Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

A woman with mental age of 9 forced to have abortion

999 replies

Gingerkittykat · 22/06/2019 14:24

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.

OP posts:
PatoPotato · 23/06/2019 18:59

SaskiaRembrandt

This may not be a unique case but I still find the concept of forced abortion very dystopian.

SaskiaRembrandt · 23/06/2019 19:01

This may not be a unique case but I still find the concept of forced abortion very dystopian.

In general, I would agree with you, but I think that sadly, in rare cases it is the least bad thing that can happen. It's like euthanasia- generally, killing people is reprehensible, but sometimes it's a kindness that is better than the alternative.

PouncerDarling · 23/06/2019 19:01

You just sound pretty defensive of her. Bit strange considering that you don't know her. She's just as likely as any other judge to make an unfortunate decision. Which statistically you know must happen. Not to mention innumerable historical examples.

SaskiaRembrandt · 23/06/2019 19:05

PouncerDarling I don't need to know someone to object to their professional abilities being called into question.

There are not innumerable historical examples. there are some, and one is too many, but of the many thousands of cases that go before the courts every year, only a tiny fraction result in unsound judgements. There is no evidence to suggest this one of them.

YourSarcasmIsDripping · 23/06/2019 19:07

Certainly doesn’t take into account what’s best for the baby.

Because it wasn't about the baby. The case was to decide what is best for the woman.

Carowiththegoodhair · 23/06/2019 19:09

Foetus: Latin for little one. 21 week & 22 week babies have been known to survive.

If the decision was informed, what or who was it informed by? Hence previous questions.

PouncerDarling · 23/06/2019 19:13

I would have thought this being a highly contentious issue, with there being no agreement made between the parties on this thread despite a long discussion, that it's obvious this matter does not have one clear correct outcome. I'm not suggesting that the judge is bad at her job. But even being very good at her job does not give her the prescience to know which outcome would have the least harm in actuality. She can only guess.

SaskiaRembrandt · 23/06/2019 19:15

Foetus: Latin for little one. 21 week & 22 week babies have been known to survive.

And? This is relevant because?

If the decision was informed, what or who was it informed by? Hence previous questions.

You already know the answer to this.

Carowiththegoodhair · 23/06/2019 19:16

It’s absolutely not unreasonable to question the thinking that says a forced late term abortion is better for a woman than her being supported to go through with the birth.

delilabell · 23/06/2019 19:16

I haven't read the whole thread and apologies if someone else has commented this, but I just wanted to say; to those saying about adoption. Statistically children who have two parents with ld have a much higher chance of having ld themselves. This means that it woukd be a lot more difficult to find parents who would be willing (and capable in the eyes of s services) to adopt the baby.
I've been thinking over this case since I originally saw it and it is just such a sad case all round.

saraclara · 23/06/2019 19:18

The judge can't know with full certainty. But she will have received detailed reports from all the professionals who work with this young woman. Some of them will have been cross examined. She will probably have met with the young woman herself.

She is not guessing. She is calculating the probability of the different situations arising, and the probably effect on the person based on what she's read and heard.

Carowiththegoodhair · 23/06/2019 19:20

No Saskia. I do not know what the decision was informed by. Nobody does yet.

We know what the decision is, but we don’t know what the particular factors are that led to it being made.

“The superior judgement of more qualified and experienced people than you” isn’t persuasive when we are talking about such a gross violation of human rights.

PouncerDarling · 23/06/2019 19:20

It's relevant because it's a life that is going to be ended as a result of this decision. You can't just blithely shrug it off like it doesn't matter.

Carowiththegoodhair · 23/06/2019 19:21

Calculating the probability. In other words making a best guess and deciding which side she found most convincing.

PouncerDarling · 23/06/2019 19:21

Those professionals included the woman's social worker who did not agree with this decision.

saraclara · 23/06/2019 19:25

Those professionals included the woman's social worker who did not agree with this decision

Not HER social worker. But A social worker who'd been engaged to represent another view alongside the guardian's lawyer.

SaskiaRembrandt · 23/06/2019 19:25

We know what the decision is, but we don’t know what the particular factors are that led to it being made.

No, we don't, because apart from very generalised information we don't have a right to know the intricate details of another person's medical conditions. Yes, at some point we might see the full judgement, but I suspect that even with all the details you would still be unhappy because this is about your agenda, not the well-being of a vulnerable woman. And even in the judgement, certain details won't be released for reasons of confidentiality. You do know that this woman has a right to privacy?

“The superior judgement of more qualified and experienced people than you” isn’t persuasive when we are talking about such a gross violation of human rights.

Yet the judge is a human rights lawyer, so probably knows a great deal about that too. But, you don't seem to think so.

SaskiaRembrandt · 23/06/2019 19:27

Those professionals included the woman's social worker who did not agree with this decision.

No, a SW who had been employed to give the opposing argument. In the same way that lawyers were engaged to give the opposing argument. As has already been pointed out, people who advocate in court do not necessarily agree with the argument they are making.

PouncerDarling · 23/06/2019 19:28

A social worker is not a lawyer. They don't represent a side. This social worker has assessed the situation and decided that a termination is not in the woman's best interests. A social worker who has met this woman and presumably has the requisite qualifications to make an informed decision.

SaskiaRembrandt · 23/06/2019 19:31

A social worker is not a lawyer. They don't represent a side.

In this case, the SW would have been there to represent the interests of the woman, that does not mean she agreed with that side of the argument. Social workers also sit in on police interviews with vulnerable people, in those cases they don't have an opinion either.

saraclara · 23/06/2019 19:32

The superior judgement of more qualified and experienced people than you” isn’t persuasive when we are talking about such a gross violation of human rights

Yet the judge is a human rights lawyer, so probably knows a great deal about that too. But, you don't seem to think so.

What is it that Gove said, Saskia?
"The British public has had enough of experts". Who needs a qualified and experienced human rights lawyer when so many Mumsnetters know better?

Frequency · 23/06/2019 19:33

I work with adults with learning disabilities in a supported living setting. Most of them are capable of consenting to sex and without a deprivation of liberties order in place there is little staff or anyone else can do to prevent them having sex and DOLs are not easy to get.

Of course, they are also extremely vulnerable to abuse and in those scenarios we do have an obligation to step-in, although, even then our power to help is limited to reporting to SS - who would then investigate and if appropriate apply for a DOLs. We cannot force an adult to ask a guest to leave their home. We can strongly advise against it but we cannot force them nor should we be able to. They are adults.

Are any of these adults capable of raising a child? Possibly, a few of them with the right support but generally, no.

Having seen first hand what evidence is required just to take control of someone's bank account or grocery shopping against their wishes I have every confidence that this situation was not taken lightly and a serious and comprehensive review of the woman's needs, abilities and living situation would have taken place before it even got to a judge.

It's a sad situation all around but not as barbaric as people are making out.

SaskiaRembrandt · 23/06/2019 19:35

What is it that Gove said, Saskia?
"The British public has had enough of experts". Who needs a qualified and experienced human rights lawyer when so many Mumsnetters know better?

Quite!

PouncerDarling · 23/06/2019 19:36

Yeah, who needs to question extreme decisions made by higher powers?

saraclara · 23/06/2019 19:42

Yeah, who needs to question extreme decisions made by higher powers?
They are questioned. It's what the appeal court is for, apart from anything else.

Swipe left for the next trending thread