now I know there is no way I would vote for this man

[2shoes]

dipstick that he is

[MannyMoeAndJack]

But 2Shoes, what if you want to exercise your parental choice and abort the baby? You have said you are pro-choice, but do you really mean that you are pro-choice up to a certain number of weeks?

And if that is the case, then that cannot be true pro-choice, it is partial pro-choice and it means that you are dictating how other people should live their lives.

[edam]

Good for Cameron. Abortion for whatever reason is a matter for the woman concerned and her doctors, and her family where she feels that's appropriate. It's not a matter for the Daily Mail to decide, or pro-lifers, or pro-choice for that matter - that individual decision is one for the individual to make, not for anyone else to second-guess.

Once you start fiddling around and imposing conditions, you'd create real cruelty. Because who chooses which illnesses and disabilities are severe enough to justify an abortion? Me, you, Anne Widdecombe? It's not an easy 'condition X is OK and condition Y is not' equation. You can't necessarily predict in advance how severely a baby will be affected.

That does not mean anyone values the lives of people with disabilities any the less. Because they are real people who exist, just like the rest of us. For me, and for the law as it stands, there is a huge cut-off point at birth - a live baby is a human being with rights, a fetus is a potential baby that is part of an adult human being who has the absolute right to decide what happens to her body.

FWIW I have a medical condition myself, and could easily have been aborted for social reasons (my parents weren't married which was still a big deal back then). Doesn't bother me in the slightest. Or make me inclined to restrict the rights of anyone else in my mother's situation.

[ImnotMamaGbutsheLovesMe]

And no one who isn't going to be looking after the child really has the right to tell anyone what to do.

[2shoes]

then myabe I have the term pro choice wrong. I am not anti abortion, but we are not atlking about abortion here.

[MannyMoeAndJack]

My understanding is that we are talking about abortion, particularly late abortion of babies up to 39wks gestation (but only this late if they have 'severe disabilities')

[2shoes]

but how can it be abortion, the baby would be able to survive?
this is where I get very confused.

[ImnotMamaGbutsheLovesMe]

But does it really take until 39 weeks to find out there is something wrong? If it is that bad, surely it would show up on scans?

[2shoes]

and what about after 40 weeks. what do you then do, say no thanks I don't want the baby?

[2shoes]

riven once againg you say what I am thinking.

[ImnotMamaGbutsheLovesMe]

It isn't right. Ever.

We were going to have our Edward's syndrome baby as we felt it was better to have them for a short while than not at all. Apprently that was wrong too. Completely irrelevant post no doubt but it has always bugged me.

[2shoes]

ImnotMamaGbutsheLovesMe

[jimjamshaslefttheyurt]

I know what you mean 2shoes. But in law a life starts at birth not before. So it's abortion however late on in the pregnancy. Once a baby has been born and taken its first breath then that baby can not be killed for reasons of disability. However severe. But until then there is no protection in law if the child has a 'severe' disability. I personally think that there should be some tightening of the law or a better definition of 'severe' because allowing a termination for say DS or talipes at 39 weeks is, imo indefensible.

I think the question really should be about a society that sees termination at 39 weeks for moderate learning disabilities or talipes as completely acceptable. Many (probably most) people do though. A termination at 39 weeks is so horrific that it truly should be reserved for severe disability. That's not that hard to define.

[jimjamshaslefttheyurt]

Imnotmamag- there's a lovely website out there somewhere celebrating the very short life of a baby born with Patau's. Really celebrating it as well. It's completely inspirational. I always struggle to find it though.

[mamadiva]

I don't have a SN child but I am sickned by that story, I honestly didn't know that disabled children could be aborted at 39 weeks surely thats just murder!

I must admit I don't agree with abortion in the first place unless it is down to sever circumstances such incest or life threatening to mum and baby but I don't have a problem with people who do have them.

What I do have a major problem with though is people selecting their child with a small defect and saying actually no I don't want that one! It's not a bloody selection proccess I thought people were supposed to feel unconditional love for their child!?!
I was told at 22 weeks my DS only had one arm and within 5 minutes of being told myself and DP decided that plenty of people live with disabilities siuch as this and in no way could we deny our child his life because of this. He turned out to be fine though they hadnt picked it up on the scan because of the way he was lying. If this happened to us how many people have aborted a child for this reason even if it was a mistake? It sickens me to think!

I hated that arsehole before but now he disgusts me even more practically saying he wouldv'e gotten rid of his own son had he known!

Sorry for random pointless rant but I am so pissed off with this story and some of the reasons for abortions webbed feet, extra toes, downs syndrome all a bloody scape route if you ask me.

[MannyMoeAndJack]

But as Edam said in her post, a line is crossed between when a baby is inside its mother (and dependent upon her) and when it is outside its mother (as an independent being). If the baby experiences birth trauma during labour that then leads to a severe disability then killing that independent being at that point would be murder. These are not my laws.

'And, why is it not ok to kill non-disabled babies after 24 weeks but it is ok to kill disabled ones? Explain that to me....'

Isn't the 24wk limit due to evidence that this is the earliest gestation age that a baby can survive outside the mother? And I guess the law is different for disabled babies because it is not what the vast majority of parents want and because they don't think they will be able to cope.

[jimjamshaslefttheyurt]

I do agree that the different time limits reflect society's views (for example if you didn't find out you were pregnant until 25 weeks and absolutely didn't want a baby it would be tough luck unless your baby was disabled- you would have to have that baby (unless there are get outs for severe maternal trauma which I think there might me) so non-disabled babies are offered some protection).

I also think the breadth of conditions that are classed as 'severe' is revealing of society's attitudes towards disability. Unfortunately in some ways the decisions are in the hands of the medics who have a distinctly dodgy approach to many disabilities- again especially LD's.

I think it'll be many, many years (if ever) before any questions are asked about what constitutes 'severe' and when the cut off should be.

[MannyMoeAndJack]

Another facet to this issue is the phenomenon of modern science which keeps even the most disabled babies alive when, left to nature, they wouldn't have made it past the first year or so. Years ago, before pre-natal scanning and tests or even abortion were available, disabled babies were born but I'm guessing the vast majority died - the burden of care was simply removed from parents naturally. Now, parents are expected to live abnormal lives caring for extremely disabled children.

[jimjamshaslefttheyurt]

Yes, but the law allows termination for far more conditions than would be included in that situation (which is why I'm suggesting a review of the current law rather than a scrapping of it).

Much of the burden would be removed with a functioning social care system (rather than the mess that passes as SS in many areas). I'm going to sound like Julia Hollander now but the crappy social care system does force people into positions where they feel they have no choice.

[edam]

Oh, it's not so very long since women who gave birth to very disabled babies were told it was better not to see the baby, forget about it, walk away and try again. The' good' old days before scans. Awful.

I'd rather have today's world, however imperfect, than the 1970s or 60s when disabled children were shut away in children's homes.

[mamadiva]

Riven I know when they do abortions of babies over 16 weeks they pull it out by the legs and pierce the back of it's kull before it comes out and effectively suck it's brains out. I was told this by a friend who was a nurse and checked it on the net it is true by the way. Bloody horrific.

[cyberseraphim]

I agree with Mamadiva that abortion should only happen in extreme cases and should not be a social norm for any reason SN or not. I agree too with jimjams that we need to massively increase provision to those with severely affected children.

[jimjamshaslefttheyurt]

They're re-opening some institutional type places now (21st century style- and many are very good) because they're needed to provide appropriate care for some individuals.

Current 'care in the community' provision for an adult ds1 is utter crap (i.e. nothing during the day- no chance to mix with his peers etc being 'looked after' by people with no understanding of his condition and not learning anything) - but there are some good larger residential units opening which offer continued education and the chance to do things like climbing, looking after animals, accessing the community.