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

[2shoes]

dipstick that he is

I know that JJ disagreed with me earlier for suggesting that there is a biological component to this but I still believe that there is - why else do people react the way they do to disabilities? It all boils down to fear of the unknown and fear of difference (xenophobia). These reactions served us well millennia ago. Although our social environment has changed, our instincts have not and this is why it is so difficult for society (particularly 'modern' society, I think many developing countries have a different view to disabilities) to change its attitudes. Not saying that change will never happen. I am reminded here about M.L.King and his 'I have a dream' speech, although racism will always lurk in some places, there has been a huge shift in how races view each other since the 50s/60s - and all in the right direction. Nothing like this happens overnight though and let's face it, until 1972 our children wouldn't have even been entitled to an education!

blu - that's really interesting - so instead of reducing the limit for aborting a disabled foetus, raise the limit for all... i'd love to see that idea floated - it would probably (very cleverly) be the only possible way for anyone to understand why anyone could be upset about post 24 wk abortion for any foetus.
can't see anyone having the political gall to suggest it though, even as a backhanded way of raising disability rights.
lol riven, unless it already has, and i'm waaaaaay behind the drag curve? i am a lot

is it biological or is it collective memory sort of thing?

39 weeks

sorry not a very good pic. was trying to find a pic of a 39 week unborn baby(don't think there is one), but even that pic shows we are not talking foetus but baby.

Romy - yes. I think it could well have that efect, but in principle, I believe it too - if it is ok for a woman t terminat because she does not want to be pg and have that baby then it has to be for any reason.

In the end, I think you have to decide whether abortion is accepatable (however distatseful) or not. I am always amazed at the people who are morally totally opposed to abortion - those for whom life from conception is human and sacrosanct -who then add 'except in cases of rape'. So why is that life less sacrosanct because of rape?

So, logically, if you accept that a feotus is dependent on a woman's body - part of a woman's body until birth, then she has dominion over her own body, then that dominion is the beginning and end of the decision-making.

Or you could make a distinction like 'once the feotus can feel pain' (a poster on an abortion thread was detailing the developmental stage at which a feotus typically grows the part of the beain which recognises pain) and say that the woman' right to have absolute say over what happens in her body stops at that point.But it shouldn't depend on the 'ifs' and 'buts' of any one feotus over another. That is where it strays into making value judgements about disabled babies.

2Shoes - I am using feotus in the legal sense - unborn....and personally I do think there is a difference between being born and being unborn. I'm not disputing that the almost-term feotus isn't as baby-like as it is when it is born 3 days later.

I'm not advocating chopping up very late stage feotuses - it's clearly abhorrent and repellent - just saying that if the abortion debate were about abortion per se - and specifically from the relationship betwen woman and feotus - then this horrible thing of disabled babies being ore expendable than others wouldn't arise.

not questioning your belief - have had to make my own decisions along that line. respect everyone's right to make their own decisions, including jh lol, and would expect everyone to respect mine, however, i'm not naive enough to believe that would be the case!

i was just interested that in floating that idea as a policy change (as opposed to attempting to change a post 24 wk limit for a disabled foetus) as well as getting a discussion on the rights of a foetus v mother, you would also get a discussion on whether you could discriminate between one foetus and another - this one is disabled, this one's father is a rapist, this mother has mh issues...
it would make for a lively discussion. i suspect we would end up with status quo, but it would be interesting to see how far the discussion progressed. it is probably the only way that the post 24 limit would be discussed. raising it as a disability rights issue seems to be a non-starter.

I have a good friend who did have an abortion, very early, due to disability. But not because her new pg showed any cause for concern but because she already had a child with AS who has severe Challenging Behaviour and she couldn't cope with the idea of having another child with similar or worse problems.
When I had DD I was not put under any pressure at all about looking for disability but we chose to have all the tests possible because we also did not want knowlingly to have another child with disability, from a position of having experienced it and knowing what it was all about.
Quality of life is all very well too when talking about children living at home and protected by the SN education laws. How are any of us going to maintain whatever quality of life our children with disability have in the many, many years to come? That doesn't mean we aren't all going to try and to work to help improve and develop services but, delivering a service is not the same as delivering a quality service.
I agree with Blu I think, the whole issue is choice to abort for whatever reason, very often the fact that the mother does not want the child regardless or is ridiculously scared of becoming a mother anyway.

Romy - yes, I thnk we understand each other!

"it is probably the only way that the post 24 limit would be discussed. raising it as a disability rights issue seems to be a non-starter." - not least because, as Cameron has stated, that that then potentially clashes with the claims of parents of foetuses identified as being severely disabled to have access to the choice to terminate based on decisions that they may well view very strongly as humanitarian.

fio, or is that the point? the one negates the other.

Been out, but Blu- yes I agree (and I wondered whether the one carried out because the mother's life was in danger was actually due to her not wanting a child at all- otherwise why not just deliver early?).

I wouldn't have a problem if there was no discrepancy in law. It's the legal protection of some babies and not others that sticks in my throat rather than any particular individual's choice. It's state sanctioned valuing of one life over another (with no blasted definition of severe) that is problematic imo.
Termination of all babies allowed legally up until birth would probably be a more workable solution than 'no termination after 24 weeks' for all.

we had a 22+5 weeker in my very first sn group when dd2 was a baby. he was 2, walking around happily, but had issues with digestion. happy chap. not the same issue at all though - these tots are usually disabled to to their prem status (although some obv hoiked out early because of other issues). they are not the v disabled foetus that is being aborted. we all know perfectly well that the abortion limit will not be blanket raised to 39 weeks for all on parental choice, but i still think it is a really interesting issue if raised in terms of equality/ human rights...

ladies - just to draw attention to the fact that sloveshockey12 is posting in bereavement about a third trimester experience with a terminal foetal disorder.

sometimes real life gets in the way of theoretical discussion, so i'm off for a coffee. hope she gets through it ok.

i think that's her q - terminate or wait and go into labour naturally. it's been running for a few days, and lots of other posters offering experiences. i've never had to make that call though.

i've held a baby they had no idea would live or die (also dd lol) and it was the going blue and stopping breathing that frightened me silly. i was never quite sure they were going to get her back each time. but different to knowing the child is expected to die and DNR, so not qualified to judge. v sad.

My DS1 was born at 37w 2d at 8lbs 4, and DS2 was about 5 days younger (36.5 weeks, can't remember the exact number now, bad mummy I know!) - he was "only" 6lbs 4 though.

I did have more scans in both pregnancies than most women are offered, but declined the amnio and CSV. I honestly don't know what we would have done if problems had shown - my scans were completely "normal" so didn't have to cross that bridge. My scans were mainly to check on the size / growth of both fetuses / babies.

I would like another baby sometime, before I am too old, but am scared of having another "hard" pregnancy, and I don't think I could be fair to three children if number 3 also had DS2's problems...DS1 already isn't getting enough attention from me....

I completely disagree that saying abortion is OK is the same as saying some people should be dead. Totally different. I know completely fabulous parents who had abortions. I know people who have terminated perfectly healthy(as far as they know) babies, who love their babies. I obviously wouldn't care if I was terminated as I wouldn't exist! I'd glad I am alive, but then I have to be alive to be glad! If my mother had terminated me (which would have been a not unreasonable decision given her circs) then I wouldn't exist to be moaning about it, and her quality of live might have been better. Hard to tell, obviously.