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?

That doesn't answer my question. And when exactly did I say aborted foetuses can be aborted up to birth? Don't put words in my mouth.

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.

oh the good old friend of a friend

Well my friend told me no one ever does it...

Most women who don't want to be pregnant would rather get it sorted as quickly as possible and are not delaying abortions for giggles

No one is killing babies.

Aborting a viable child is killing a baby in the minds of most people outside MN because that's exactly what it is. Either it's never ok or it's always ok. DS shouldn't come into it. That has no bearing on the rights of women.

I'm afraid I don't sanction killing a baby who will have to be delivered in any eventuality when there are adopters ready and waiting in this country.

I'm afraid I don't sanction killing a baby who will have to be delivered in any eventuality when there are adopters ready and waiting in this country.

Really? In England in June 21 there were 2040 children waiting for adoption. 51% of which had been waiting for over 18 months.
You don't have to sanction aborting a foetus, luckily it's nothing to do with you and only to do with the mother. No one has to agree with the choice another person makes, but it is their right to make it.

In England in June 21 there were 2040 children waiting for adoption. 51% of which had been waiting for over 18 months.

And we're talking about children who would have disabilities. The least likely to be adopted. That's the part to focus on, if supports were present and adequate, maybe more people would feel able to have a child with disabilities, whether born or adopted.

And where exactly are these legions of people willing to adopt a baby who has just been born very prematurely (assuming you are inducing the birth as soon as the foetus is viable and not forcing a woman to carry it to term against her will), will be likely severely disabled and may not live until adulthood? Are you one of them?

I think they're all friends of friends....

Love to know how many children forced birthers have adopted, and how much money they've put in to sex education to help unwanted pregnancies before they exist....

How many disabled children have you adopted, @Thornethorn ?

Either it's never ok or it's always ok. DS shouldn't come into it.

Absolute rubbish. The law is written in black and white but each woman's decision about whether to continue with her pregnancy is nuanced, often complex and often very distressing, especially if it's a wanted pregnancy but there are anomalies.

Women have to think about the impact on their existing family and on their finances and on their own wellbeing. They have to think about their support network, both while they're alive and after they've gone. They have to think about the kind of life the child would have and what their limitations would be, not only from the disability but also from the terrible state of social care and support. They have to consider how much pain it is reasonable to put their child through balanced against how much chance of life they have, and what kind of life. They have to think about the specific medical information they have been given about their own pregnancy because most prenatal diagnoses, including DS, cover a wide range of outcomes. And women have to do all this thinking in a sea of uncertainties because prognoses are best guesses, and because we live in interesting times and none of us know what kind of support will be available in the future, even in 5 or 10 years time.

Also it's not up to you to sanction or not sanction what any other woman does with her body. Thankfully.

Actually it does answer your question. This started because there is a challenge to whether DS is a valid reason for late abortion.

What is your reasoning as to why there should be a difference in the options available for an unwanted pregnancy where there is DS compared to one where there isn’t?

Only one person has offered a cogent answer for that by admitting there is a conflict between the woman’s right to choose and the stigmas caused to all disabled people by them being abortable up to birth, and then taking the view that it is a proportionate measure for a legitimate aim. Whilst acknowledging others might take the view it is neither proportionate nor legitimate, or find it a really difficult “on balance” situation.

What is your reasoning as to why there should be a difference in the options available for an unwanted pregnancy where there is DS compared to one where there isn’t?
Because DS in many cases is a severe disability which destroys families due to the heavy burden of care. I lost my father because he had to shoulder 24/7 care of a severely disabled child with DS. My kids lost their grandfather. Because he was trapped in the house looking after a severely disabled child. His life was over and that affected all of us.

What is your reasoning as to why there should be a difference in the options available for an unwanted pregnancy where there is DS compared to one where there isn’t?

Because DS is a disability and not all people can cope with a disabled child. It's also not always picked up until later so the option to terminate should still be available.

NIPT is not the miracle test it’s sometimes made out to be. I wasn’t able to get the full NHS screening because COVID 🙄 and was given a fairly high risk of baby having DS for my age from what little screening I could get. Fortunately I could afford the NIPT but I had to take it 3 times from 14 weeks before it was able to give me a result. The chances of it working was slimmer each time. I was 24 weeks before I finally got a result. For some women it never works. Therefore those women will always have to rely on testing not available until later on in pregnancy.

In an ideal world we’d all get answers as early as possible but it doesn’t work like that. Even with NIPT some women will still have to wait until much later in pregnancy to know the answers and the law must protect their right to decide.

I really dislike all the “my friend’s sister has DS and she’s amazing” etc. DS is a broad spectrum including not only potential behavioural issues but complex medical needs to. You have a limited idea pre birth of where on the spectrum any person with DS will fall. Your friends sister is completely irrelevant to another woman’s decision.

As for bloody Sally “I have lots of money for a full time nanny and a really flexible job” Phillips trying to limit screening 🤬. She gives me the absolute rage. How out of touch can you be.

So you are a Forced Birther too if the woman just can’t cope for a reason other than disability?

Or are the current laws in the UK too restrictive for your liking.

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?

I don't THINK it, I KNOW it. One is a live human person and one is not. That's literally how it works.

*So you are a Forced Birther too if the woman just can’t cope for a reason other than disability?

Or are the current laws in the UK too restrictive for your liking.*

How am I a forced birther? I think a woman should be able to terminate if she wants too. It's not my choice and I would never expect a woman to stay pregnant with a child she didn't want.

You seem to have difficulty understanding late term abortions are not done because a woman changed her mind, they are done because of a medical need. That should never change. You may not like the fact that a woman can terminate because of a disability but you aren't supporting that woman or child in raising a disabled kid, so it's nothing to do with you.

Women should always have the choice to decide what to do with their body. Disabilities aren't always present early on which is why late term abortions are available, and that option should always remain.

My question was what happens to these premature unwanted severely disabled babies. So no it doesn't.

I think people with Down’s Syndrome should have the same rights as anyone else. That means that abortion limits should be the same across the board (obviously it’s different if the baby isn’t compatible with life/will be in severe pain etc.)

What the time limit should be for abortions in general is a different question.

what rights do people with DS not have by other people having terminations?

Just make it so all women are entitled to an abortion for any reason up to birth then. That way, the reason for termination need never enter the equation. Instant equality for all foetuses.

Why though? DS is a disability so it should have the same abortion law as other disabilities.

Because sometimes a woman won't have the results of the screening tests until after the limit has passed.