Campaign to remove prenatal tests

[Wondermule]

Posting in Feminism as from what I can see AIBU can get really nasty. I read this article a few weeks ago and it’s been playing on my mind ever since.

www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jan/26/ken-ross-disabled-person-as-famous-as-brad-pitt-on-screen-down-syndrome

Has the Guardian really given column inches to a MAN who is lobbying for prenatal tests to be withheld from women?! Not only that, it seems to be painting him in quite a positive light about it all!

Just posting for other’s opinions really.

No comment on council support needed to help you raise the child with additional needs.

I'm currently trying to access support for my son who is autistic and it is absolutely exhausting as they just don't want to give you funding.

TheBuffster I would be judgemental.

I can appreciate what the poster has said. But no way would I write that on a public forum. What happens if the child stumbles across it and reads it? No way

@secular39

If I'd know my child had autism, I wouldn't have hesitated to terminate the pregnancy

Make sure your autistic child doesn't read this (even if you may think it).Do you love him/her?

God, yes, he totally reads MN. Of course I love him!

To suggest prenatal testing is just about abortion or raising a disabled child ignores so much medical support/interventions than come from prenatal testing. This includes surgery in utero for spina bifida and amniotic bands both which can have a huge impact on the child's life, identifying when caesarians are necessary to save the life of parent and/or child, ensuring babies are born in centres with access to necessary medical support where immediate intervention might be necessary, identifying multiple pregnancies or partial molar pregnancies, or cojoined twins...

@Barracker

MangoFeverDream I am arguing the case for women's rights as I believe they should be, rather than defeated resignation to the way things are currently.

You used the phrase "things that make sense on an individual level could have negative societal consequences."

For me, bodily autonomy is an uncrossable line. Sovereignty over one's own individual body is the most fundamental human right. The alternative is a form of slavery and subjugation. I'll never accept the principle of diminishing a person's autonomy over their own body - with associated criminal sanctions - for a purported societal good.

Women do not owe an unwilling sacrifice of their bodily autonomy to the state, to men, to women, to girls. It isn't a resource for others to exploit for any agenda.

Bravo!

@doadeer

No comment on council support needed to help you raise the child with additional needs.

I'm currently trying to access support for my son who is autistic and it is absolutely exhausting as they just don't want to give you funding.

Yep! They don't want to fund FA. And in many areas they don't want to give a diagnosis so they don't have to fund.

Playing Devil’s advocate here, but in China they will not tell you the sex of your child. The sonographer knows but will not tell you.

This is simply not true

You can find out the sex, either from a sonographer telling you, or from any number of tests - Harmony, amnio

Why oh why do people post such utter horseshit on here?

@ShowOfHands

Down's babies also have a higher risk of heart deformations that require surgical interventions just to name one thing off the top of my head. Many are medicalized for life. Some parents get really lucky and get the charming down's child with minimal problems, but others do not. It is a crapshoot and women should not be shamed for deciding not to carry such a child to term.

Tibtom makes excellent points.

We have the 24-week limit for healthy infants, I can see how unfair it might feel to a high-functioning person with Downs.

What is 'unfair' in this circumstance is not that women won't be criminalised for terminating a 26 week pregnancy because of Down's syndrome.
It's that women are ever criminalised for terminating their pregnancies at all.

Restoring 'fairness' by ensuring more women can be criminalised more easily is not the remedy.

"I want more women, not fewer, punished for exercising bodily autonomy so I can feel better" is essentially what is being argued here.

People look at abortion limitations imposed upon women as if it is a matter of everyone else's right to lay claim to when and how her body can be used by them.

There's another, perfectly valid way of looking at termination legislation.
Which is this:
At what point should we criminalise a woman for making a decision about her own health and her own body in her own best interests with her own doctor?

Those who argue for limits at various stages or for various conditions are simply arguing their own terms for when they want women punished and how.

At what point can we force her into an outcome that risks her life and health against her wishes.
When shall we punish her.
At what point shall we make her a criminal.
What shall we call the crime.
How long should we imprison her.

This is what arguing for limitations on women's choices really is.
It's arguing the point at which you can punish a woman for making a decision about her own body.
For making a sovereign decision about her own body and her own health in her own best interests.

I wish more people would look this reality in the face and ask themselves if they really stand for that.

The only people for whom fairness is relevant when it comes to deciding pregnancy outcomes or restrictions are the women who are pregnant.

And the remedy to any unfairness to those women is to remove any barriers to them making uncoerced, informed decisions about their own bodies.

@Catcuriosity

Playing Devil’s advocate here, but in China they will not tell you the sex of your child. The sonographer knows but will not tell you.

This is simply not true

You can find out the sex, either from a sonographer telling you, or from any number of tests - Harmony, amnio

Why oh why do people post such utter horseshit on here?

Did you actually live in China? I did for a decade, it’s absolutely illegal.

@Barracker

Why do I need to know?

Because it's my body, my information, my uterus, my health, my life, my decision and my informed choice.

Men who argue "withhold that woman's medical information from her so that she cannot make an informed decision, and ensure society facilitates the option to criminalise her for making decisions about her body that I want to prevent"
do not see women as full autonomous human beings.

No woman should ever be criminalised for any decision she makes about her own body and her own health. Her reasons need not be offered up for the scrutiny and approval of others.

I cannot applaud your posts enough.

@rawalpindithelabrador I hope life treats you gently, it's exhausting being a sn parent.

I'd suggest anyone suggesting otherwise can babysit so we can kip!

[quote TheBuffster]@rawalpindithelabrador I hope life treats you gently, it's exhausting being a sn parent.

I'd suggest anyone suggesting otherwise can babysit so we can kip![/quote]
Oh, yes, please! Some respite, that would be nice. Or knowing he'd be cared for after I die, I'd like that, too.

Would Ross like to take over the mornings? I'd like to see that.

I don't know if you have read this:
www.google.com/amp/s/notanautismmom.com/2017/10/23/the-jungle/amp/

It's a reaction to welcome to Holland. I talked when given that poem by a well meaning person, but Welcome to the jungle some days is a better fit.

Or knowing he'd be cared for after I die, I'd like that, too

I’m sorry you have to live with this worry

This is another questionable aspect of the anti-testing campaigns; they all feature very cute babies and toddlers, not adults or elderly people with disabilities. They say they’re about ‘balanced information’ but the challenges of having a disabled adult child is rarely discussed.

So here’s a man who’s wealthy, telling women he doesn’t know that they have no right to any autonomy over their own bodies. I’m assuming he’s against abortion on any grounds?
The bit about the Emmerdale storyline shows a contradiction as there is already a child actor in the show with Down’s syndrome. His identical twin sadly died. It shows both sides of the dilemma, using actors with the disability.

@Wondermule

This is an area that people who advocate or have an interest in disability awareness are pretty concerned about, so actually I think it's a fairly important public discussion

What is an important discussion? Whether women should be forced to raise a disabled child that they don’t feel they can cope with?

Wasn’t there a report on a country (possibly Iceland) where barely any Down syndrome babies were born because of very pro abortion medical advice. Women should be fully informed and supported in whatever decision they make and not forced or guilted into one direction or the other.

But Rupert - what proportion of terminations v continuing pregnancies would convince you the information is of the right balance? Is there a ‘correct’ ratio?

Not about ratios no, but a better measure would be women’s feelings about the information and support they were given, if this were to be audited/counselled.

What this man is advocating is removing information and choice which of course is gravely wrong, but if the other side of this is being made to feel like a burden to society and the nhs if you decided not to terminate, then that is a failing also. It is informed choice and real-world practical support which is key, not tricking or coercing women into one thing or the other.

Not everyone wants to continue with a pregnancy if the child has certain conditions

Agreed, Rupert.

The lack of babies being born with Down syndrome in Iceland is partly due to the small population. If only two or three women in a year have a pregnancy with a baby with Down syndrome, it only takes two or three people to choose to have a termination for no babies to be born with Down syndrome.

[quote Alicethruthelookingglass]@ShowOfHands

Down's babies also have a higher risk of heart deformations that require surgical interventions just to name one thing off the top of my head. Many are medicalized for life. Some parents get really lucky and get the charming down's child with minimal problems, but others do not. It is a crapshoot and women should not be shamed for deciding not to carry such a child to term.[/quote]
@Alicethruthelookingglass

I know. Congenital heart defects were one of my uncle's comorbidities.

I just don’t think there is an ‘acceptable’ proportion of women that choose a termination. Is it really surprising that 9 out 10 people don’t feel they have the money, time and resources to support a disabled child? I can’t help but notice most of the prominent campaigners in this area are either very affluent, or stay at home mums. People quote the ‘90%’ like it is an unacceptable figure, but what would be the ‘right’ one? (Well obviously 0% if it was up to this man!)