A woman with mental age of 9 forced to have abortion

[Gingerkittykat]

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/woman-abortion-court-of-protection-ruling-mentally-ill-a8970121.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0LrwkWGx-4dJtABJSuHLlzyLs7IArhgM_CQVisVjx4Asf3YoCeW4aKk1Y#Echobox=1561203238

I understand that this woman will not be able to care for a baby but cannot believe forcing her to have an abortion under any circumstances is appropriate, especially since she is already 22 weeks pregnant.

I am 100% pro choice, but this woman is having her choice taken away from her.

Hmm I can only imagine how many abusive men would love to manipulate this court case in the future. You know, the kind of men who cheat and gaslight their partners then say the woman is just "crazy". It would be a dream for them to be able to force through an abortion, I bet. This seems anti choice and against women's rights

The Woman in White was indeed based on real life malicious incarceration cases but as another poster has said it requires a helluva lot more now for any court sanctioned treatment.

Carolwiththegoodhair

And a forced hysterectomy with the abortion is grotesque.

Where is that comment even coming from? You are aware a hysterotomy, which I have mentioned, is not a hysterectomy?

The state and its institutions are riddled with misogyny, we already know this on the feminist boards, so I'm not really sure I can trust the state's opinions about mothers who "lack mental capacity"

The court is not the state. Hence the fact that, for instance, the court regularly makes findings against the state. And the judge in this case was a woman who had extensive experience as a barrister in human rights law.

If a woman is judged as lacking capacity to be a mother why is she only told this after she has conceived?

How do you know she was only "told" this after she conceived?

Why does the state lead women to believe they can have a baby like anyone else only to decide mid-pregnancy that she can't?

It doesn't. The worst you can say is the law works on the basis of minimal interference, so it doesn't automatically sterilise all women who lack capacity.

it won't offer women the support they need to keep their babies, whatever support that might be ( 24 hour care, mother and baby units)

Given that this woman is potentially a danger to her child, keeping them together by these means potentially involves effectively imprisoning both of them till the child is at least 16. How is that humane?

Feminist theory posits that sexual intercourse is not a biological urge or natural but is socially constructed and pushed onto women.

And that particular bit of feminist theory is demonstrably total rubbish.

All the people who have judged her as lacking the capacity to be a mother, should have been there to prevent her from having sexual intercourse. Or At the very least making sure she had contraception.

It would be incredibly interfering to stop her having sexual intercourse. I would agree that someone (in her case, her mother) should probably have done something about contraception, but we don't know the circumstances. If you are going to advocate compulsory sterilisation for the mentally unfit, that's a very dangerous road to go down.

Her capacity hasn't changed, it's a constant.

Not so. For a lot of people, capacity fluctuates.

Many people are supportive of abortion rights AND also think that the fetus is effectively a fully formed baby at 22 weeks. They just think that the mother is the best person to make a decision about what is in her interests and ALSO the interests of the baby based on her unique circumstances.

Is the mother always the best person to make that decision irrespective of her learning and mental health difficulties? How can that be so, Grapefruits?

They are not happy that a court will make a decision without reference to the baby at all

So are they happy that mothers can make a decision to abort without reference to the baby at all, whether it's an early or late termination? I'm sure mothers who undergo late terminations think long and hard about the foetuses, but it doesn't make the decision to terminate the wrong one, and it doesn't mean that the foetuses' rights trump their mothers'.

They are not happy that a court will make a decision without reference to the baby at all.

Because the case was about the woman ,not the baby.

Even if you disagree it's not hard to understand that. The point is moot no matter how much you keep repeating it.

The welfare of the baby WHEN/IF born would come under the jurisdiction of a different court anyways.

Hmm yes because courts decide that someone lacks capacity based simply on the say so of a random person. No social workers, psychologists,psychiatrists or other professionals would be involved.

Hmm do you know what some men with power are capable of? Or how courts will lie when it suits? I suggest you watch When They See Us or even Southern Charm. People with power are able to get what they want. Simple as that. If the state was never corrupt how did we get involved in so many merciless wars for profit?

People don't want to debate the wider issue of state sanctioned forced abortion and just want to keep repeating the same statement that "The court said..." Well, to people who can critically think and see how society has treated those seen as lesser than others, it really doesn't mean much. There's no reason to keep going in circles about this.

I would have more respect for some people if they stopped trying to dress this up as protection and just admitted they want forced sterilisation, eugenics, and population control. There is no extra protection allotted when a woman doesn't have the mental capacity to know that her baby is dead, and she would not know if her baby was placed in a better home by the same logic. Just admit you guys support eugenics and move on.

Yes, @BertrandRussell terminations are a special case, for the reasons stated by @GrapefruitsAreNotTheOnlyFruit

It's special because another life is involved. The same reason why we treat pregnant women a particular way even prior to twenty four weeks gestation. We don't carry out xrays, for example, on women of ten weeks pregnancy, just because the baby she is carrying doesn't yet have the legal right to be seen as an individual human being. We make humane decisions about pregnancies prior to twenty four weeks gestation all the time.

Seriously, PatoPotato? You make judgements on the basis of a fictional American mini-series and an American "reality" show? I think that, plus your assumption that all women who lack capacity are exactly the same, tells us all we need to know about your posts.

Many people are supportive of abortion rights AND also think that the fetus is effectively a fully formed baby at 22 weeks. They just think that the mother is the best person to make a decision about what is in her interests and ALSO the interests of the baby based on her unique circumstances.

They are not happy that a court will make a decision without reference to the baby at all. I wonder if there has ever been a woman who has had a late abortion who has not considered the baby when coming to a decision.

No. The legal situation in the UK is that a woman who is 22 weeks pregnant and who has capacity can choose to have an abortion or to continue with the pregnancy. She will do this, distressing as it may be, by weighing up the pros and cons and coming to a decision.

Here, a woman who lacks capacity is 22 weeks pregnant. She cannot make this choice for herself due to lack of capacity. Someone else must weigh up the pros and cons for her.

Those involved with her care could not agree on the choice that would represent her best interests and so the CoP was invoked. The CoP then weighed up the pros and cons.

I honestly don't see how this isn't completely clear to all. It has nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of abortion per se, or eugenics, or religious rights or anything else. It's a decision made on behalf of a vulnerable adult because that vulnerable adult lacks the capacity to make this decision in their own best interests.

“I would have more respect for some people if they stopped trying to dress this up as protection and just admitted they want forced sterilisation, eugenics, and population control”

Are you aware of quite how offensive that is?

Oh come on, @Isatis - you know perfectly well we're living under a government that has contributed to the death of thousands of disabled people. You really think that any state, not least our own, is an unquestionably benevolent force?

We don't carry out xrays, for example, on women of ten weeks pregnancy, just because the baby she is carrying doesn't yet have the legal right to be seen as an individual human being.

Because there are other ways to look after the mother whilst protecting the baby, and because the mothers in question have the capacity to make a decision about the potential risk.

A better example is a pregnant woman who needs chemotherapy to save her life. She can choose to reject it, but if she chooses to accept it knowing that it will harm her baby, she absolutely has that right.

We make humane decisions about pregnancies prior to twenty four weeks gestation all the time.

Again, the mothers do, where they have capacity. But if they don't want to continue the pregnancies, those pregnancies can be terminated.

How difficult is it to understand that the law is perfectly consistent in putting the foetus's rights below those of the mother's?

Seriously, PatoPotato? You make judgements on the basis of a fictional American mini-series and an American "reality" show? I think that, plus your assumption that all women who lack capacity are exactly the same, tells us all we need to know about your posts.

Yes yes all fictional... Tell that to the innocent man who spent 13 years in prison for a crime he did commit. Or the girl who was taken advantage of by a government official and lost custody of her children. I mean all those court documents are just fiction to you.

I wish I was as doe eyed to believe that the state is never corrupt. You can take that stance but I remember what happened to Iraq and I acknowledge what's happening in Yemen.

Look as I said earlier a few times I think late abortions should only be allowable for those who lack capacity where there are good documented medical reasons of risk to health or life.

Really the vast majority of women who have late abortions are doing it because of medical reasons, either themselves or the baby.

The court shouldn't be making the decision to abort a woman's baby on her behalf at 22 weeks. If the baby is healthy and she is in good health she almost certainly wouldn't want this to happen if she did have capacity. Very few women do.

To me forced abortion for women with learning difficulties is the type of thing that should belong in dystopian novels rather than the UK.

No, Pouncer, I don't. However, as I have pointed out, the courts are not the state. There are numerous instances where, for example, the court and tribunal system can and regularly does intervene on behalf of the disabled to make decisions which the state and state institutions vigorously resist.

Yes, when the MOTHER decides, she's free to have a termination. This mother has not made that decision. She's not capable of making that decision. Therefore the right thing to do is to provide as much support is necessary for the pregnancy to go ahead and for the child born to be given the best life possible, through adoption, if necessary. A mother who cannot consent to a termination should not have a termination.

The court shouldn't be making the decision to abort a woman's baby on her behalf at 22 weeks. If the baby is healthy and she is in good health she almost certainly wouldn't want this to happen if she did have capacity. Very few women do

But this woman isn't in good health, unless you somehow think that mental health is irrelevant.

If this woman had capacity the issue wouldn't arise. And she probably also wouldn't want the baby taken away from her, or to have to leave her home, either. However, in her current situation she doesn't have that choice.

Are you aware of quite how offensive that is?

It only strikes a cord when it's true. If you can't see there's an agenda or ulterior motive for some people then it's unfortunate that I am the first person to ever bring that to light for you. Life would be a lot simpler if we were all honest.

“I would have more respect for some people if they stopped trying to dress this up as protection and just admitted they want forced sterilisation, eugenics, and population control”

If that were the case then how do you explain decisions made by thr CoP that the vulnerable woman can not only deliver the baby but in some circumstances keep it as well?
Or the fact that disabled and vulnerable adults are allowed and supported to have relationships,including sexual?

Yes, when the MOTHER decides, she's free to have a termination. This mother has not made that decision. She's not capable of making that decision. Therefore the right thing to do is to provide as much support is necessary for the pregnancy to go ahead and for the child born to be given the best life possible, through adoption, if necessary. A mother who cannot consent to a termination should not have a termination.

OK, so you believe that the foetus's interests always come ahead of those of the mother, no matter what the circumstances, and no matter how detrimental that may be to the mother. Fortunately, the law says otherwise.

Look as I said earlier a few times I think late abortions should only be allowable for those who lack capacity where there are good documented medical reasons of risk to health or life.

And if the next case is a woman who lacks capacity and wants to abort because she is convinced she will die in labour? Or the baby is not really hers?

And she probably also wouldn't want the baby taken away from her

Apparently she doesn't have the mental capacity so where is your proof of this?

No, I believe the mother's rights are paramount. If she can't consent, it shouldn't happen. I believe it is her right as a human being to only have this procedure carried out if SHE consents. No consent, no termination.

If that were the case then how do you explain decisions made by thr CoP that the vulnerable woman can not only deliver the baby but in some circumstances keep it as well? Or the fact that disabled and vulnerable adults are allowed and supported to have relationships,including sexual?

Well this story has made the news so it could simply be the beginning of a trend which would not surprise me one bit with all the population control for the sake of the environment rhetoric that can be seen on social media lately.

A mother who cannot consent to a termination should not have a termination

Then why should a mother who cannot consent to giving birth and everything that entails be allowed to give birth(and then have the baby taken away)?

Don't you see it works both ways?

She can't consent to either. Her choice is to have and keep the baby. That would be overridden anyways. She has no choice and there is no way in which her wishes will prevail. She won't have a baby at the end of it anyways.
And it seems to be (I'm making an educated guess here,but still a guess) that the only reason She wants to give birth is that so she can have a baby. Which won't happen. So what's the point?

I assume that might've been an important consideration as well when making the decision. That the woman could not understand that if she did give birth, she wouldn't get to keep the baby(which is what she wanted).