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?

@stuntbubbles absolutely that’s why I only suggested it apply to healthy babies post 30 odd weeks, when the baby stands a good chance of pulling through without serious long term complications. I dont think it would be ‘forced birth’ as the procedure would be exactly the same thing (c section or induction). Emotionally I think some women would probably find it less harrowing to put a baby up for adoption than to end its life. But as we said, vanishingly rare so it would be very sparingly used anyway. But I do think, given the choice between dead healthy baby and adopted healthy baby, the latter is preferable.

I don’t see it that way. It’s the woman’s choice to no longer be pregnant. It’s not her choice what happens to the baby after birth.

@hellotoroo it is rare. ONS says 236 in 2020 after 24 weeks. That is 0.1% of all terminations.

Source? @BiscuitLover3678 there are women who are seriously in this situation

If a woman did this, then while its not something I personally would do, do you think it would be better to force this (made up) woman to give birth to a live child? Or do you think that she has other issues, maybe mental health maybe abusive partner.... or do you just want to force her to give birth and have a child??

the slur was being used against women who aren’t fully on board with any woman/any time/any reason or excuse.

From down here there is a lot of distance between Sacred Conceptions and On-Demand-At-Any-Time: No-Debate. But apparently anything other than On Demand is a Gilead Style Forced Birther.
And it appears to include those who wish to maintain the UK status quo which forces birth on women who find out too late or decide too late.

The reality is, the later the pregnancy the less the support for abortion, and that starts to drop off from 13 weeks. If you tell women who support first and second trimester abortions that they are Aunt Lydia’s unless they adopt your position you’ll find there are plenty who will take your slur. And just think of you as disgusting in your sanctimony in return.

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

This is a year old ?.

Yes, but it has become relevant again as the appeal hearing was two weeks ago and the judgment has not yet been handed down.

She will have to give birth in any event wouldn’t she?

Well, shouldn't you wait for the judgment then?.

Not really, we’re entitled to discuss a bunch of people trying to take our rights away aren’t we? Whether they succeed or not?

Other threads are available if this one is bothering you @Pyewhacket

This is what confused me, it's forced live birth rather than giving birth to a stillborn baby, but birth either way isn't it? Though, an abusive partner could be an issue if they could prevent an adoption and fight for custody of the child.

I’m afraid I don’t have the source. It’s from discussions with friends from certain backgrounds and what they know happens privately abroad and would happen (their upset with the way women are treated by some sectors of their culture). I’m sure I read a statistic at one point but I don’t have it here.

I don’t know. If someone was willing to give birth to a son and was able to not want a girl by that point then yes I think they should have it out of them and given to someone else to look after. I’ve had a C-section and if you’re drugged up (or even knocked out as you can request - although they don’t like it) then it’s a way to do it with minimal ‘knowledge’. What do you think a termination at that stage is like anyway? It’s not easy. It’s birth or termination. Baby is still removed from the body. In one way he or she is alive.

Women get pregnant because they can get pregnant. That’s something we as women have to deal with.

Also you can see women being pressured into abortion for the reasons above, if it’s legal.

I attach no importance to whether a woman has the right to give birth to a dead baby or a live baby. Either way she'll be giving birth and the universe cannot give her the right to reverse that. So that being the case my thoughts turn to the baby who would be born regardless and no, no one should be able to kill a DS baby to feel better about themselves, just because they have DS. Half of DS people are women. This involves them on both sides of the issue and it's not ok to ignore them.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. The number of post 24 week terminations is tiny proportionally.

And when the baby is born at 24 weeks, likely severely disabled with a low chance of survival to parents who don't want it, then what?

How do you justify saying disabled foetuses can be aborted up to birth.
Healthy foetuses can be aborted up to 24 weeks, therefore we are treating them the same, and we aren’t sending a signal to society on the importance or otherwise of disabled people.

in the same way as you turn your back on aborted female foetuses because “I trust women” ignoring the massive ol’ patriarchy which drives her decimating process.

Not decimating but decision making

It's a very emotive issue. My 20 week scan identified some anomalies which could have resulted in DD being seriously disabled. At that stage they weren't able to say this with certainty. I was given the option of aborting but couldn't.

DD was born very prematurely at 28 weeks and has a rare neurological condition which means she is unlikely ever to live independently. I do not regret for one minute having her but my life has changed beyond all recognition.

DP died two years ago and I am now bringing up DD on my own. My possibilities for working are severely limited and I constantly worry what will happen to DD if anything happens to me. I am lucky to have family who would probably step in but it is a very big ask.

I think the bottom line is that if you have not had the reality of living with a disabled child and struggling for support then you cannot judge. I had the choice. That is the point. For many women who have no family support there really is little societal help. Yes there are disability payments and some assistance but it is a constant fight to get these and I would never judge any woman who decided to abort because she couldn' t cope.

I do wonder if those who are concerned with stopping the right to abort after 24 weeks are giving practical help to those who have a disabled child and are struggling to cope. I think I know what the answer is.

I cannot imagine that many women would go through with a late abortion if they had any other choice.

no one should be able to kill a DS baby to feel better about themselves

1. No one is killing babies.


2. No one is aborting “to feel better about themselves”.


3. Shame on you.

Why on earth would a woman in these cultures wait? She wouldn't. She'd want no one to know she had an abortion because generally they aren't entirely OK by the culture either. She'd want to have one as early as possible.

Someone who thinks it should be legal for a woman to get pregnant multiple times and abort at nearly full term each time (and yes there are women who are seriously in this situation) is a little messed up imo.

Citation please. Because I do know women who've had more than one abortion. I know none who have sought or would seek multiple late term abortions.