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

[Grey Area]

29 minutes ago, ted hughes said:

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.

Laws are repealed and amended all the time because they are considered immoral, outdated or not fit for purpose.  At one point it was legal to own another human.

Just because it’s law, doesn’t mean it’s okay.  Forced Adoption is legal, thats a pet peave of mine.

42 minutes ago, ted hughes said:

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

I think that statement is misleading, like saying we have eradicated small pocks.  What that article is actually saying is that almost all cases of Down syndrome are aborted.  That’s not eradicating the condition.

The same is true in the U.K. regarding screening.  I know with my own children my wife and I agreed at the start of each pregnancy if there was a problem we would see it through, no terminations unless there was no chance of a reasonable standard of life.

I have to wonder what that all says about the populations of varying countries, does it mean that parents in the U.K. are simply more willing to take on the challenge of being a parent to a disabled child?

The other thing I would say is Iceland has a population of 330,000.  If the 3 cases that are missed in Iceland is a standard statistic that’s 590 in the U.K.  The actual figure is around 700, so I dunno, do with that what you will.

[Helen of Annoy]

1 hour ago, Grey Area said:

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.

"It's not about the potential mother" and there's no need to discuss it further. 

But I'll expand a little. 

So, possibly the complaint is honestly just narrowed down to only one perspective. 

But that would make that complaint incredibly selfish. It would mean that those who complain think their feelings based on their impressions about the problems of others are more important than the rights of people whose problems they're judging. 

To put it more bluntly: they'd accidentally force women to carry malformed foetus (the law is not about Down's specifically) to term because it would make them reassured they're equal. (Personally, I'd say it's a shocking lack of empathy - I've got a problem, so you all will damn have the same sort of problem, no one escapes, the more the merrier.) While the law is not defining any life as less valuable, it's providing humane treatment in case of severe problems in pregnancy.  

[Grey Area]

1 hour ago, Helen of Annoy said:

"It's not about the potential mother" and there's no need to discuss it further. 

But I'll expand a little. 

So, possibly the complaint is honestly just narrowed down to only one perspective. 

But that would make that complaint incredibly selfish. It would mean that those who complain think their feelings based on their impressions about the problems of others are more important than the rights of people whose problems they're judging. 

To put it more bluntly: they'd accidentally force women to carry malformed foetus (the law is not about Down's specifically) to term because it would make them reassured they're equal. (Personally, I'd say it's a shocking lack of empathy - I've got a problem, so you all will damn have the same sort of problem, no one escapes, the more the merrier.) While the law is not defining any life as less valuable, it's providing humane treatment in case of severe problems in pregnancy.  

Given that we are discussing Down Syndrome in particular here’s some the law could easily be amended to exclude Down syndrome and we know that people with Down Syndrome can live full and happy and productive lives I would argue that it is inherently selfish of any parent to choose to have an abortion, but I also understand better than most the complexities that can force parents to make that decision, it’s very scary and living with the knowledge that you are carrying a disabled child will be akin to a grieving process.

But also add into that any parent can walk into a local area office and request support which can look like a family support worker and respite care, plus funding for home modifications, extra money to cover the costs of care, mobility allowances.  And if push comes to shove, a parent can literally give up their child to the local authority.

[+Hammerclaw]

6 hours ago, Grey Area said:

Given that we are discussing Down Syndrome in particular here’s some the law could easily be amended to exclude Down syndrome and we know that people with Down Syndrome can live full and happy and productive lives I would argue that it is inherently selfish of any parent to choose to have an abortion, but I also understand better than most the complexities that can force parents to make that decision, it’s very scary and living with the knowledge that you are carrying a disabled child will be akin to a grieving process.

But also add into that any parent can walk into a local area office and request support which can look like a family support worker and respite care, plus funding for home modifications, extra money to cover the costs of care, mobility allowances.  And if push comes to shove, a parent can literally give up their child to the local authority.

Exactly how is aborting a fetus for a specific heath reason morally reprehensible, while choosing to abort a healthy fetus for the general reason of not wanting it not morally reprehensible? Why should a woman have to justify what she does with her own body, to you or anyone else?

[Grim Reaper 6]

On 7/7/2021 at 12:39 AM, 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

In truth the abortion issue is just another situation where religion has been allowed to influence factions within the US Government. No religious organization has the right to influence laws that dictate what any American Women can or can't do concerning her own body. The abortion rights issue is nothing more than that, anyone who thinks it is not a direct assault on the rights of Americans from Religious Groups influencing policy in our Government need to wake up and smell the coffee.

In my opinion Religious organizations should have absolutely have no control over Government Policy, and they should have no control over or be able to infringe upon the rights of other Americans.

JIMO

[Silver]

7 hours ago, Grey Area said:

Given that we are discussing Down Syndrome in particular here’s some the law could easily be amended to exclude Down syndrome and we know that people with Down Syndrome can live full and happy and productive lives I would argue that it is inherently selfish of any parent to choose to have an abortion, but I also understand better than most the complexities that can force parents to make that decision, it’s very scary and living with the knowledge that you are carrying a disabled child will be akin to a grieving process.

But also add into that any parent can walk into a local area office and request support which can look like a family support worker and respite care, plus funding for home modifications, extra money to cover the costs of care, mobility allowances.  And if push comes to shove, a parent can literally give up their child to the local authority.

Whaaat? 

So you have made up your mind as to what is right, and it is universally right, because that is what you believe. Once you have made your choice, no one else needs to make a choice, as you have saved them the trouble. And if it gets a bit too difficult for them, they can just hand it over to the state. 

Nice.

 

 

 

[Grim Reaper 6]

8 hours ago, Grey Area said:

Given that we are discussing Down Syndrome in particular here’s some the law could easily be amended to exclude Down syndrome and we know that people with Down Syndrome can live full and happy and productive lives I would argue that it is inherently selfish of any parent to choose to have an abortion, but I also understand better than most the complexities that can force parents to make that decision, it’s very scary and living with the knowledge that you are carrying a disabled child will be akin to a grieving process.

But also add into that any parent can walk into a local area office and request support which can look like a family support worker and respite care, plus funding for home modifications, extra money to cover the costs of care, mobility allowances.  And if push comes to shove, a parent can literally give up their child to the local authority.

This has nothing to do with Down Syndrome at all. Why not be completely honest and just admit this is about your religious beliefs and the fact that according to them you don believe in Abortion!

I can respect your opinion if your honest. However if you continue to try and divert attention away from the real issue your not being honest and that also violates your religious beliefs and it also makes you a hypocrite. 

 

[Grey Area]

3 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Exactly how is aborting a fetus for a specific heath reason morally reprehensible, while choosing to abort a healthy fetus for the general reason of not wanting it not morally reprehensible? Why should a woman have to justify what she does with her own body, to you or anyone else?

Where did I say it was morally reprehensible?

I was responding to Helen’s post who claimed that the person taking this to court was selfish.  I was simply pointing out that any decision to abort a foetus that would be able to live an otherwise full happy and healthy life is also a selfish act.

[Grey Area]

2 hours ago, ted hughes said:

Whaaat? 

So you have made up your mind as to what is right, and it is universally right, because that is what you believe. Once you have made your choice, no one else needs to make a choice, as you have saved them the trouble. And if it gets a bit too difficult for them, they can just hand it over to the state. 

Nice.

 

 

 

No… NO!

Are you able to read my posts without some sort of trigger?

I make no judgement.  A woman may choose this course of action.  Her reasons are her own and will be made out of necessity according to her circumstances at the time.

Remember, we are talking about Down Syndrome.  People with Down Syndrome can live great lives.  My point was in response to Helen’s comment that taking this to court is selfish.  Given that Down Syndrome does not mean a poor quality of life, aborting a Down syndrome foetus is in all likelihood going to be about the impact such a child will have on the parents life and when you add into the mix that there is a lot of support for parents as well even down to literally not having to be a parent what possible reason other than a very self centred one is there to abort a Down syndrome child?

I do not stand in any form of judgement at all, we all must make decisions about our own lives, charity starts at home.  In retrospect, making such a decision is also incredibly brave.

[Grim Reaper 6]

14 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

Where did I say it was morally reprehensible?

I was responding to Helen’s post who claimed that the person taking this to court was selfish.  I was simply pointing out that any decision to abort a foetus that would be able to live an otherwise full happy and healthy life is also a selfish act.

I asked you to be honest, this is based upon your religious beliefs isn't it? 

Who are you to say that all Downs Children live perfectly normal live?

Edited July 8, 2021 by Manwon Lender

[Grey Area]

1 hour ago, Manwon Lender said:

This has nothing to do with Down Syndrome at all. Why not be completely honest and just admit this is about your religious beliefs and the fact that according to them you don believe in Abortion!

I can respect your opinion if your honest. However if you continue to try and divert attention away from the real issue your not being honest and that also violates your religious beliefs and it also makes you a hypocrite. 

I am honestly lost for words Manwon.  What have i said that A, makes you think I am against abortion, and B, that I am religious?

Manwon I am 100% atheist, and totally in support of abortion.  Read what I am saying.

[Grey Area]

2 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

Who are you to say that all Downs Children live perfectly normal live?

Who are you to say they don’t?  There is risk in all pregnancy.

Why not just abort all pregnancies on the chance the child may not live a healthy life?

[Silver]

2 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

In truth the abortion issue is just another situation where religion has been allowed to influence factions within the US Government. No religious organization has the right to influence laws that dictate what any American Women can or can't do concerning her own body. The abortion rights issue is nothing more than that, anyone who thinks it is not a direct assault on the rights of Americans from Religious Groups influencing policy in our Government need to wake up and smell the coffee.

In my opinion Religious organizations should have absolutely have no control over Government Policy, and they should have no control over or be able to infringe upon the rights of other Americans.

JIMO

Quite. If we allow the RC religion to dictate health care, should we allow other religions? How about the Church of the Spaghetti Monster? That church has been recognised in some countries I believe. Or Jedi's?

[Grim Reaper 6]

4 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

Who are you to say they don’t?  There is risk in all pregnancy.

Why not just abort all pregnancies on the chance the child may not live a healthy life?

Have you raised a special needs child?

Everything to have alluded to says your no in favor of abortion. You claim that children with Downs Syndrome live perfectly normal fully lives, yes they do live to approximately 60 years old. However, age isn't the major consideration when speaking about Down Syndrome. The biggest issue these people are subjected to are both mental and health issues that are common for children born with Down Syrdrom such as the following. Down syndrome is the most frequently occurring chromosomal disorder and the leading cause of intellectual and developmental delay in the U.S. and in the world. 

I apologize for making the statement that religion was the driving force behind your comments.

5 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

I am honestly lost for words Manwon.  What have i said that A, makes you think I am against abortion, and B, that I am religious?

Manwon I am 100% atheist, and totally in support of abortion.  Read what I am saying.

 

[+Hammerclaw]

39 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

Where did I say it was morally reprehensible?

I was responding to Helen’s post who claimed that the person taking this to court was selfish.  I was simply pointing out that any decision to abort a foetus that would be able to live an otherwise full happy and healthy life is also a selfish act.

 

26 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

I make no judgement.  A woman may choose this course of action.  Her reasons are her own and will be made out of necessity according to her circumstances at the time.

Of course you made a judgment. The top highlight is a judgment. Also, according to her circumstances can mean she simply doesn't want to have children, which is her right. You've made the judgment call that it is selfish. Your posturing as staying aloof above the fray, doesn't stand scrutiny.

Edited July 8, 2021 by Hammerclaw

[Grey Area]

28 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

 

Of course you made a judgment. The top highlight is a judgment. Also, according to her circumstances can mean she simply doesn't want to have children, which is her right. You've made the judgment call that it is selfish. Your posturing as staying aloof above the fray, doesn't stand scrutiny.

Youy are absolutely right, I havent said otherwise anywhere, in any way shape or form.  But It is a selfish decision.  Not judging as I said we all make selfish choices.  But it is what is.  Dressing it up or attacking me doesnt make it any less so.

[Grey Area]

38 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

Have you raised a special needs child?

Yes, I have also worked professionally with children of all abilities for the last 18/19 years.

 

38 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

Everything to have alluded to says your no in favor of abortion.

No, you have skim read some posts and then pre judged me based on a single comment about the motivations a woman has to terminate a pregnancy.

 

43 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

You claim that children with Downs Syndrome live perfectly normal fully lives, yes they do live to approximately 60 years old.

Again, please READ what I write otherwise you draw the wrong conclusions.  I never said anywhere Children with Down Syndrome live perfectly normal lives.  I simply said the potential is there for them to live happy, full lives.  Nothing about their lives will be normal, at least from the perspective of your average person.

45 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

The biggest issue these people are subjected to are both mental and health issues that are common for children born with Down Syrdrom such as the following.

Which, in reality is absolutely no different from anyone else.  How many people do you know that have physical or mental health issues?  Do they all have Down Syndrome?

47 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

I apologize for making the statement that religion was the driving force behind your comments.

No worries.  It made me laugh tbh, I am so outwardly athiest, that for anyone to suggest anything I say would have a religious slant to it is funny.

[Grey Area]

3 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

In truth the abortion issue is just another situation where religion has been allowed to influence factions within the US Government. No religious organization has the right to influence laws that dictate what any American Women can or can't do concerning her own body. The abortion rights issue is nothing more than that, anyone who thinks it is not a direct assault on the rights of Americans from Religious Groups influencing policy in our Government need to wake up and smell the coffee.

In my opinion Religious organizations should have absolutely have no control over Government Policy, and they should have no control over or be able to infringe upon the rights of other Americans.

JIMO

I am sure you are right here, and this is probably why you went off in the deep end about my religious views .

This, however, is in the UK.  There is a religious movement that campaigns around abortion and women's rights, but they are seldom seen or heard, the situation is entirely different to that in the US.  Here Abortion is almost universally accepted and it's only a very small minority that attempt to make their voices heard.

[Grim Reaper 6]

15 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

I am sure you are right here, and this is probably why you went off in the deep end about my religious views .

This, however, is in the UK.  There is a religious movement that campaigns around abortion and women's rights, but they are seldom seen or heard, the situation is entirely different to that in the US.  Here Abortion is almost universally accepted and it's only a very small minority that attempt to make their voices heard.

Yes your correct, Especially the Catholic religion and some groups within the Christian religion try to force  their beliefs on the all Americans. The main issue where this force is applied is the abortion Issue. Since I was child this issue has been at center stage and over the years it has gone back and forth. It was so bad at times that abortion clinics were fire bombed, and people who chose to have an abortion were publicly shamed when they tried to enter of leave an abortion clinic. While our Supreme Court has clearly defined that the separation should be maintained it has never has been completely. There is a very strong lobbying element that is religious based who try to impose the beliefs of religious groups upon all Americans. 

A recent example of this occurred during the Trump Administration. When Trump was campaigning during 2016, he allowed the Christian Evangelicals along with Christian Zionist to court him for the Christian vote which they supplied, and which had a major effect upon him being elected. So Trump had to pay his debt after he was elected, which he did. One of the most obvious things he did was to declare Jerusalem the Israeli Capital and then to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. I could go on but, it serves no purpose, he gone and I could not be happier. 

Anyway I do apologize for my previous comments, I certain did go off and you didn't deserve that my friend!

 

[+Hammerclaw]

2 hours ago, Grey Area said:

Youy are absolutely right, I havent said otherwise anywhere, in any way shape or form.  But It is a selfish decision.  Not judging as I said we all make selfish choices.  But it is what is.  Dressing it up or attacking me doesnt make it any less so.

Oh, honey! No one is attacking you. Your own posts are just as subject to being commented on as the ones you choose to dissect. The term "selfish" has negative, judgmental connotations. What they are doing is making personal decisions regarding their own bodies, health, mental and material wellbeing. You, obviously, feel a fetus has some inherent right to exist and it's bearer an ethical obligation to see it's pregnancy through to term. That, my friend, is taking a moral stand on the subject, whether you are willing to admit it or not.

Edited July 8, 2021 by Hammerclaw

[Helen of Annoy]

19 hours ago, Grey Area said:

Given that we are discussing Down Syndrome in particular here’s some the law could easily be amended to exclude Down syndrome and we know that people with Down Syndrome can live full and happy and productive lives I would argue that it is inherently selfish of any parent to choose to have an abortion, but I also understand better than most the complexities that can force parents to make that decision, it’s very scary and living with the knowledge that you are carrying a disabled child will be akin to a grieving process.

But also add into that any parent can walk into a local area office and request support which can look like a family support worker and respite care, plus funding for home modifications, extra money to cover the costs of care, mobility allowances.  And if push comes to shove, a parent can literally give up their child to the local authority.

That's slightly modified usual litany against the abortion in general. It's acceptable to some, unacceptable to others. It should be the end of discussion, because if a woman doesn't find abortion acceptable, she won't admit she had one after she had one.

To put it bluntly because I had it *up to here* of hypocrisy in all shapes and forms. Especially when it involves adoption markets. 

And I just deleted the lengthy rant because terminating pregnancy wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't politicized to the point where it's not anymore about mothers, or babies, or religion, or adoption markets, it's about incendiary rhetoric for the stupid masses. 

But as a woman I have to stress that forcing women to carry a pregnancy to the term, for which they know will result with severely handicapped child, is not just stupidly evil, it's outright demonic level of sadism. 

And Down's is a serious handicap. It's irrational to claim it's not. 

Women who face the fact that the foetus has serious problems must not be given prettified pictures of what is ahead of them and the child that might develop from that foetus. 

 

[Grey Area]

5 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

The term "selfish" has negative, judgmental connotations. What they are doing is making personal decisions regarding their own bodies, health, mental and material wellbeing.

It does.  How would you term a decision that is made for your own self interests?  You choose and we’ll go with the terminology that doesn’t offend you.

5 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

You, obviously, feel a fetus has some inherent right to exist and it's bearer an ethical obligation to see it's pregnancy through to term. That, my friend, is taking a moral stand on the subject, whether you are willing to admit it or not.

I just love the fact that my posts seem to draw out these pre-judgements.

I am pro choice, which I think is the correct terminology for the yanks.  I believe whole heartedly a woman has the right to choose what happens to her child and her body.

I am not lying, there is no judgement in any of my posts.  A woman’s decision is her own to make, it’s her business and I would have no place in interfering.

[Grey Area]

44 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

That's slightly modified usual litany against the abortion in general. It's acceptable to some, unacceptable to others. It should be the end of discussion, because if a woman doesn't find abortion acceptable, she won't admit she had one after she had one.

To put it bluntly because I had it *up to here* of hypocrisy in all shapes and forms. Especially when it involves adoption markets. 

And I just deleted the lengthy rant because terminating pregnancy wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't politicized to the point where it's not anymore about mothers, or babies, or religion, or adoption markets, it's about incendiary rhetoric for the stupid masses. 

But as a woman I have to stress that forcing women to carry a pregnancy to the term, for which they know will result with severely handicapped child, is not just stupidly evil, it's outright demonic level of sadism. 

Agree 100% with all of that.

 

45 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

And Down's is a serious handicap. It's irrational to claim it's not. 

I don’t think anyone has claimed otherwise.

46 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

Women who face the fact that the foetus has serious problems must not be given prettified pictures of what is ahead of them and the child that might develop from that foetus. 

Absolutely, the mother/parents MUST be given all the facts and preferably have access to people who are in/have been in similar circumstances.  Education is essential.

As I also said in another post very briefly, there is a grieving process involved.  Most parents start out a pregnancy hoping/expecting a ‘normal’ (I struggled to find another term) healthy child.  Upon learning their unborn will be disabled, in the minds of those parents that normal, healthy child has gone, it’s a severe loss.  I don’t think many people appreciate that, and the time needed to grieve is problematic, as the pregnancy obviously doesn’t stop.

Its a heart wrenching dilemma in which any choice is probably the bravest choice anyone can make.

[aztek]

11 hours ago, Grey Area said:

Where did I say it was morally reprehensible?

I was responding to Helen’s post who claimed that the person taking this to court was selfish.  I was simply pointing out that any decision to abort a foetus that would be able to live an otherwise full happy and healthy life is also a selfish act.

by what standards?  a person with a disability\disorder from birth does not know different life, to that person they are happy, and pains and limitations are just normal things, to a healthy person life like that is neither healthy nor happy,  so by whose standards should a family go by before they decide to abort or not?

Edited July 8, 2021 by aztek

[Grey Area]

16 minutes ago, aztek said:

by what standards?  a person with a disability\disorder from birth does not know different life, to that person they are happy, and pains and limitations are just normal things, to a healthy person life like that is neither healthy nor happy,  so by whose standards should a family go by before they decide to abort or not?

Okay, first this is a specific focus on Down Syndrome.  People with Down Syndrome can be happy by anyone’s standards and will be able to have the intellect and empathy to articulate as such.

Im unclear what your point is, given that such logic can be applied to anyone, we only ever live in our own minds and can only judge our happiness by our own experiences of it.