs more help to reach her developmental goals, but she gets there in her own time, has friends and she is very much loved. I just wish I could protect her from the stigmatism that people with Down's syndrome face

mylovelyhorsechestnut but the argument here seems to be that all babies should be able to be terminated at term rather than Downs babies should not be terminated past 24 weeks.

when people talk about cleft palate, this can range from a simple split in the lip and palate that can be repaired, all the way to a great deal of the face missing.

Let's be honest here. There are vanishingly few very late abortions and almost all of them are where the foetus would be profoundly disabled. It is never a lifestyle choice.

Women who have late abortions have to deliver the foetus. It's not a quick hoover around with a suction machine under GA. The older the foetus, the harder this is. And remember that the decision to end the pregnancy in such a traumatic way will have been taken after receiving devastating news about, in all likelihood, a much wanted child.

If it's right for the woman to end her pregnancy, I'll support her all the way.

I try hard to think 'as early as possible, as late as necessary', but I just can't. I can't imagine it being ok to terminate late in pregnancy unless the baby's condition was incompatible with life.

I would like us to live in a world where every child's family was sufficiently well supported. I realise that isn't the case.

If we say 'at any time, for any reason, if the woman wishes', then we must accept things like termination because of the baby's sex, or change in the support network/pressure from extended family. If the father withdraws support, for example.

If a woman is 30 weeks pregnant and is considering terminating the pregnancy, then goes into premature labour and the baby is born alive, what then? How is it murder if the baby is killed one day later, but acceptable if one day earlier?

How can we ask medics to kill the foetus as part of the process?

If you have been in this situation and made these kinds of decisions, then my heart bleeds for you- I don't judge, and I don't want my comment to upset anyone. I just can't wrap my head (or perhaps my heart?) around this one.

I've cared for babies with cleft palates, babies with developmental delay, 6 week premature babies, children with significant special needs. I'm aware of the challenges.

I am pro choice to whichever stage the foetus is at. There needs to be a valid reason for a late term abortion, they aren't done just because.
Subjecting a child to a painful existence to satisfy the mothers want to be a mother could be considered cruel. Why would you want a child who is going to constantly be in pain or have constant health issues, that seems more selfish than the alternative.
I would never judge a woman for having a late term abortion, because I cannot imagine the pain they went through before making that decision.

I do think it's wrong for a termination to be seen as the default option when a disability is diagnosed in utero. I don't think a society without disabled children would be a better society. I don't want the law on abortion to change but I'd like a lot of other things to change to make life easier for parents and children/adults with Down's syndrome.

All women should be allowed to have late term abortions then. Raise the limit for all and there's no discrimination then. That wouldn't take away any rights from women either.

I support women to have a termination, the right to choose and the rights over her own body but I dislike the term 'as early as possible as late as necessary' because we don't actually mean that.

Albeit many years ago, I discussed a termination with a hospital doctor. He told me I could have a termination but I'd have to wait till 30 week, give birth and hope the baby was dead.

I don’t understand what the Downright discrimination campaign is hoping to achieve. If they want women to be able to abort up to full term in all cases, I am completely with them. If they are trying to reduce the abortion time limit for women carrying foetuses with Down’s Syndrome, then I am completely opposed to their view.

They may have DS children who are thriving, however they don’t get to chose whether to continue the pregnancy on behalf of another woman.
Also, I don’t see many people offering to financially support these children for the next 18yrs!

Agree Tubbs!

NC'ed for this. I terminated a pregnancy after I unexpectedly received bad news in the 20 week scan. We were given a 'grey diagnosis': meaning that some disabilities were likely (physical, cognitive, mental, and emotional), the extent of it was just unsure. It was the hardest, most gut-wrenching decision of my life, especially because there was no straightforward answer.

It is very clear to me that abortion was not the problem in this. The actual problem is people receiving heartbreaking news about their baby's health at a later stage of the pregnancy. That is the real tragedy. When you limit abortion from the 24 week term to earlier, you don't solve this problem. You just make people's lives, which have just been thrown in complete disarray, even harder.

Arguing to limit the 24 week limit means limiting the little time available for people to come to a life-changing decision. Had I not had that time, had I not felt that I had considered this decision in detail, been able to go back and forth, talk it through with everyone I needed to, gotten that second and third medical opinion, had a few counselling sessions, etc., I don't know how I would have coped right now.

The reason for the later abortion limit in a very small range of circumstances is to allow the parents more time to choose.

Someone upthread was saying that she was having her 20 week scan at 21 weeks and 6 days. If that scan disclosed Down's syndrome, the parents have 2 weeks to carry our further tests, get results, discuss the results with the dr and get counselling.

They have to guess whether their child would be a happy blessing like a op's or whether the baby would be more like my cousin's daughter who is profoundly mentally and physically disabled, non verbal, violent to her siblings and who will never live independently.

If forced to choose in a very tight timeframe, the outcome will be more aborted disabled babies, even those who could have lived full and largely independent lives.

Throughout my pregnancy, even until I was 30 weeks, I was continually offered termination, even though I had said I wished to continue my pregnancy

Yes I've read elsewhere (from a neutral source) that women are often heavily pressured to have an abortion when anomalies are discovered. This is wrong and we should change it. We could do that without changing any laws.

It bothers me that we don't see campaigns around that, just repeated attempts to chip away at women's reproductive rights.