Woman with Down’s syndrome takes Sajid Javid to court over abortion law

[Still Waters]

Allowing pregnancy terminations up to birth if the foetus has Down’s syndrome is discriminatory and stigmatises disabled people, the high court has heard.

Heidi Crowter, a 26-year-old woman with Down’s syndrome from Coventry, Máire Lea-Wilson, 33, and her son Aidan, who has Down’s syndrome, who both live in Brentford, west London are challenging Sajid Javid over the Abortion Act 1967. The act sets a 24-week time limit for abortions unless there is “substantial risk” of the child being “seriously handicapped”.

The three argue it is discriminatory, interferes with the right to respect for private life in article 8(1) of the European convention on human rights (ECHR), including the decision to become or not to become a parent and “rights to dignity, autonomy and personal development of all three claimants”.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/06/downs-syndrome-sajid-javid-court-abortion-law-heidi-crowter

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/woman-down-syndrome-challenge-abortion-061240959.html

[quiXilver]

Is she offering her womb for surrogates?

[+OverSword]

1 hour ago, Still Waters said:

The act sets a 24-week time limit for abortions unless there is “substantial risk” of the child being “seriously handicapped”.

Having worked with wonderful, happy people born with Downs Syndrome I would like a more strict definition of "seriously handicapped"

[Helen of Annoy]

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Having worked with wonderful, happy people born with Downs Syndrome I would like a more strict definition of "seriously handicapped"

Someone's kindness or happiness doesn't determine the severity of their handicap.

Down's is a serious handicap. It's not just cognitive, there's a whole host of serious physical issues that comes with it, that lower both the quality and length of life.

Pretending it's not so is not helping anyone. 

[+OverSword]

Just now, Helen of Annoy said:

Someone's kindness or happiness doesn't determine the severity of their handicap.

Down's is a serious handicap. It's not just cognitive, there's a whole host of serious physical issues that comes with it, that lower both the quality and length of life.

Pretending it's not so is not helping anyone. 

So someone who can live a happy life should not be allowed to be born because they may (or may not) suffer from a host of physical issues or a shorter life?  Down's has different levels of severity.

[Helen of Annoy]

31 minutes ago, OverSword said:

So someone who can live a happy life should not be allowed to be born because they may (or may not) suffer from a host of physical issues or a shorter life?  Down's has different levels of severity.

It's a happy life provided it's supported by loving caretakers (usually parents). Without extremely benevolent support and extremely good health care it's a life of frustration, abuse and suffering. 

You've seen happy people with Down's. Great. I've seen a barefoot one in the dirty, snowy street, visibly agitated and not exactly communicable. I never got the whole story, was mother dead, or not interested in her child, or not able to provide upbringing and care needed for child with particular special needs. The point is, do not look away from the possibilities. These horrible possibilities are the reason why some women, who do love their unborn child, decide not to bring it to this world. Terminating pregnancy is often the act of love, only you have to have absolute compassion for your unborn child in order to understand how unbearable is the idea of your child suffering. 

Which is why I fully understand both women who decide to carry such pregnancy and those who decide not to carry it. They both made their decision out of love. 

And that's why it's called pro-choice. 

[+OverSword]

1 minute ago, Helen of Annoy said:

It's a happy life provided it's supported by loving caretakers (usually parents). Without extremely benevolent support and extremely good health care it's a life of frustration, abuse and suffering. 

You've seen happy people with Down's. Great. I've seen a barefoot one in the dirty, snowy street, visibly agitated and not exactly communicable. I never got the whole story, was mother dead, or not interested in her child, or not able to provide upbringing and care needed for child with particular special needs. The point is, do not look away from the possibilities. These horrible possibilities are the reason why some women, who do love their unborn child, decide not to bring it to this world. Terminating pregnancy is often the act of love, only you have to have absolute compassion for your unborn child in order to understand how unbearable is the idea of your child suffering. 

Which is why I fully understand both women who decide to carry such pregnancy and those who decide not to carry it. They both made their decision out of love. 

And that's why it's called pro-choice. 

Don't you have socialized medicine?  Doesn't that support disabled people?  Maybe I'm wrong on that count.

I have worked supervising an assembly line of adults with Downs syndrome and agree that they do need a good support system.  My issue is that if someone doesn't have the will or ability to take on that burden shouldn't they have made the decision to terminate long before the 8th month of pregnancy? I think so.

[Duke Wellington]

4 hours ago, Still Waters said:

Allowing pregnancy terminations up to birth if the foetus has Down’s syndrome is discriminatory and stigmatises disabled people, the high court has heard.

Heidi Crowter, a 26-year-old woman with Down’s syndrome from Coventry, Máire Lea-Wilson, 33, and her son Aidan, who has Down’s syndrome, who both live in Brentford, west London are challenging Sajid Javid over the Abortion Act 1967. The act sets a 24-week time limit for abortions unless there is “substantial risk” of the child being “seriously handicapped”.

The three argue it is discriminatory, interferes with the right to respect for private life in article 8(1) of the European convention on human rights (ECHR), including the decision to become or not to become a parent and “rights to dignity, autonomy and personal development of all three claimants”.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/06/downs-syndrome-sajid-javid-court-abortion-law-heidi-crowter

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/woman-down-syndrome-challenge-abortion-061240959.html

I think the 24 week limit should remain in place.

If the parents dont want it, then put it up for adoption.

[+OverSword]

3 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

I think the 24 week limit should remain in place.

If the parents dont want it, then put it up for adoption.

Seems like plenty of time to choose.  Aren't late term abortions much more dangerous as well?

[Helen of Annoy]

11 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Don't you have socialized medicine?  Doesn't that support disabled people?  Maybe I'm wrong on that count.

I have worked supervising an assembly line of adults with Downs syndrome and agree that they do need a good support system.  My issue is that if someone doesn't have the will or ability to take on that burden shouldn't they have made the decision to terminate long before the 8th month of pregnancy? I think so.

Down's is detected early enough. It's my impression that there's no limit simply to avoid some overzealous sadist make a spectacle because the woman was a day or a week over the limit. 

Edited July 6, 2021 by Helen of Annoy
grammar. still sucks, but at least I'm trying.

[+Hammerclaw]

Nope. Not going down that rabbit hole. It's easy to pontificate about abortion; how it seems all life is sacred--except when it's in the womb and inconvenient. So easy to set standards and make judgments from the sanctity of one's own moral position. Until, of course, one is faced with an unwanted pregnancy oneself. Then--oh my--how art the mighty fallen as one's lofty moral qualms become "inconvenient". Been there, done that. It's their bodies, their selves, their choice.

[Silver]

56 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

I think the 24 week limit should remain in place.

If the parents dont want it, then put it up for adoption.

Why do you think the 24 week limit should remain? What is the significance of 24 weeks?

So you think adoption is an option?  How many parents (percentage wise) decide to adopt a child with Down's Syndrome?

I'm always pleased to learn, this debate is not familiar to me. Let's hear some more, Cookie.

 

[+OverSword]

9 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Nope. Not going down that rabbit hole. It's easy to pontificate about abortion; how it seems all life is sacred--except when it's in the womb and inconvenient. So easy to set standards and make judgments from the sanctity of one's own moral position. Until, of course, one is faced with an unwanted pregnancy oneself. Then--oh my--how art the mighty fallen as one's lofty moral qualms become "inconvenient". Been there, done that. It's their bodies, their selves, their choice.

If not one day before birth why not one day after? Rabbit hole reopened.  

It's just more easy for me to make the life abstract the more before the due date the abortion occurs I guess (selfish opinion).  I know my opinion doesn't really matter because (hopefully) this will be nothing I ever have to deal with myself.

9 minutes ago, ted hughes said:

Why do you think the 24 week limit should remain? What is the significance of 24 weeks?

So you think adoption is an option?  How many parents (percentage wise) decide to adopt a child with Down's Syndrome?

I'm always pleased to learn, this debate is not familiar to me. Let's hear some more, Cookie.

 

I personally know of three couples (all Lesbians for some reason) who have adopted multiple children all with severe handicaps. They are amazing and one of them is a very close acquaintance.  She's an unbelievable individual regardless of that.

Edited July 6, 2021 by OverSword

[+Hammerclaw]

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

If not one day before birth why not one day after? Rabbit hole reopened.  

It's just more easy for me to make the life abstract the more before the due date the abortion occurs I guess.  I know my opinion doesn't really matter because (hopefully) this will be nothing I ever have to deal with myself.

I personally know of three couples (all Lesbians for some reason) who have adopted multiple children all with severe handicaps. They are amazing and one of them is a very close acquaintance.  She's an unbelievable individual regardless of that.

Men are careless of their seed  and in a transient moment of pleasure think not of the consequences of their actions. It is women who live with those consequences and until the nascent male medical profession usurped their prerogatives to seek the council and aid of midwives, not the province of men. Even the Church stayed out of it for most of history. 

[Grey Area]

This isn’t an argument about the morality of abortion or even really about when the cut off point is for terminations.  People here seem to be missing the point entirely.

This is about equality, it’s about the value we place on human life.  In the U.K. a full term abortion for a healthy foetus would not only be illegal, it would be universally condemned by society, so why is it okay for someone with Down syndrome?

I wish Heidi all the luck in the world on this, a clear example of how people with disabilities not only contribute to the society they live in, but can inspire others to be better.

[+OverSword]

13 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Men are careless of their seed  and in a transient moment of pleasure think not of the consequences of their actions. It is women who live with those consequences and until the nascent male medical profession usurped their prerogatives to seek the council and aid of midwives, not the province of men. Even the Church stayed out of it for most of history. 

I agree but you still didn't answer the question.

[+Hammerclaw]

8 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I agree but you still didn't answer the question.

Like I said, I'm not going down that rabbit hole. That is a question for women to decide--it's their bodies. Any man who has a problem with their decisions should have kept it in his pants--or used a raincoat.

Edited July 6, 2021 by Hammerclaw

[Silver]

9 hours ago, Grey Area said:

This isn’t an argument about the morality of abortion or even really about when the cut off point is for terminations.  People here seem to be missing the point entirely.

This is about equality, it’s about the value we place on human life.  In the U.K. a full term abortion for a healthy foetus would not only be illegal, it would be universally condemned by society, so why is it okay for someone with Down syndrome?

I wish Heidi all the luck in the world on this, a clear example of how people with disabilities not only contribute to the society they live in, but can inspire others to be better.

In England, Wales and Scotland, there is a general 24-week time limit to have an abortion.

But terminations can be permitted up until birth if there is "a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped", which includes Down's syndrome.

At a two-day High Court hearing, lawyers representing Ms Crowter and Ms Lea-Wilson will argue that the law as it stands is unlawfully discriminatory.

This article says full term abortion is legal in certain circumstances so either you are wrong or LBC is wrong.

The court case is about this very issue.

Woman with Down's syndrome challenges abortion law in High Court - LBC

Edited July 7, 2021 by ted hughes

[Helen of Annoy]

I'd just remind everyone one more time that Down's is detected early enough (from 10th week on). A woman who didn't want the test at the beginning of the pregnancy won't want one at the end of it either, so the outrage with hypothetical terminations in the last day of pregnancy is either illogical or malicious. 

No woman will delay the termination for 8 months just to trigger the "conservatives" or something. It's an insane assumption. 

There shouldn't be the time limit because that's how you make sure a woman might keep the pregnancy after all - if they know they don't have to make the decision right the **** away, but they can do more tests and make sure if there's a problem with foetus or not, then they won't have to terminate immediately, in panic, they can have more tests and make their decision when they get more results with more certainty. 

[aztek]

12 weeks is when genetic testing for markers associated with down syndrome happens,  85% accuracy,  the later the testing the more accurate it is.   24 weeks is plenty to find most of genetic disorders, and make a decision to abort or not,

[Helen of Annoy]

1 hour ago, aztek said:

12 weeks is when genetic testing for markers associated with down syndrome happens,  85% accuracy,  the later the testing the more accurate it is.   24 weeks is plenty to find most of genetic disorders, and make a decision to abort or not,

Usually, yes. Fortunately. 

But as I said earlier, there are sadists who would latch on the exact date - despite the fact that the exact date of conception is the result of educated guesswork. To prevent such freaks from forcing women to bring severely handicapped children to this world, it's very wise to not set the time limit. 

A disorder (not just Down's syndrome) doesn't have to be tested for at the very beginning of the pregnancy, if there was no history of such disorder in the family and the mother is young and healthy. It's the routine screening that might show there's possible problem after the (apparently magical in some heads) 24th week.

[Grey Area]

10 hours ago, ted hughes said:

In England, Wales and Scotland, there is a general 24-week time limit to have an abortion.

But terminations can be permitted up until birth if there is "a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped", which includes Down's syndrome.

At a two-day High Court hearing, lawyers representing Ms Crowter and Ms Lea-Wilson will argue that the law as it stands is unlawfully discriminatory.

This article says full term abortion is legal in certain circumstances so either you are wrong or LBC is wrong.

The court case is about this very issue.

Woman with Down's syndrome challenges abortion law in High Court - LBC

This is why I said ‘healthy’ foetus.  I know this, and I know what the court case is about.

Not sure what was so difficult to understand in my post?
 

 

[Grey Area]

3 hours ago, Helen of Annoy said:

I'd just remind everyone one more time that Down's is detected early enough (from 10th week on). A woman who didn't want the test at the beginning of the pregnancy won't want one at the end of it either, so the outrage with hypothetical terminations in the last day of pregnancy is either illogical or malicious. 

It’s not about the potential mother carrying a baby it’s about those disabled people who have survived the judgement of their parents and the fact that their lives are considered less valuable in the eyes of the law than able people.

[Abramelin]

"Sajid Javid"

[Silver]

27 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

This is why I said ‘healthy’ foetus.  I know this, and I know what the court case is about.

Not sure what was so difficult to understand in my post?
 

 

Okay, I'm always keen to learn. You said: In the U.K. a full term abortion for a healthy foetus would not only be illegal, it would be universally condemned by society, so why is it okay for someone with Down syndrome?

The law says: But terminations can be permitted up until birth if there is "a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped", which includes Down's syndrome.

So that is why it is okay, I guess.

Iceland has managed to virtually eradicate Downs through screening: Why Down syndrome in Iceland has almost disappeared - CBS News

Edited July 7, 2021 by ted hughes