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.

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

This shows just how little @twicemummy1 understands the Mental Capacity Act as this is total nonsense! Mental capacity is not static, as has been explained several times on this very thread.

The MCA states that:
You might need to assess capacity where a person is unable to make a particular decision at a particular time because their mind or brain is affected by illness of disability. Lack of capacity may not be a permanent condition. Assessments of capacity should be time- and decision-specific. You cannot decide that someone lacks capacity based upon age, appearance, condition or behaviour alone

The difference between consenting to have a termination and consenting to give birth is that there is no such thing as consenting to give birth. If you are pregnant, it is an inevitability that the baby is going to be exiting your body at some point.

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.

So if she is incapable of consenting but it is undoubtedly in her best interests to terminate for medical or other reasons, she should nevertheless be forced to continue with the pregnancy? That's intensely discriminatory.

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.

This is a very dangerous argument. It basically says medical treatment should not be carried out on people who do not have the capacity to consent. Or do you only apply it to terminations, but other forms of treatment (of people who are learning impaired, but also children, people with dementia) are okay even though they can not give meaningful, informed consent?

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.

Or, as is more likely, it made the news because. fortunately, cases like this are so unusual.

No, not medical treatment - the forced premature termination of their pregnancy and thereby another person's life. We've already made this distinction. The only person who should be able to make that decision is the mother. If she can't consent, unless her life is at risk, the pregnancy should continue.

Well this story has made the news so it could simply be the beginning of a trend

Except that it isn't. The courts have had this jurisdiction for decades, and have been making similar decisions for decades.

For an example of a decision going the other way, I remember one where a mother with very limited capacity had had several children, all of whom had had to go into care because of her neglect of them. In a previous pregnancy, she had hidden it and given birth on her own, resulting in the baby dying. She was now pregnant again, and was again putting her own health and the health of the baby in danger. There was severe danger of her uterus rupturing. It was decided that, for the sake of both of them, she should be detained so that she could come through the birth safely.

No eugenics, no extreme measures, just a humane decision to go down the route of the least interference possible to ensure that both the mother and baby survived.

If she can't consent, unless her life is at risk, the pregnancy should continue

I've asked this one before, Pouncer, and you haven't answered. Does that apply even if her physical and/or mental health are seriously at risk? Why?

If you are pregnant, it is an inevitability that the baby is going to be exiting your body at some point.

However the mother can consent and sometimes choose how the baby will come out, where,type of pain relief etc. It's not as simple as the baby will come out anyways so anything goes.

Yes. Because she can't consent.

There are innumerable scenarios where a pregnancy puts the mother at harm of physical and mental risk. One might even argue that it is almost impossible to have a pregnancy that doesn't leave the mother at risk of physical and mental harm. But you don't force them to have a termination unless they consent.

No, not medical treatment - the forced premature termination of their pregnancy and thereby another person's life.

What other person? You mean the foetus? In the eyes of the law at 22 weeks gestation it does not have the status of personhood. You seem to see it as equivalent to someone is already born, but it isn't in any legal or medical sense.

And yes, this is medical treatment. The information released has shown that the woman has a mental health condition which not only means she would be a danger to a baby if the pregnancy continued, but would create risks during it. You may not think such a condition is serious, but the people who have all the information clearly do. Why on earth should an already vulnerable woman be put at greater risk?

It's a desperately sad case, and it's tragic that it couldn't be resolved without a court case.

“No, I believe the mother's rights are paramount. If she can't consent, it shouldn't happen.”

Blimey. So if a person does not have the capacity to consent to medical treatment that is deemed by professionals to be in their best interests it should not happen?

BertrandRussell exactly! That is the logical (and dangerous) consequence of that argument.

Yes, if a person doesn't have the capacity to choose a termination for themselves, it should not be forced upon them. I am repeating the same thing over and over again. I don't care if she is disabled. She's still a human being and her pregnancy should not be terminated without HER consent.

But you don't force them to have a termination unless they consent.

Because they have capacity and can weigh up the pros and cons by themselves. They can make a decision and choose what is more important being fully aware and informed of the outcomes.

It always amazes me how little pro lifers care about the welfare of women. It baffles me.

PouncerDarling Don't use ridiculous emotive arguments, it makes your case look weak.

And for what it's worth, I've sadly seen many very premature babies. I had a premature baby and spent a considerable amount of time in the SCBU. That doesn't change my opinions on abortion, or that vulnerable women should not be forced to risk their health because randoms think their lives are of equal or lower value than a foetus.

@PouncerDarling You are right, of course. This is a state enforced termination. She and the granny want to keep the baby and grandma has said she'll take the child on. Can't see what's wrong with that when it boils down to it

She's still a human being and her pregnancy should not be terminated without HER consent.

She's still a human being and her gangrenous leg shouldn't be amputated without her consent.

She's still a human being and her blood transfusion shouldn't happen without her consent.

She's still a human being and her cancer shouldn't be treated without her consent.

See, that works for lots of things.

The fact is, this woman has what sounds like very complex needs, she is already receiving treatment without her consent. Of course, that doesn't involve a foetus so you couldn't care less.

I don't think the state has the ability for legitimacy to decide mental "capacity", the state thinks men can become women. That gives you an idea of how messed up state institutions are

The state hasn't decided, a judge has.

I've already covered amputations specifically, in a previous comment. Her having her leg amputated doesn't involve her child being forcibly killed, so that is an entirely different matter.

“and grandma has said she'll take the child on. Can't see what's wrong with that when it boils down to it”
Can’t you? I wish I lived in your lovely simple fairy tale world. Unfortunately....