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.

@SaskiaRembrandt I am against state enforced medical intervention too. People should be allowed to die if they want to, not kept alive to be tinkered with by medics while they progressively lose quality of life.

State enforced medical intervention and state enforced abortions. Ugh. Where are we heading

And stop dragging trans issues into this. It's crass. If you want to discuss that go and start another thread.

BertrandRussell I suspect some on this post may be in need of Veet, for their hands.

A misogynistic state that doesn't believe women are a class has no legitimacy and therefore cannot make decisions about a woman's ability to mother a child or not

@SaskiaRembrandt Its most definitely not crass. The problem with trans issues is that women are defined out of existence As people who are oppressed by their biology. It had everything to do with this

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

Yet you force them to go through a pregnancy even when you know it will do them serious physical or mental harm, when you know that if they could consent it is a virtual certainty that they would want a termination? That's barbaric.

PouncerDarling so you are only concerned about the foetus.

@SaskiaRembrandt

Report posts, don't troll hunt.

twicemummy1 I'm not engaging in your attempts to derail the thread. Go get your screenshots somewhere else.

“I don't think the state has the ability for legitimacy to decide mental "capacity", ”

It’s not the state making this decision.

@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
You haven't read the details then. Of grandma looks after it, the young woman can no longer be cared for by her mother. She had been deemed to be a danger to the baby she to her mid disorder, so she would have to go into the care system herself.

That's why the judge didn't think that option was in her interests. She would lose her home and her emotional security.

That's it, this is the least bad option. The outcome for the woman would be so much worse if the pregnancy continued.

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

Except she can't keep the baby, for the baby's safety. And people who know a hell of a lot more about it than you do can see what's wrong with it.

I don't think the state has the ability for legitimacy to decide mental "capacity"

The state doesn't decide, doctors and the courts do. Are you really incapable of understanding the fundamental principle that the courts are not the state?

I am against state enforced medical intervention too. People should be allowed to die if they want to, not kept alive to be tinkered with by medics while they progressively lose quality of life.

Again, if anything it's court-enforced, and only if it is demonstrated that it is in the best interests of the patient. There have been a number of high profile cases where it went the other way, and the courts have ordered that medical treatment be withdrawn whilst relatives want the patient to be kept alive whilst progressively losing quality of life. Is that wrong also?

twicemummy1

@SaskiaRembrandtIts most definitely not crass. The problem with trans issues is that women are defined out of existence As people who are oppressed by their biology. It had everything to do with this

It has nothing to do with this. This is your second attempt to shoehorn trans issues in to debate which has nothing to do with trans issues.

You don't have to repeat anything, Pouncer. But I would love you to explain why it's fine for a disabled woman to be made to go through a pregnancy that will cause serious damage to her physical and/or mental health purely because she lacks capacity, where you would be perfectly happy for a woman with capacity to terminate in precisely the same circumstances. Does the woman's wellbeing matter less because she can't give consent?

No, my concern is for the woman who is being forced to undergo a procedure that is not necessary to save her life, that will kill her unborn child, without her consent. I think that is barbaric.

How do you know it's not? You have no idea what the mental health condition she suffers from is. And even if it is not likely to kill her, it could still cause a serious and permanent decline in her condition, making her life immeasurably worse. The judge who made this decision does have all the relevant information, and clearly thought that based on that this was the least bad outcome.

She's not being made to do it. It's a biologically inevitability that the baby will grow to a sufficient size and her body will naturally expell it.

If a woman decides she doesn't want to be pregnant for whatever reason, that's an entirely different matter than forcing her to end a pregnancy by literally, what, sedating her, taking her to the hospital, violently removing the quite sizable child from her (and I say it's violent, not to be emotive, but because it IS) whether under GA (we hope) or possibly while she is at least somewhat conscious has to give birth. Unless she AGREES to that, it should be beyond even contemplation. It's dreadful to even imagine.

In the UK, the rest of having capacity is very well regulated. It isn't based on anyone's say so, and would be difficult to abuse. Both my mother and my MIL had to be tested, and there was no means by which those of us who cared for them could interject or speak for them.

My mum passed with flying colours. She makes very poor decisions, but she understands the decisions she's making. And the test showed that she fully comprehends what she's doing and what's said to her.
My Mom's test had to be stopped prematurely, as she couldn't answer the questions, and we weren't allowed to guide her in any way...not even with a word of encouragement. The tester saw her distress after the first few questions (which had clearly confirmed what her doctor and the nursing home had reported) and cut the test short.

So yes, the woman in this case would have taken this standardised test given by professionals. No-one else could have helped or held her back from answering.

@LassOfFyvie If you cannot see the relevance of women not being able to define themselves as a class, based on our biology, and how our oppression stems from this, as evinced in cases just like this, and how the government is doing away with our ability to define ourselves as a class by supporting trans, then I'm afraid I can no longer help you with it.

Please be assured twicemummy1 I neither want nor need your help. I am not the only poster who has found your derailment into trans issues bizarre and irrelevant.

If the state doesn't even know what a woman is, how can it possibly know finer details about women like who can or can't be a good mother? It doesn't make sense

She's not being made to do it. It's a biologically inevitability that the baby will grow to a sufficient size and her body will naturally expell it.

Yes, she is being made to do it, if she is being prevented from terminating a pregnancy that will cause her serious physical or mental harm where a woman with capacity would not be so prevented.

Why is the prospect of causing wholly preventable serious harm to a disabled woman not "too dreadful to imagine", Pouncer?

twicemummy1, is there any chance at all of you trying to understand the fundamental principle that the courts are not the state?