Abortion law challenge - 24 weeks limit for Down's syndrome

[SecretThermalsAreTheBest]

Just read that there's a high court challenge to try and change the clause that currently allows abortion to be carried out after 24 weeks, up until birth when the foetus/baby has Down's Syndrome or another severe disability.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-56982646

The campaign would bring the abortion limit for all babies with non-fatal severe disabilities to the same 24 week time limit.

Just interested to know what people think about this?

As for the DS issue:

It's all becoming a bit of a non-issue anyway; NIPT can already be performed at 9 weeks or earlier (even accounting for delays and admin, NIPT usually means an early abortion), and as NIPT gets cheaper and cheaper and better and better, we'll soon be able to detect trisomy within a very few weeks of pregnancy. Only a small % of people (mostly committed pro-lifers/very religious etc.) will keep going with brand new pregnancy where a trisomy has been detected just a few weeks in; so the abortion rate for DS will continue to rise and the average gestational age of abortion for DS will continue to fall.

The comments about "there should be more social support for families where there is a child with DS!" are true in themselves, but if the implication is "...and that lack of social support IS the reason why women are terminating! If only women had really good disability care support, we'd all be keeping our DS pregnancies, honest!" is another example of the kind of dishonesty I've mentioned before.

Looking across Europe, the better the social care provision, the higher the abortion rate for DS. In the Nordic countries, which offer really good support and care to families, DS has now almost disappeared among young children. Everyone gets an abortion. There is no sign this trend is not going to continue.

No judgment from me. I had a late baby, had the NIPT as early as possible and would have terminated (with sadness but without hesitation) had I had a result showing a trisomy.

I really don't see how anyone can get annoyed with the term, if you want to force women to continue with pregnancies they don't want, you are in favour of forcing them to birth a child. Just because you don't like how it sounds, doesn't make it untrue.

Why are you being disingenuous?

Don’t pretend it is a neutral descriptive term. It’s meant as a term of contempt

Why are you being disingenuous?

It's stating the truth, or do you not like to be confronted with the truth?

I was in this situation sadly. But it was not DS..it was another rarer chromosome disorder along with other probably fatal organ problems. I did TOP before 24wk but was told it would be allowed up until birth in my case.

There are no words for how hard it is. This was a much wanted pregnancy and baby. The guilt and suffering is often lifelong, it is for me although i have come to terms with now after many years.

The experience itself is pretty horrific. After about 19 weeks there is also the extremely difficult feticide injection to prevent baby being born alive. No words can explain how hard this is to endure.

Anyway it is often stated that TOP happens because the woman does not want a disabled baby or it is unwanted. Can't speak for every woman but for many they feel it is unfair to bring a baby into the world if it will suffer and likely die in many cases. Life is hard enough. This was what I felt and influenced my decision.

Like many things in life if you haven't been in this position then it is hard to know how you would feel. I can understand both points of view.

However I think better financial and practical support would be a better focus to encourage people to go ahead if they want with DS pregnancy. The mums I know of children with DS had to fight for everything and are exhausted.

Why on Earth shouldn’t one be contemptuous of forced birthers? Abortion is a right and one that shouldn’t be up for debate. Forced birthers continually attempt to erode that right and continually stoke debate: debate suggests there are two legitimate sides here, that there is any kind of legitimacy to being anti-choice. Of course many people are contemptuous.

It's all becoming a bit of a non-issue anyway; NIPT can already be performed at 9 weeks or earlier (even accounting for delays and admin, NIPT usually means an early abortion), and as NIPT gets cheaper and cheaper and better and better, we'll soon be able to detect trisomy within a very few weeks of pregnancy.

Eh, not here is not. Are you talking about an entirely different country, user[loadofnumbers]?

Because in the UK, nobody gets a NIPT at 9 weeks. You get you first scan between 12 and 14 weeks, and tests are only done from that point onwards, with most fetal abnormality scans being done between 20-22.5 weeks. So abortions need to be available later than 24 weeks for adverse outcomes from that scan.

I note you have already chosen to use statistics for the US, instead of the UK. I question the US stats but they are not applicable here even if true. In the UK, there are hundreds of thousands of terminations of pregnancy every year in the UK, and only ~250 or so of those are late term, and all will be for medical reasons not "healthy fetus but changed my mind".

More than 90% of abortions are in the first trimester.

Just to explain why late stage abortion may be needed. I never thought I'd be in this position and am currently 23 weeks pregnant with twins.
1baby is showing some abnormalities and they have advised termination. But due to the twin pregnancy, they wouldn't terminate twin 1 until 30 plus weeks to give twin 2 a fighting chance.

Theres lots that people don't understand about these situations until they are in them. Women should always have choices and be trusted that they will make the correct one for them.
I havent decided what I'll do yet, amino has been offered but also endangers both twins. I'm unlikely to terminate but feel thankful that I have that option up to the end if it was necessary.

You say 'a live human baby born yesterday'. Really? So you think a critically touch and go 23 weeker is a full person but a 30 week old Fetus isn't, just because it isn't outside the body yet?

Yes. That is how the law works. A fetus is not a person. It's a part of the woman's body. The woman is a person, the fetus is not. Once the baby is born and is alive independently of the mother's body then at that stage it gains personhood and it is a person.

CherryBlossom100 , what a difficult situation. I hope you are getting really good care and support from the hospital and that you get a good outcome.

I'm so sorry. All the very best.

There you go again.

You mean the term as one of contempt, and the reason not to be contemptuous is because you are trying to persuade people. If your thinking can’t extend beyond own view point without dishing out the vitriol then people won’t engage with you.
Particularly given the views on “No Debate” on Mumsnet. Where has No Debate ever got anyone!

The fact that there are different abortion regimes in different countries, and different abortion regimes in the same country depending on whether the foetus has DS or not demonstrates that is something that has had to be debated and discussed… at length.

People do see that there are some unintended consequences of No Forced Births system; e.g. It requires you to support sex selection abortions, it legitimizes ableism, and it also extends the period of time in which men get to coerce their partners to have late abortions. Which doesn’t take away from the downsides of regulating abortion.

I have no idea why you feel morally superior to anyone who disagrees with you. They will also note how you wash your hands of the erasure of those with DS.

@PearPickingPorky @MrsTerryPratchett
Thank you. I cant fault the NHS care to be honest. Anomalies found at routine 20 week scan and already been seen by fetal medicine and given extra tests and information.
I had similar abnormalities with my daughter who is now a gorgeous, healthy 4 year old so know it can work out but nothing is guaranteed and that's why sometimes more time and testing is needed. No woman would take a late stage termination without a bloody good reason which is why viability is a red herring.
I have to decide whether taking the risk of a severely disabled baby is the right choice for a single mother to a four year old and two newborns. Things like me continuing to be able to work to keep the roof over our heads are the sobering realities, not the rose tinted view of some sen children being very loving and happy.

They will also note how you wash your hands of the erasure of those with DS.

Whose erasing people with DS? I think a woman, the mother, should be able to choose whether to continue with a pregnancy of a foetus with DS. It doesn't mean I want all to be terminated. I want the mother to choose.
I would never see the view point of pro life/forced birth, I'd never associate with someone who thinks like that. I want all women to be able to make the right decision for them, whether it be continuing with a pregnancy or abortion. There is nothing someone could say to make me agree with forcing women to continue a pregnancy.

@CherryBlossom100 I'm really sorry you're going through this. I'm glad the NHS care is going well and hope it continues

Can you even avoid forced birth after 24 weeks? I didn't think you could have a surgical abortion that late? I thought you'd have to be induced?

(a) By supporting a system where they can be aborted later than foetuses without a trisomy
(b) by your pat little routine of “nuthin to me guv, it’s all those individual women making decisions, I’m just so compassionate”.

I have a child with a disability and my niece is profoundly disabled. My sil adores her dd but is very open with family that if the disability had been known she would have terminated.

I think the current law is right.

In practice (though I have no expertise whatsoever on this) once the 24 limit has passed I believe hospitals usually seek court approval for the termination where there is severe disability. They are not easy to get or done lightly. My sil was told this when she had her ds2.

(a) By supporting a system where they can be aborted later than foetuses without a trisomy
(b) by your pat little routine of “nuthin to me guv, it’s all those individual women making decisions, I’m just so compassionate”.

I'm sorry you feel that being compassionate for women and wanting them to make the best decision for themselves, is a bad thing.
I will support a system that allows for late term abortions, I won't apologise for that.

@CherryBlossom100 wishing you the very best and I hope everything goes well for you. I can't even imagine how difficult it must be for you

@FreudayNight There is no debate. Some things are simply not up for debate. Basic rights over my own body is one of those things. Doesn’t mean I feel morally superior: there’s no moral factor here, and trying to turn it into a morality debate is another tool of pro lifers/anti choicers/forced birthers/whatever you choose to call them.

@CherryBlossom100

The same people behind this court case are also against NIPT.

I will never, in theory or in reality, support forced birth for any reason.

Your manipulative bullshit won't work on me. Try something else.