This breaking news I find rather chilling
Who defines ‘disabilities’ under which a viable human life may be ended, even just prior to birth?
I’m all for a woman’s right to choose but why/how is the life of any baby worth less than another? Why not the same legal cut off date of 23 weeks and 6 days (I think) as for any other?
The limit is extended because some conditions are only identified at the 20 week scan and may need further investigation and tests for the parents to make an informed decision about continuing or not the pregnancy. It means the parents have time to consider all the implications before they make such an important decision. These are also amongst the most disabling conditions.
Seems dreadfully harsh. A terrible decision for the parents.
Would an adoption not be possible, if they didn’t feel they could keep the baby?
I do believe there are some disabling conditions that not only prevent their sufferers achieving any real quality of life, but take away the quality of life of the rest of the family too. Having said that, I don’t think Down’s syndrome is in this category. I’ve known many young people with Downs that are very happy, and bring much happiness to those around them.
Would a baby with serious incurable health problems and a very short painful life ahead of it actually be adopted? What benefit would there be to anybody? Who would adopt a baby with eg anencephaly?
I think though that Down’s in the absence of other health issues doesn’t come into the category of appalling lethal conditions, and screening is in any case much earlier.
As someone who has had a 25 wk plus abortion of a v disabled baby - no! With knobs on. I terminated my pregnancy because it was the right thing to do for my son. There’s no fucking way I would have let anyone else adopt him.
Two of my nieces have adopted disabled children. One was adopted as a baby, who had severe fetal alcohol syndrome due to an alcoholic mother. He’s now 17 and a beautiful, loving and caring young man. He is intellectually impaired enough that he was never able to go to a regular school, but is currently learning how he can gain some independence and doing quite well. The other niece adopted a seriously physically and mentally disabled child at the age of 4 years old. She’s now 16. Freddy needs everything doing for her and will never be independent. But she is loved dearly and knows it. Seeing her smile and listening to her chuckle when she is happy is enough for my niece, and she is a happy child.
It happened in my family There was no guarantee he would survive to be born, if he did he would have had to go straight on to the operating table ,would have needed several further operations ,could have died anytime, would never have left hospital and his life expectancy with all that was 20 years which would have been miserable
@hairbear I had a baby with anencephaly, which was discovered at a scan at 12 weeks, and had an interruption medicale de grossesse (IMG) at 14 weeks. Lots of jumping through hoops since at that time the limit here was 12 weeks for abortion for any other other reasons (IVG). I had to go off to the university hospital in Bordeaux and have all sorts of other tests done by a big team of specialists who then gave their verdict on that baby’s viability.
Unlike your nieces’ children, that baby would not have survived more than a few days. Maybe 3. Pro-lifers would say it should have been born nevertheless. I disagree.
Gosh Véro, that must have been traumatic for you.
I agree with your disagreement.
I think people who adopt children who are severely disabled must have extreme strength of character and compassion verging on the heroic but at least they have some idea of what to expect before going ahead.
My sister had a Downs baby who only lived for a few weeks (she had been refused a test 30 odd years ago now as she was considered too young )She now admits it was a merciful thing to happen as she realises she could never have coped (taking into account her life experience since).She was told by many in a similar situation that it would make or break her and many a marriage has failed under this stress.
Also from other family experiences however well you cope you always have the worry of what will happen when you are no longer there.
Peoples circumstances vary so much a so I could never judge women for making this decision
Living in a family where one child takes up the majority of the parents attention is not great for other siblings.
I speak from personal experience.
I agree totally with any woman’s right to choose, and in a situation where the viability of any baby born is very limited, I think that it is cruel for both the mother and baby to effectively force the mother to give birth. In the case of both my niece’s, it was their choice to adopt a baby/young child that had already been born. I think their decision to do so was greatly influenced by the fact that their parents, my brother and sister in law, had fostered children most of their married life whilst having there own children, including fostering disabled children.
I don’t think my nieces look at it like that. They were brought up with fostered children in the house, including disabled children and don’t look on themselves as heroic.
That is the number one worry for my nieces. What would happen if/when they are no longer there. In the case of Freddy, she has life limiting conditions which means she probably won’t live past another 10 years. For Layton, it’s different and his mother is very invested in him gaining as much independence as possible.
If you would allow me to replace the word I highlighted above with ‘except’, I would agree with you. But the right to choose to kill a possibly healthy human is abhorrent to me.
I am sincerely sorry for the tragedy that befalls a mother and child, and am saddened to hear of yours here.
What comes over overwhelmingly is that it is the mother’s right to choose.
Maybe I have a rather dystopian view of the powers of government but I fear that the repeal of Roe vs Wade in the US, an enshrined democracy, may be only the beginning. With technology enabling increasing knowledge of a child before it is born, giving the state a right to decide a child’s fate over the wishes of a mother is frightening.
The repeal of Roe vs Wade means the state can impel a mother to bear a baby even against her wishes. How steep is the slope towards a state, with maybe a cash strapped health service, deciding which baby may or may not be born based on its health? Population imbalance or war could give the state power over gender selection.
Whether or not you trust your government to not take such power today depends on in which country you live. Using the ‘salami effect’ they would only shave away our rights one slice at a time while we assure ourselves the worst could never happen.
With the medical technology available nowadays the viability of the foetus is determinal and not just a possibility.
Precisely my point really. That right to choose I would not argue with. It is when ‘right to choose’ so often seems to mean ‘at my convenience’ that I differ.
This was the case in the fictional radio series I referred to elsewhere. As the story dragged on I was dismayed that it appeared to be wholly centred on whether the girl concerned could be arsed or not to have the baby. There was no question of any defect at all, never mentioned. Just as I was about to lose confidence in the writers the young man concerned was showing extreme, but unsaid grief, and I realised that, although he had supported her decision all along whichever it was, he was nevertheless extremely affected by it.
The repeal of Roe vs Wade means the state can impel a mother to bear a baby even against her wishes.
This is true and is alarming to me too but, that is a central decision of the Supreme Court which does not impose it on individual states, only allows them to do so. There are some states that continue to permit abortions with varying conditions attached. It is not quite the blanket ban that it has been made out to be.
I hope this would mean a woman can travel to where an abortion is legal and then return to her home state without then being prosecuted. How frightening it must be for a young girl now
That, I do not know, maybe they need to give their home address, maybe not if the permitting state is sympathetic.