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.

But how do the courts intend to force the termination procedure on the woman in the first place?

Drag her kicking and screaming?

What if an appointment is made and on the morning of said appointment she explicitly refuses to attend?

What if out of panic her mother attempts to relocate them and they aren't found for another 8 weeks, would the judge still order the baby be terminated regardless of its viability outside the womb?

All hypothetical of course but I'm extremely confused and concerned about how the court proposes to ensure the termination goes ahead.

Aside my obvious disagreement to the whole thing, I don't understand how you can force a termination on an unwilling woman short of physically assaulting them by restraining them.

Horrible, horrible decision.

Can I just point out that the OP posted this in the feminist topic because she wanted a feminist perspective. Anyone can post of course but the entire thread has been dominated by anti feminist "blame the mother" rhetoric. I tried to formulate a theory down below about the legitimacy of the state and saw that people weren't interested in a feminist point of view. Please have respect for the people on here who are feminists, the ones the OP was interested in hearing from. If she'd wanted a mainstream opinion she'd have posted it somewhere else

Perhaps the fundamental part of this is nobody knows how the pregnant woman thinks. Those pro abortion believe it's just s clump of cells and terminating it is no more different than a surgical procedure to remove cancerous cells. Therefore they believe a termination wouldn't have as bad an impact as going ahead with a birth of a baby even if it means removal right after labour. Those anti this abortion may believe it's not a clump of cells and at 22 weeks consider it a baby. The forced termination of a wanted baby (regardless of the mothers ability to care for it) would have a worse psychological effect on the pregnant mother than giving birth and not being allowed to keep the child. No one can say definitely how the pregnant girl will react to a forced abortion or how it will affect her, only time will tell. I'm against forced termination, regardless of someone's learning difficulties. If they can state they dont want a termination, even if it means they cant keep the child, then no means no. Forced termination, isn't acceptable under any circumstances.

For example the idea that the state is always right and can properly assess women is a bog standard mainstream opinion, not one that has evolved from feminist thought

How do you know the replies made aren't from feminists?

Because feminism means something and has theory. It's not whatever you want it to be.

I personally do not think the state should make this decision about a pregnancy.

But most countries in the world have legal restrictions regarding abortions.

With the exception of

China - available on request
Russia - the first country in the world to permit abortions

And anyway this is all moot. Abortion is controlled by laws, ergo the state.

Plus this woman was raped.

With the exception of a few states in the USA and ironically a few countries in the continent of South America, abortion is allowed in rape.

Plus, this is a health issue, mental health should never be separate from physical health.

It was done in the patients best interests. It was a humane decision.

Can I just point out that the OP posted this in the feminist topic because she wanted a feminist perspective. Anyone can post of course but the entire thread has been dominated by anti feminist "blame the mother" rhetoric.

Well, I’m a feminist. I consider myself a radical feminist in fact. I am also a frequent poster in FWR (I have otherwise maybe only posted twice elsewhere on MN). I recognize many of the other posters here who disagree with your own opinions are regular members of FWR. Funny that, we don’t have a hive mind.

@FeministCat
Yep. Feminism doesn't have a handbook and we can and do disagree with each other.

However

That doesn't mean that anything can be a feminist point of view, or that there isn't basic feminist theory. In other words there are some basic tenets.

I don't expect every feminist to agree with the anti PIV arguments or whatever but I do take to task anyone who thinks a state and its systems that are riddled with misogyny is above judgement. That would be an anti feminist stance

But most countries in the world have legal restrictions regarding abortions.

With the exception of

China - available on request
Russia - the first country in the world to permit abortions

Canada also has no specific legal restrictions on abortion, though regulations and accessibility may vary between provinces.

In other words, technically there is no limit as to what stage in the pregnancy you can get an abortion but in practice there are professional guidelines that mean a pregnancy over 24 weeks is not terminated without serious indications that the life of the mother is at risk or that the fetus has very serious malformations.

So second/third term abortion is not frequent. The total estimated numbers of abortions for 2017: 94,230 and the estimated percentage of abortions at 21+ weeks in Canada is 0.66 percent (from www.arcc-cdac.ca/backrounders/statistics-abortion-in-canada.pdf)

haggistramp sorry but no. I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion and do not and have never thought that an embryo and then a fetus is "only a clump of cells".

I know that it is a living organism with the potential to become a fully developed human infant. However, for me the rights of the mother, ie the organism that has already fulfilled that potential to actually be present in the here and now take precedence over that prospective human being that she is creating in and with her body. I value her life and her wishes in having agency over her own body. If she does not wish to continue to grow another human being with her own body, then she ought to have the right to do so.

I simply don't agree with those who prescribe rights over the body of an existing person to a future person and therefore deny rights to an existing person (without whom the individual future person wouldn't even have the potential to exist in the first place).

This woman has severe LDs.

Those of you who say she was raped:
Do we know she was raped? She may well have** consented to sex with someone who was not abusing her - eg a man with LDs.

Both capable of thinking sex is fun and sex is nice and perfectly capable of consenting to fun with each other.

However she is alleged to not be capable of consenting to conceive a child. Let alone keep that child.

In which case this particular court is there to ensure decisions are made in her best interests. Like they do / have done for lots of other people.

The court does not take this decision lightly.

She is an adult with an adult body, hormones & urges. However she is alleged to be not capable of looking after herself, of looking after someone else nor of understanding pregnancy and childbirth.

I know someone who was a governor of a home for young adults with disabilities and I'm told that sex is a fun past time many engage in. They are not studying. Nor working. The staff at the homes and centres are dealing with these types of issues every day. And their relatives too.

However they use contraception to avoid this scenario!! Yes decided upon in their best interests and most likely enforced upon them if they are not capable of deciding for themselves. What is wrong with that? There are guidelines. It's not like the court is saying she has mild LDs and is riding rough shod over her and her family.

Why was she not using contraception? Her guardian was either in denial about what she was doing, ignorant or blatantly ignored the risks.

There is a case all law students study which sets out why the state is not allowed to enforce sterilisation on women with disabilities.

However the guardian (whether a relative or the state) is under a duty to ensure she does not get pregnant if that would not be good for her. Either by enforcing celibacy (goes against her rights in my view) or by ensuring she has the depo injection or the implant or take the pill.

I cannot imagine a 6 or 7 or 8 or 9yo coping with pregnancy or Labour or a c section. Even less coping with the child they have carried and birthed being taken away. Overlay adult hormones and experiences (eg seeing other pregnant women and babies and the happiness media shows kids bring) and it's barbaric to let that happen.

Termination now is the least worst next step.

How on earth did it get this late before anyone noticed? Her guardian is supposed to monitor her periods and her behaviour and changes in shape / weight. I'd suggest the guardian failed in their duty of care to this poor woman.

however Doing nothing, now her carers know, would be barbaric.

What will happen afterwards though? Who is going to make sure she does not get pregnant again? Will the court make the same decision next time?!

There must be a lot more to this case.

If the lawyer representing her submits that there is no medical reason for the termination, that is certainly correct.

Did the lawyer say that?

The lawyer arguing that the medical reasons are not “sufficient” for termination is not the same as arguing “fact” or arguing there are no medical reasons. Lawyers are allowed to argue the evidence does not support a certain conclusion, that does not make it fact or mean the trier of fact (the judge) has to reach the same legal conclusion.

We know there are medical concerns - particularly her mental health. It is noted that not continuing the pregnancy has a good risk of increasing complications from her mood disorder. You may disagree but that is very much a medical reason to consider.

Someone said that this woman 'can't even consent to a root canal". That isn't necessarily true. Capacity is something that has to be assessed for each and every situation. She could have capacity to decide what to have for lunch, but not capacity to decide where to spend the night. Capacity for a root canal, but not for a more complex procedure.

But we can say that it has been submitted in court that there is no medical reason for the termination to go ahead and that that submission is not a fabrication.

Submissions are not evidence. Judges can find them persuasive or not. But they aren’t evidence. Submissions are also not under oath. While as an officer of the court I can’t lie to the court I can argue submissions that present the evidence in the best light for my client, including to use persuasive argument that the judge should not rely on the evidence or give it much weight. To say that the evidence does not support the conclusion the other side wants it to. Because I am an advocate for my client, not the trier of fact: that is up to the judge.

People are saying how will she cope with labour are not seemingly to be cognisant of the fact that this pregnancy is so far advanced, she'll be going through a process very similar to that in any event. But against her will.

Those saying that there's a potential difference between her being raped and having consensual sex with a partner of a similar condition. I'm sorry, but if you can value the difference between rape and her consent in that circumstance, you can value the difference between her consenting and not consenting to a termination.

No consent, no termination.

Fin. Thank fuck for that.