A world without Down's syndrome?

[Hulababy]

Anyone else watching?

Interesting so far

'Until we live in a society which fully supports people with disabilities (and their families) I don't think it is fair to condemn families for choosing not the place themselves in a situation where their lives will be made massively more difficult.'

This. We now live in a society where support for people with disabilities is eroded further and further, especially adult services.

We need a new name then

No, we need people see that people's views are complex and nuanced rather than black and white.

But being pro-choice is not nuanced. In the same way that being pro life isn't.

It is absolutely fine to take a nuanced approach to abortion, but it is not then a pro choice approach. That's why we need a new name.

Women have legal, judgement free choice or they don't. It really is black and white. If you believe in choice IF, or choice BUT, then to me that's not choice.

Women must be able to choose regardless of what I think of her reasons. Inconvenience, disability, the wrong colour of hair. I don't have to like it, it's not my body or my decision.

Well put ninny. Bertrand, why are you trying to hijack the well-understood common use of the term pro-choice?

Most people would describe themselves as pro-choice within the framework of the current law - which has restrictions based on ethics panels debating the issues over many years. Your version is extreme and not the norm.

So, Morris, am I then pro-life, despite having had a termination with no regrets?

I'm all for as much information as possible. I don't think it is a matter of perfect (no-one is) vs imperfect people, or specious arguments that 'Down's people don't generally commit murder or sell drugs'. Most people without Downs don't do that either.

I don't even think it is a matter of what may or may not happen later in life. None of us know that.

There is no 'but' in my pro-choice. Every child needs to be wanted. What I don't think is fair is to take the decision away from the person who has to live with the consequences.

I watched this last night and I too thought it was really unbalanced. Sally Phillips freely admitted that she hadn't known her DS had Down's Syndrome when she was pregnant, or what she'd have done if she had.

The people she met in the film who had Down's Syndrome didn't seem to be very severely affected by LD or the more serious physical conditions. There was an actor, a public speaker, the Icelandic woman who had become a DS activist (who spoke Icelandic and some English FGS!). We saw DS a gymnast in a video - surely these people are at the less severe end of the spectrum of Down's Syndrome disability - they're the best case scenarios? I thought there was a real reluctance on her part to look at the less able end of the spectrum - and at the problems faced by older adults with Down's. People whose parents were too old to care for them any more. People who weren't from well-off backgrounds. People who don't have an eloquent screen-writer DM to advocate for them! I can see this is an emotive issue for her, but as a documentary it was one-sided and annoying. Rosa Monckton is a better DS advocate IMO. Sally Phillips convinced me of nothing. And I'm all for a safer test. Women want to test, but they don't want to risk the lives of their unborn DC.

I would describe that as "pro-choice but not too much choice."
I am 100% pro-choice on the basis that it's absolutely none of my business what goes on in another woman's body and I have no right to even attempt to police it.

So that is semantics. I am happy to describe myself as pro-choice on the basis that the rather cumbersome expression that you have used doesn't exist and I represent a lot of people who aren't fans of eugenics.

I don't consider anyone pro-choice who thinks they have any business inside a uterus that isn't their own but hey ho, agree to disagree.

Well, if semantics means words should have consistent meanings, then it's semantics..........

There is no 'but' in my pro-choice. Every child needs to be wanted. What I don't think is fair is to take the decision away from the person who has to live with the consequences.

So it is fine to say 'I don't want this child because she is a girl, I'll have a termination then'?

I think most people would agree that there are considerations of right and wrong that limit free choice. People who think there are no ethical considerations at all are extremists just as much as those who think there should be no abortion at all.

hmmm, I dont know, surely it wouldn't change things much from now. Most people who are tested for Downs at some stage if they are high risk, and then given the option to terminate...some would still want to keep their child, others would not. I had this discussion myself when I had a shock last year (hence my user name) I said I would want to keep it, my P said they would not. (I wasnt pregnant as it turned out btw). I wouldn't judge someone either way, only they know if they could cope in that situation.

I find Sally Philips tone increasingly hectoring. She has a right to express her views, but imo she is wrong.
This test sounds like a real step forward, and gives the choice to parents about whether they want to proceed with a pregnancy or not.

She has a very middle class comfortable life and lots of outside help. Also, I have to say speaking of behalf of SPUC has really not endeared me to her at all!

In SP's defence I don't think she's been speaking on behalf of SPUC. Rather that they have piggybacked onto her campaign and have posted links to news stories about the documentary on their website.

"People who think there are no ethical considerations at all are extremists just as much as those who think there should be no abortion at all"

Not really. Because being pro choice does not involve forcing women to have abortions. Being pro life involves forcing women to give birth.

So Bertrand do you object to the law as it stands? That seems pretty extreme. And as I said, I don't think you are the definitive arbiter of what pro-choice means.

No, I''m not the definitive arbiter of what pro choice means. Neither am I the definitive arbiter of what elephant or pencil means. They are words with meanings.

...or the definitive arbiter of 'worlds'? Rather poetic usage there Bertrand?

More seriously though, facilitating unconditional choice and autonomy, over a person's own body, is not always in a person's best interests. A person's choice can severely be compromised by biased information. Equally deciding whether a person is qualified enough to make a choice concerning themselves is something other people are not necessarily qualified to do either.

Hence people, on this thread, point out the biases in Sally Phillip's documentary or, as Sally did, in the advice given to women in pregnancy.

There always needs to be attention given to these matters. People all have biases so information needs to take account of a wide variety of perspectives.

Sally Phillip's perspective is one I feel is equally valid as someone with a very different experience. Instead of criticising her, perhaps people should be making more documentaries which show a different experience?

So, rock, what does that mean for abortion rights? Who decides whether a woman has enough information to have a termination?

I certainly dont like the idea of terminating for gender, but it is not for me to say - and how would you prove that a pregnancy has terminated for this reason? As i understand it, in uk law no reason has to be given before 24 weeks.

The cultures that do terminate girls are , unsurprisingly, going to have a population drop. Fewer girls means fewer people to produce the next generation.

Bertrand I don't exactly know, except to say that I thought some of the pressure from doctors, that the women in the documentary experienced, either to potentially abort or test was wrong.

And what the NHS can do is at least make sure better information is available.

My eldest has cerebral palsy and is also autistic. Had I known these things prior to her birth when I was a naive, young single mum then I probably would have terminated because of lack of information/awareness of the conditions.

Now she's here I wouldn't change her for the world. It is not all roses and sunshine all of the time- far from it. But it's not unmanageable and she brings so much to my life. But that's me, doesn't mean it would be the same for everyone.

It's like having a show about having a child with autism and showing all the quirks, intelligence and genuine belly laughs that my daughter provides on a daily basis without showing the much more negative side of autism for balance. It's not reality for everyone.

People should be provided with as much information, positive and negative and left to make their own choice