This is a really good conversation to be having, and I am thrilled that Epiphanies can hold a conversation on such a complex topic and support the necessary feelings and thoughts from people on multiple sides of the issue. You're doing a good job. I do think that avoiding the term "forced birther" might be good. I do not say we should avoid it as inaccurate* but rather please avoid it because it will necessarily add to the emotions. We can talk about what such people are doing, but let's avoid that to take care of each other.
Gwai,
Epiphanies Host
*Since I am hosting, I am not putting forth opinions about whether it is fair or not.
However, babies born with Down's often have medical conditions, especially cardiac but also anorectal malformations, duodenal atresia and Hirschsprung disease, as well as a higher risk of Leukaemia and some solid tumours (The latter five of those being all within my speciality means I look after a lot of these babies and children). Therefore it is a very cost-effective screening program.
Like @Arethosemyfeet, I have a cousin with Down Syndrome. As you suggest here, he was born with cardiac defects that required multiple surgeries, and spent a considerable time in a well-known hospital in London. He lives in sheltered accommodation for people with Down Syndrome, and will never live an independent life.
He's a lovely man, and I love him dearly, but there's no denying the fact that, both in terms of the medical care he required in childhood, and in terms of the long-term social care he needs, he's very expensive.
And that's where we get wrapped up in the ethics surrounding abortion. If you take a position somewhere close to the pro-life end of the spectrum, you don't really have a problem - my foetal cousin was a baby, and so deserving of all the medical care from people like @alienfromzog and his colleagues, and all the social care he needs, and so on.
But if you take a position like @Pomona's - that pregnant people should have the option to terminate a pregnancy at any stage without question - then do you have an obligation to terminate people like my cousin? It would save the government a large amount of money.
I wouldn't call that an obligation, unless your country is horribly impoverished.
[hypothetical mercenary hat on]
And anyway, caring for people with disabilities generates economic activity, so is it a net financial loss anyway ?
[hypothetical mercenary hat off]
And anyway, money is not the only value people have.
Sorry to pop in and double host but could I ask people to be really careful here and not to speak in terms of 'obligation' to save 'money' where the lives of people with disabilities are concerned. It's OK to talk about fears that other people or organisations might think in this way but it needs to be really clear that these are not your views and you are not advocating them, and these views need not to be accidentally linked to shipmates who are not saying that.
And anyway, money is not the only value people have.
It's not even the only thing governments value, which was the subject of @Leorning Cniht's observation. A state is not a for-profit corporation. It can, and often does, pursue policies for non-economic reasons.
It's an interesting dilemma as within Downs Syndrome independence is variable, having met so many, some with heart defects, some with language difficulties, some healthy and full of life. At a previous church there was some local supported living accommodation which housed some Downs Syndrome adults, one of whom attended church, singing loudly along with the hymn book upside down and loving taking his turn on the rota carrying the cross processing in. He also took part in the village panto - they wrote him in - with support, or he helped front of house, all dapper in a suit and bow tie. I think he had some supported work too, but reading wasn't one of his skills, although he'd go and shop independently.
Another child I knew as my contemporary, the oldest of four boys, born unexpectedly to a mother in her 20s, and the little girl who was the adored younger sister of one of my daughter's peers.
It is well documented in the US that abortion rates correlate with the political party in power (rising under the Republicans and falling under the Democrats). Restricting access to abortion does not decrease abortions. If you sincerely believe that abortion is wrong then surely, surely it is vital to appreciate what actually works. But that's a level of morality and insight that is far beyond the current GOP.
A lot of ink/pixels have been spilled/darkened pointing out the apparent hypocrisy of the professional anti-abortion movement in the U.S. Over at New York magazine Sarah Jones argues fairly convincingly that the GOP is not hypocritical, they're authoritarian.
Among liberals, conservative hypocrisy has become something of a truism. They begin with a valid conclusion. To conservatives, the body of the fetus is sacrosanct, but the body of the child is not. A particular ideology leaves children vulnerable to gun violence, to hunger and homelessness, to the consequences of climate change. Victims of a power that holds life loosely in its grip, children have no true defenders on the right. But here, liberals inevitably run aground. People don’t think of themselves as hypocrites. They don’t experience cognitive dissonance in the ways you might expect. I certainly didn’t, when I opposed abortion rights. Abbott likely believes everything he says, both about personal responsibility and about the immorality of abortion. So, too, do his allies in the state legislature.
What, then, should we make of this conservative consistency? What looks like hypocrisy should be understood as a deeper ideology. In Texas, the right to life is conditional. It has always been conditional, at least to conservatives. Only the fetus has an absolute right to life because it cannot err. Women are more complicated. They sin, these Eves, and deserve punishment. The right to life is fragile. The right to a good life is more fragile still. A person must be poor because of some moral failing; they’re lazy, unmotivated, or simply ignorant. The free market is never to blame, and neither are capitalists. Gun violence exists because of innate criminality, which must be answered with incarceration and more guns, borne by the right kind of people. As climate change becomes impossible to deny, the same arguments will appear: Personal responsibility must guard against burned or flooded homes; if the wealthy appear less susceptible to disaster, it’s because they’ve earned a better way of life.
This isn’t hypocrisy, but authoritarianism.
Read the rest, if you're so inclined. Anyway, taken in this light the institutional anti-abortion movement makes a lot more coherent, internal sense.
[hypothetical mercenary hat on]
And anyway, caring for people with disabilities generates economic activity, so is it a net financial loss anyway ?
[hypothetical mercenary hat off]
[hypothetical mercenary]
This argument looks quite a lot like the broken window fallacy, doesn't it?
[/hm]
...pregnant people having the right to terminate at any time in the pregnancy...
Canada has abortion managed as a health issue since the law was struck down in the late 1980s. It's not illegal at any stage. It's allowed legally at all stages of pregnancy. Which means it's regulated as a health procedure only. Nearly no providers do abortions beyond 24 weeks. Those rare situations where they are done up to almost 9 months are severe tragedies for everyone. No law about abortion means the tragedy is private. It's okay not to have any law about abortion. We're generally told the abortion rate is at the lower end for industrialized countries.
I am pro-choice, but it does not mean I am pro-abortion. I think women have the right to determine what they do with their bodies. Unplanned pregnancies happen all the time. Most women actually choose to bring them to term. While abortions rose significantly in the first decade since Roe v Wade. Now, the rate per thousand is now less than prior to Roe v Wade. See this discussion. Abortions will continue to happen whether they are legal or not, but I would prefer to keep them safe.
We should do everything we can to reduce the need for abortions, like increasing access to birth control and providing support services for mothers who bring their pregnancies to term. Rather than outlawing abortion, the better way is to do like Colorado which made IUDs and other forms of contraception available to teens. They have been able to reduce the number of abortions and teen pregnancies by half since 2014.
I am betting the Texas Republicans will rue their anti-abortion law. Many corporations are not going to support it. Some will relocate out of Texas. Texas depends on a number of conventions coming to the state to support its economy, but many will look for other venues. Ultimately, I think legislators who voted for this law will have to answer to their electors. When the majority of Texans support freedom of choice, it will be a tough road for the legislators next go around.
John Swinton has also written extensively on theology and spirituality and disability.
I think the whole topic is worthy of a thread which I am very happy to start if others are interested.
However for our purposes here, there is one exert I want to highlight. [From 20:30 - 26:00 but especially from 23:10]
And the quote I want to highlight here is a person with Down's being asked about prenatal testing and termination for Down's (or other anomaly) said "Well that's not very friendly is it?"
John then uses a definition of love derived from Aquinas: Love says "It's good that you exist, it's good that you are here."
If you think this through carefully, it is a difficult tension and people on both sides of the abortion debate are guilty of pretending that this tension does not exist.
It is not controversial to suggest that parents have significant responsibilities to their children. Killing a baby because it is not wanted is considered murder is every durastiction I know of. Conversely, pregnancy is dangerous and their are significant mental and physical health implications of carrying a pregnancy to term. It is true that many men with absolutely no self-awareness or insight declare a simplistic position about this. In purely biological terms a foetus is a parasite.
But just to complete this line of thought, as I indicated earlier, there is clearly a public policy position to prevent the birth of babies with certain conditions, especially Down's.
I guess it comes down to the key question: what is/isn't a human person?
In purely biological terms a foetus is a parasite.
I suspect that the technical definition of parasitism excludes the standard reproductive strategy of the host.
(Wikipedia specifies that the parasite and host are two different species: but I can think of behaviour that could be described as intra-specific brood parasitism.)
afz there is no argument as to whether an individual with Down’s is fully human. In the end it comes down to demand. If parents did not want their pregnancies terminated it would not happen.
I’d be interested to read your take on termination and neural tube defects: not so much anencephaly which is a lethal defect but terminations in the context of spina bifida which as you know better than I is hard on the individual, the family and the taxpayer ( and this is a huge issue before a Host jumps on this).
If parents did not want their pregnancies terminated it would not happen.
If you think the framing of the law, the attitudes of medics and ignorance of Down's don't have an impact on those decisions I don't know what to tell you.
afz there is no argument as to whether an individual with Down’s is fully human. In the end it comes down to demand. If parents did not want their pregnancies terminated it would not happen.
I’d be interested to read your take on termination and neural tube defects: not so much anencephaly which is a lethal defect but terminations in the context of spina bifida which as you know better than I is hard on the individual, the family and the taxpayer ( and this is a huge issue before a Host jumps on this).
What @Arethosemyfeet said. None of us live in a vacuum. Moreover, it's difficult to argue that on a societal level we actually consider someone with Down's to be fully human and of equal worth when we have a public health screening programme and a clear legal differential that says you may terminate after 24wks if your foetus has Down's, but you may not if there is no diagnosis.
Paediatric Surgery within the UK includes Urology. I mention this because Spina bifida is in many ways a urological condition and something with which I have a lot of experience.
Surgical correction of neural tube defects became widely available in the latter half of the twentieth century and children no longer died shortly after birth. As a consequence, they died from urinary sepsis and renal failure in childhood.
Most children with Spina bifida will have a degree of bladder dysfunction which if not managed carefully will result in renal failure. As a consequence, all are closely followed up by a paediatric urologist. Many require surgery. The level of physical disability is incredibly variable. The level of intellectual disability is incredibly variable.
Life expectancy is now into the forth-fifth decade of life.
I know I have posted this to the ship before, but I do think it contains a lot of very important ideas in a short format. It is a clip of Sally Phillips and Frank Skinner talking about Peter Singer https://youtu.be/_8cLt7Ua5wg
afz there is no argument as to whether an individual with Down’s is fully human. In the end it comes down to demand. If parents did not want their pregnancies terminated it would not happen.
I’d be interested to read your take on termination and neural tube defects: not so much anencephaly which is a lethal defect but terminations in the context of spina bifida which as you know better than I is hard on the individual, the family and the taxpayer ( and this is a huge issue before a Host jumps on this).
What @Arethosemyfeet said. None of us live in a vacuum. Moreover, it's difficult to argue that on a societal level we actually consider someone with Down's to be fully human and of equal worth when we have a public health screening programme and a clear legal differential that says you may terminate after 24wks if your foetus has Down's, but you may not if there is no diagnosis.
Paediatric Surgery within the UK includes Urology. I mention this because Spina bifida is in many ways a urological condition and something with which I have a lot of experience.
Surgical correction of neural tube defects became widely available in the latter half of the twentieth century and children no longer died shortly after birth. As a consequence, they died from urinary sepsis and renal failure in childhood.
Most children with Spina bifida will have a degree of bladder dysfunction which if not managed carefully will result in renal failure. As a consequence, all are closely followed up by a paediatric urologist. Many require surgery. The level of physical disability is incredibly variable. The level of intellectual disability is incredibly variable.
Life expectancy is now into the forth-fifth decade of life.
I am pro-choice, but it does not mean I am pro-abortion. I think women have the right to determine what they do with their bodies. Unplanned pregnancies happen all the time. Most women actually choose to bring them to term. While abortions rose significantly in the first decade since Roe v Wade. Now, the rate per thousand is now less than prior to Roe v Wade. See this discussion. Abortions will continue to happen whether they are legal or not, but I would prefer to keep them safe.
We should do everything we can to reduce the need for abortions, like increasing access to birth control and providing support services for mothers who bring their pregnancies to term. Rather than outlawing abortion, the better way is to do like Colorado which made IUDs and other forms of contraception available to teens. They have been able to reduce the number of abortions and teen pregnancies by half since 2014.
You're a good person and this is a heartfelt reasonable starting point in my view. But we've moved beyond "we should do everything we can ton reduce the number of abortions". No. We shouldn't do anything. Just make it private and don't do anything in law or politics about it. Let it be merely a health care issue. Private. Leave it alone. No external (frequently male) involvement. Let people organize their personal, sexual, reproductive lives privately. It doesn't create more abortions, it results in a slight decline and then a stable, relatively low rate. Which 23 years of no abortion law anywhere in Canada shows. It's about health, not law and it's private.
No. We shouldn't do anything. Just make it private and don't do anything in law or politics about it. Let it be merely a health care issue. Private. Leave it alone.
Healthcare is a political issue. If you have a taxation-funded healthcare system, what medical treatments should be offered? Who decides? How do you decide whether a particular procedure is worth paying for?
If you have a private insurance-funded system, do you have any regulations? Do you (should you) require health insurance to have any particular level of coverage?
I am pro-choice, but it does not mean I am pro-abortion. I think women have the right to determine what they do with their bodies. Unplanned pregnancies happen all the time. Most women actually choose to bring them to term. While abortions rose significantly in the first decade since Roe v Wade. Now, the rate per thousand is now less than prior to Roe v Wade. See this discussion. Abortions will continue to happen whether they are legal or not, but I would prefer to keep them safe.
We should do everything we can to reduce the need for abortions, like increasing access to birth control and providing support services for mothers who bring their pregnancies to term. Rather than outlawing abortion, the better way is to do like Colorado which made IUDs and other forms of contraception available to teens. They have been able to reduce the number of abortions and teen pregnancies by half since 2014.
You're a good person and this is a heartfelt reasonable starting point in my view. But we've moved beyond "we should do everything we can to reduce the number of abortions". <snip>
Your ‘But’ makes it look as though you’re contradicting Gramps49. But he was saying ‘We should do everything we can to reduce the need for abortions’ which is not the same as your ‘we should do everything we can to reduce the number of abortions’, and none of the things he suggests contradict your wish to ‘Let people organize their personal, sexual, reproductive lives privately.’
I am pro-choice, but it does not mean I am pro-abortion. I think women have the right to determine what they do with their bodies. Unplanned pregnancies happen all the time. Most women actually choose to bring them to term. While abortions rose significantly in the first decade since Roe v Wade. Now, the rate per thousand is now less than prior to Roe v Wade. See this discussion. Abortions will continue to happen whether they are legal or not, but I would prefer to keep them safe.
We should do everything we can to reduce the need for abortions, like increasing access to birth control and providing support services for mothers who bring their pregnancies to term. Rather than outlawing abortion, the better way is to do like Colorado which made IUDs and other forms of contraception available to teens. They have been able to reduce the number of abortions and teen pregnancies by half since 2014.
You're a good person and this is a heartfelt reasonable starting point in my view. But we've moved beyond "we should do everything we can to reduce the number of abortions". <snip>
Your ‘But’ makes it look as though you’re contradicting Gramps49. But he was saying ‘We should do everything we can to reduce the need for abortions’ which is not the same as your ‘we should do everything we can to reduce the number of abortions’, and none of the things he suggests contradict your wish to ‘Let people organize their personal, sexual, reproductive lives privately.’
That's fair. I didn't read it properly. I agree with many more supports for people in general. $10 per day childcare is on the table right now in Canada with the federal election. I don't know that this would have anything to do with abortion per se, while we see it as a general good for society to have people with kids less stressed.
No. We shouldn't do anything. Just make it private and don't do anything in law or politics about it. Let it be merely a health care issue. Private. Leave it alone.
Healthcare is a political issue. If you have a taxation-funded healthcare system, what medical treatments should be offered? Who decides? How do you decide whether a particular procedure is worth paying for?
If you have a private insurance-funded system, do you have any regulations? Do you (should you) require health insurance to have any particular level of coverage?
It is sort of political about abortion in Canada, but because the Supreme Court of Canada quashed the federal law about abortion in 1988 taking it out of the Criminal Code because the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is a constitutional issue. And because the Canada Health Act which specifies that in order for the provinces to receive federal funding for health care (each province in Canada runs its own health care), it isn't possible for provinces to stop providing free access to abortions without losing federal money and having a constutional challenge. So perhaps the Canadian situation is unique. Provinces have in the past tried to designate abortion as available only in certain hospitals but this is pretty quiet now. Provinces are allowed to restrict reasonable access to any medical service without penalty. No-one really seems to care much. The big issue for us right now (it's come up during the election) is the province trying to allow private MRI and CT clinics so that people who want to pay privately can do that, jumping the queue and getting their's before those who can't in the public queue.
So in Canada, medically necessary services must be provided to everyone, no cost, and with reasonable access, without barriers erected because of an ideology (you can use your provincial health card for any province anywhere in Canada without charge). These are medical decisions, in my province, the subject of discussion and negotiation between the associations of physicians, other medical providers and gov't within the boundaries of the federal Canada Health Act, and the province having the necessary funds. This last- "province having the necessary funds- is often cooked by politicians because they love to fund expensive hospitals when all the data shows that the primary needs are within the community and not hospitals. There's no reason abortions can't be provided in suburban strip mall clinics (also diabetes care, kidney dialysis, cardiac assessments, etc - we have this to a degree here-hospitals should be for severe things only). I can't speak to private health insurance as it isn't allowed for general medical care services.
<tangent>
It is a bit like the legalisation of marijuana (legal everywhere in Canada, subject to provincial regulation like alcohol), it really doesn't merit much controversy (I dislike the smell myself). I suspect other drugs will be legalised this decade, they are de-facto legalised with supervised consumption sites being subject to non-enforcement by police in many places because this approach reduces crimes and treats drugs like the health issue it is.
<tangent>
Of course it does. And if you legalised every single thing anyone could ever do then your crime rate would fall to zero overnight. Because nothing would be a crime any more.
Of course it does. And if you legalised every single thing anyone could ever do then your crime rate would fall to zero overnight. Because nothing would be a crime any more.
I have a feeling he means 'other crimes' - theft, robbery, public disorder and violence. Your reading might be correct, but given the context, I think a general reduction in ancillary crime is likely a welcome, and not unexpected, result of decriminalisation of the drug itself.
No. We shouldn't do anything. Just make it private and don't do anything in law or politics about it. Let it be merely a health care issue. Private. Leave it alone.
Healthcare is a political issue. If you have a taxation-funded healthcare system, what medical treatments should be offered? Who decides? How do you decide whether a particular procedure is worth paying for?
If you have a private insurance-funded system, do you have any regulations? Do you (should you) require health insurance to have any particular level of coverage?
Agreed. I similarly find it doesn't work to suggest that because something is about healthcare, it will cease to be relevant to the world of law and politics.
Of course it does. And if you legalised every single thing anyone could ever do then your crime rate would fall to zero overnight. Because nothing would be a crime any more.
I have a feeling he means 'other crimes' - theft, robbery, public disorder and violence. Your reading might be correct, but given the context, I think a general reduction in ancillary crime is likely a welcome, and not unexpected, result of decriminalisation of the drug itself.
Correct. However this is variable, as the local "harm reduction" site is relatively recent, there was report locally yesterday of police responding aside from protocol and treating intoxicated people as nuisances versus troubled people. This can result in provocation of the individuals such that conflict with others arises, drawing legal charges. Thankfully the situation was observed, a liaison officer attended and it went in the helping versus enforcement direction. This kind of thing takes a lot of work to change approaches.
I don't want to prolong this. But I hope I'm making the point that laws, legislation, enforcement and all the justice approaches are not the solution to many complex human problems, and are better left aside.
I'm disturbed that my support of the availability of abortion on demand is somehow equated with some kind of responsibility to have an abortion if the foetus is disabled. This is not a stance I have suggested or support. That's the opposite of being pro-choice, and it's hard not to see it as somehow deliberately accusing me of wanting that. I support the idea that everyone has the right to decide what medical procedures they undergo. People who willingly consent to pregnancy and birth should be supported just as those who do not consent should be.
@alienfromzog perhaps that person with Down's should consider that pregnancy and birth aren't very friendly. I don't think wanting to keep pregnant people ignorant about what is happening to their own body is very friendly either. Neither is wanting to take away people's right to consent to medical procedures. It's all very easy to glibly talk about how a medical procedure isn't friendly when it isn't your body. It's frankly disgusting that Down's is being used as a weapon to take away the rights of pregnant people and what they choose for their bodies. Why can't they take their noses out of other people's medical decisions and campaign for better social welfare provision instead? Why the desire to control women's bodies rather than campaign for UBI and more support for parents of disabled children? They can't get the Tory voters on board with that I guess.
The only times medical procedures need to be involuntary is when the individual not having them harms others. I get that the anti-abortion crowd gets instantly hung up on their definition of the fetus as another person. Which is far to binary to make sense. At one point the fetus isn't really anything but a bundle of cells, and at the other end, it becomes a born human being. That's the binary. The stages in the middle aren't either of these things and it is silly to have politicians, lawyers, courts be the ones to decide this. Leaving it to the people integrally involved (woman and medical personnel) has resulted, in the naturalistic experiment of what is Canada, as noted above with no disaster at all, rather, much less controversy and difficulties, with a slightly lower rate of abortion than most western countries, and none of the sensational claims about late term abortions etc.
And for the record - if me and a future partner decided to have children and it was discovered that the baby had Down's, I at least would have no issues with continuing the pregnancy. I'm disabled and involved in disability activism, and have a strong support network - at least from my side of things, I would feel well-equipped to parent a child with Down's. But it would ultimately be my partner's decision as it would be their body that stayed pregnant and gave birth. I would also want them to at least have the option of screening even if they chose not to have it, because it's their body and they should be able to make an informed decision about what happens to their body.
Preventing screening for Down's does not prevent ableism. It does not prevent parents from then abandoning the child post-birth. It simply takes away the right of the pregnant person to be informed about what is happening to their body. As a disabled person, I already have so many decisions about my body taken away from me. Having another decision taken from me does not actually improve the quality of my life, or that of other disabled people. It doesn't seem like the people calling for ending screening are very invested in ending ableism in general, only for their pet project. How many of them will then vote for political parties who penalise disabled people via the benefits system?
Yes, saying that you shouldn't have screening is really just saying that you shouldn't have information, lest you use that information to make a decision.
Yes, saying that you shouldn't have screening is really just saying that you shouldn't have information, lest you use that information to make a decision.
It is illegal in India, or so I understand, for medical staff to reveal the sex of a foetus, precisely so people can't use that information to "make a decision".
Yes, saying that you shouldn't have screening is really just saying that you shouldn't have information, lest you use that information to make a decision.
That's making an additional assumption I didn't read, rather one you made.
That noted, we might expect the rate for Downs Syndrome to be reduced with free abortion access, except prenatal diagnosis of that takes some testing that isn't without risk. Where I live testing is offered to everyone by the provincial health authority. About 25% want it.
a combined test between 10-14 weeks, which is a blood test and a measurement of the nuchal translucency, during a 12 week ultrascan. The nuchal translucency measurement may or may not be possible. That screening also checks for other conditions;
between 14-20 weeks and/or if the nuchal translucency test was unsuccessful there is another blood test available which only screens for Downs and is not that accurate;
a 20 week ultrasound screening scan which looks for physical signs of other conditions including spina bifida - this screening requires consent.
if this is inconclusive or suggests a number of conditions, including Downs Syndrome, additional tests, including amniocentesis (which has a risk of triggering miscarriage), are offered, again requiring consent.
Not all of these tests were available when I was pregnant 30 odd years ago. I had the 12 week blood test, which also checked anaemia and other issues, and was told I had slightly raised markers for Downs Syndrome (and low iron levels), which showed a slightly raised risk. I also had a standard ultrascan, I think at 20 weeks, where a lot of things were checked, but nothing else was picked up. I said I wouldn't abort for Downs so wasn't offered any additional testing, which at the time was amniocentesis. My daughter does not have Downs.
That is the NHS site, which makes it clear that the tests are optional.
It also shows why the few post 24 week abortions happen - many of the more major conditions that are severely disabling or not conducive to life are not picked up until 20 - 22 weeks into pregnancy, followed by additional tests.
There are 7 grounds for abortion, numbered A-G. Abortions because the baby would be disabled are under Ground E, and in the abortion statistics (link) 3083, 1.5% of abortions were carried out under Ground E, 229 at over 24 weeks (clause 4.7). In addition it is also reported how many of these Ground E abortions are due to congenital malformations, 55%, and chromosomal abnormalities, 27%.
Yes, saying that you shouldn't have screening is really just saying that you shouldn't have information, lest you use that information to make a decision.
It is illegal in India, or so I understand, for medical staff to reveal the sex of a foetus, precisely so people can't use that information to "make a decision".
But that doesn't seem to reduce societal misogyny within Indian culture. It just removes the ability to make a decision. The improved welfare of women in Indian states like Kerala does not appear to be connected to abortion laws.
I'm disturbed that my support of the availability of abortion on demand is somehow equated with some kind of responsibility to have an abortion if the foetus is disabled. This is not a stance I have suggested or support. That's the opposite of being pro-choice, and it's hard not to see it as somehow deliberately accusing me of wanting that. I support the idea that everyone has the right to decide what medical procedures they undergo. People who willingly consent to pregnancy and birth should be supported just as those who do not consent should be.
@alienfromzog perhaps that person with Down's should consider that pregnancy and birth aren't very friendly. I don't think wanting to keep pregnant people ignorant about what is happening to their own body is very friendly either. Neither is wanting to take away people's right to consent to medical procedures. It's all very easy to glibly talk about how a medical procedure isn't friendly when it isn't your body. It's frankly disgusting that Down's is being used as a weapon to take away the rights of pregnant people and what they choose for their bodies. Why can't they take their noses out of other people's medical decisions and campaign for better social welfare provision instead? Why the desire to control women's bodies rather than campaign for UBI and more support for parents of disabled children? They can't get the Tory voters on board with that I guess.
(emphasis mine)
Are you familiar with any of the ethical discussions around screening programs?
I want to highlight the specific sentence. Firstly, you are describing something that is not happening. In the UK there is no serious prospect of further restrictions on abortion. In the USA, the battleground is entirely different. Secondly, as I said above, the notion that there is no tension here is the problem. Consider this hypothetical: A woman goes into labour at 35 weeks and delivers a baby who has Down's syndrome. If the mother did not want said child (for whatever reason, including a belief that the child will suffer intolerably due to their trisomy 21) euthanasia is not a legal option. Conversely if she discovered she was pregnant at 35 weeks with a child who has Down's (I know of a real case, where this happened), termination of pregnancy is an option. Are you really arguing that because labour has not happened there is a clear and unambiguous difference between termination (pre-birth) and euthanasia (after birth)? If so, what is that difference?
If you want to use emotive language, I can introduce you to Down's support groups who think it's frankly disgusting that Down's is classed as a disability at all and hugely object to the notion that anyone "suffers from Down's Syndrome."
My professional life involves caring for these children after they are born and sometimes before they are born. This is my perspective. The quote I referred to is a person with Down's syndrome expressing their view on a public health screening program. I think we need to be clear here, we are not talking about unwanted pregnancies. We are talking about a pregnancy that is wanted until it isn't. The difference being a diagnosis that is considered sufficiently 'bad' for want of a better word.
If your position is that termination at any gestation should be the unequivocal right of any pregnant person, that's fine, that is a clear and consistent position. However, the majority of congenital conditions are not diagnosed pre-birth. Is it purely a matter of personal choice of new parents whether they accept or reject their newborn? Also, no-one has a legal/moral/ethical right to demand treatment from a practitioner. That's an established legal and ethical principal. Do I think women should have access to safe, available terminations of pregnancy? Yes, I do. Do I think that this means a doctor must perform it when someone demands it? No. That is not true of any medical procedure. I am not going to remove your kidney just because you ask me to. There is a serious discussion to be had here.
Whether you agree with the law or not, UK law clearly specifies limited reasons for termination beyond 24 weeks gestation. There is a public health program that promotes screening for Down's (i.e. it is offered to everyone). That is not the same thing as allowing people to specifically request testing. Moreover it is a valid perspective (especially for those with Down's) to argue that Down's does not constitute a 'serious disability' which is the legal requirement for a late-term termination.
[hypothetical mercenary hat on]
And anyway, caring for people with disabilities generates economic activity, so is it a net financial loss anyway ?
[hypothetical mercenary hat off]
And anyway, money is not the only value people have.
In the UK there is no serious prospect of further restrictions on abortion. In the USA, the battleground is entirely different.
<snip>
I think we need to be clear here, we are not talking about unwanted pregnancies. We are talking about a pregnancy that is wanted until it isn't. The difference being a diagnosis that is considered sufficiently 'bad' for want of a better word.
Not "entirely different", apparently. Despite being theoretically opposed to abortion at all gestational stages the U.S. anti-abortion movement spends a lot of its time and energy demagoguing late-term abortions. For context, these are very rare (~1% of all induced abortions in the U.S.) and typically involve previously wanted pregnancies that involved late-diagnosed birth defects (anencephaly, underdeveloped heart, underdeveloped lungs, etc.) or a late-diagnosed risk to the mother's health/life. (The second most common type of late-term abortion in the U.S. involves minors who have been impregnated by their fathers or other male authority figures who have enough control over their victim's life and movements that an earlier abortion was not an option for them.) At any rate I'm pretty sure that there are some diagnoses that are "sufficiently 'bad' for want of a better word" that I suspect even you would permit someone to legally terminate a pregnancy. You're just arguing about where to draw that line based on personal preferences.
Despite being theoretically opposed to abortion at all gestational stages the U.S. anti-abortion movement spends a lot of its time and energy demagoguing late-term abortions.
It's a better poster child (quite literally!)
A late-term foetus looks like a baby. It's easy to wave around pictures of late-term foetuses and shout "they're killing babies" and look credible.
The issue in the UK is the standard screening for Downs Syndrome and a couple of other issues, that the mother has to be quite well informed to opt out of, and certain that they are prepared to deal with a Downs Syndrome baby. This is a BBC story with Sally Phillips (link) who is campaigning to raise awareness of the screening, but even in that article it gives a figure of 30% of women who opt out of screening.
This Pub Med abstract (link) suggest that the incidence of Downs Syndrome births reduced by 20% over 20 years, but that I suspect that is in the US. This demographic study (link) for the UK suggests that the incidence of live births of Downs Syndromes remains constant but that 85.2% of diagnosed Downs Syndrome babies were aborted antenatally.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht: A late-term foetus looks like a baby. It's easy to wave around pictures of late-term foetuses and shout "they're killing babies" and look credible.
Conversely, when our son was born, he did not look like one of the pictures of a late-term foetus.
I thought he was lovely, but the photo of him we have on display in our house with the photos of our other two simply show me holding a bundle in a shawl. David is not visible at all. We don't want to scare our visitors. We do have proper photos of him, but they are in a box in a drawer.
Some amazingly kind person donated clothes for stillborn babies to the hospital David was born in, which make allowance for the fact that many stillborn babies have proportions which won't fit into "normal" baby clothes. David got a white gown with wee puff sleeves and green and yellow smocking across the chest, and a hat which covered most of his head, except for his face.
I suspect most of the people waving "photos" of "late-term foetuses" haven't actually thought it through. I saw one Facebook post of a "this is what a 7 month foetus looks like" and it was pink. I pointed out that babies don't turn pink until they start breathing, and that an actual foetus would be a purply-blue colour. The man who posted it said that people found it easier to envisage if it was pink, as though it had been live-born. I asked him if he thought that the delay in turning pink was a design flaw in God's creation, and he was improving on God's design? He didn't reply.....
In the UK there is no serious prospect of further restrictions on abortion. In the USA, the battleground is entirely different.
<snip>
I think we need to be clear here, we are not talking about unwanted pregnancies. We are talking about a pregnancy that is wanted until it isn't. The difference being a diagnosis that is considered sufficiently 'bad' for want of a better word.
Not "entirely different", apparently. Despite being theoretically opposed to abortion at all gestational stages the U.S. anti-abortion movement spends a lot of its time and energy demagoguing late-term abortions. For context, these are very rare (~1% of all induced abortions in the U.S.) and typically involve previously wanted pregnancies that involved late-diagnosed birth defects (anencephaly, underdeveloped heart, underdeveloped lungs, etc.) or a late-diagnosed risk to the mother's health/life. (The second most common type of late-term abortion in the U.S. involves minors who have been impregnated by their fathers or other male authority figures who have enough control over their victim's life and movements that an earlier abortion was not an option for them.) At any rate I'm pretty sure that there are some diagnoses that are "sufficiently 'bad' for want of a better word" that I suspect even you would permit someone to legally terminate a pregnancy. You're just arguing about where to draw that line based on personal preferences.
Two things.
1. As has been clear throughout this thread, the US anti-abortion movement is nothing if not totally hypocritical, morally inconsistent, deeply insensitive, misogynistic and vile.
2. You have deeply mischaracterised what I have written which isn't conducive to a meaningful discussion.
1. As has been clear throughout this thread, the US anti-abortion movement is nothing if not totally hypocritical, morally inconsistent, deeply insensitive, misogynistic and vile.
Hosting
I've already asked people to be careful in their wording not to imply accidentally or otherwise that other Shipmates hold views they don't hold.
Crœsos you seem to be implying Alienfromzog holds views he doesn't. Alienfromzog, Pomona identifies as disabled and has nowhere used terms like 'suffered from' but because you're directly quoting him with 'frankly disgusting' it would be easy to read it that way. Pomona assumes that Leorning Cniht's talking about obligation to have an abortion is aimed at him because LC didn't carefully distinguish this as an opinion Pomona doesn't hold while talking about positions Pomona does hold - and Pomona assumes badly of LC that this may have been done deliberately and not accidentally.
Could people be a bit more careful about establishing what others think? Maybe ask questions and check carefully what positions other folk hold and if quoting or talking about other shipmates please be careful not to run on to positions they don't hold while discussing those they do.
Please just be just a bit more careful in establishing each others positions and keeping clear what people have or have not said.
I'm not sure why you haven't answered any of my actual questions. What is the problem with allowing pregnant people to know what is happening with their bodies? There is, in fact, a concerted campaign to remove the ability to screen for Down's and other conditions as well as removing the option to terminate later for disability reasons, led by Sally Philips et al. I've watched her campaign film and read the notes, and it's clear that she actively wants to ban the screening as well as the abortion exception. But as I've said, this doesn't prevent ableism or remove it from society. Again, why not campaign for real material improvement in the lives of disabled people, instead of taking rights away from people who will inevitably include other disabled people? Disabled people get pregnant too, why don't their rights to medical autonomy matter? I get that taking away prenatal screening is cheaper than say, increased parental leave for parents of disabled babies, but that doesn't make the former an actual better choice.
The problem with people with Down's claiming to not be disabled is that you can't claim ableism and also claim to not be disabled. It's like saying that you're straight but that you also experience homophobia. Sorry that people with Down's might have to share space with other disabled people in that case but that's how it works. I'm all for people with Down's joining me and other disabled people in working for disabled liberation, but that's not compatible with finding 'disabled' to be an offensive term. It's not like 'crip' or other disability liberation language that's more of a reclaimed slur.
The difference between a foetus and a newborn is that the treatment of one directly involves the body of the pregnant person, and the other does not. As I've said several times already, for me abortion is an issue of medical autonomy - this is separate though obviously related to bodily autonomy. Consent is able to be withdrawn at any time, because that's how consent works. A pregnancy that was wanted and is now not wanted is not a wanted pregnancy. Also nobody is asking any medical professional to perform any procedure that they don't want to do, so not sure where that straw man has come from.
There is, in fact, a concerted campaign to remove the ability to screen for Down's and other conditions as well as removing the option to terminate later for disability reasons, led by Sally Philips et al. I've watched her campaign film and read the notes, and it's clear that she actively wants to ban the screening as well as the abortion exception. But as I've said, this doesn't prevent ableism or remove it from society. Again, why not campaign for real material improvement in the lives of disabled people, instead of taking rights away from people who will inevitably include other disabled people? Disabled people get pregnant too, why don't their rights to medical autonomy matter?
It's the same argument as the one India uses about sex selection.
Nobody thinks that this would prevent ableism or remove it from society, any more than, for example, having harsher punishments for racially aggravated assault removes racism from society. That's not how people work.
The current state of play in the UK, as illustrated by @alienfromzog, is that parents are fairly strongly steered towards aborting a baby with Down Syndrome. In Iceland, as illustrated in this article, almost all Down Syndrome pregnancies are terminated.
Is that a good thing, a bad thing, or just a thing?
From that article, here's a quote from a woman who counsels people who have had a chromosomal abnormality detected in their foetus:
Olafsdottir responded, "We don't look at abortion as a murder. We look at it as a thing that we ended. We ended a possible life that may have had a huge complication... preventing suffering for the child and for the family. And I think that is more right than seeing it as a murder -- that's so black and white. Life isn't black and white. Life is grey."
I wonder if we consider a hypothetical. Imagine a techno-future in which all embryos are created in vitro, and that it was normal, and reliable, to be able to do a genetic screen at this point, and choose to not implant a "defective" embryo. If someone's squicky about an unimplanted embryo being "life", suppose the screening process happens on the gametes before fertilization instead. No abortions involved - nothing that you could reasonably describe as "ending a life".
How many people do you think would choose to have a baby with Down Syndrome, or haemophilia, or whatever other disorder, when they could equally easily chose to have one without those problems? Is that OK?
If you think this argument is getting close to eugenics, then you're probably right. Is the a difference between "I don't want a disabled kid" and "I want to select for being a concert violinist"?
Also nobody is asking any medical professional to perform any procedure that they don't want to do, so not sure where that straw man has come from.
Here: https://iwhc.org/resources/unconscionable-when-providers-deny-abortion-care/ is a report from the "International Women's Health Coalition" claiming, amongst other things, "Experts from 22 countries agree that denial of health care services based on personal belief is a violation of human rights" and "A person’s need for evidence-based, medically sound, legal health care services should take precedence over a provider’s religious or personal beliefs", and "Participants at the IWHC- and MYSU-led convening agreed that, while health care professionals are entitled to their religious beliefs, they must not prioritize these beliefs over their duty to provide services."
That looks a lot like "asking medical professionals to perform procedures they don't want to do" to me. Last time we had this discussion on the ship, there was quite a lot of support for "if you don't want to do abortions, don't be an ob/gyn" and similar opinions.
There is a considerable difference between the position "I'm not just going to remove your perfectly healthy kidney and throw it away, because you want me to" that @alienfromzog alluded to (which is the medical judgement "you don't require this treatment - go away!") and the position "I'm not going to remove your foetus because I don't think abortion is morally right", which is a generic position that you would apply to any pregnant patient, rather than a medical assessment of this particular patient's needs.
Disabled people get pregnant too, why don't their rights to medical autonomy matter?
Why do they matter differently to anyone else's? What is there about a disabled person being pregnant that makes their disability even slightly relevant to the ethics surrounding an abortion they might choose?
It's not a straw man, I'm just pointing out the problem with having an absolutist position here.
"The difference between a foetus and a newborn is that the treatment of one directly involves the body of the pregnant person."
This is true. However a foetus with Down's has zero impact on the mother over and above the (large) impact of any pregnancy. Nor does a foetus with Down's need treatment.
Conversely a newborn witb Down's can be a much bigger burden on the family than one without.
Just to be clear; your position on termination, does that include the gender of the foetus?
What is the problem with allowing pregnant people to know what is happening with their bodies?
Well, arguably the foetus is not their body, it is within their body. But I take your point - I think the issue is with the way the process is geared towards terminating the pregnancy, if a disabled person would otherwise be born.
There is, in fact, a concerted campaign to remove the ability to screen for Down's and other conditions as well as removing the option to terminate later for disability reasons, led by Sally Philips et al. I've watched her campaign film and read the notes, and it's clear that she actively wants to ban the screening as well as the abortion exception.
See above, but also I think Sally Phillips is arguing also from her religious convictions, but I don’t think that applies to everyone in the don’t screen us out movement.
But as I've said, this doesn't prevent ableism or remove it from society. Again, why not campaign for real material improvement in the lives of disabled people, instead of taking rights away from people who will inevitably include other disabled people?
It’s not an either or choice for these campaigners, they campaign for both.
I get that taking away prenatal screening is cheaper than say, increased parental leave for parents of disabled babies, but that doesn't make the former an actual better choice.
See above.
The problem with people with Down's claiming to not be disabled is that you can't claim ableism and also claim to not be disabled. It's like saying that you're straight but that you also experience homophobia.
The vast majority, but not all, people with Down’s syndrome have an intellectual disability (learning disability in U.K. speak, other terms used elsewhere). Expecting people with an intellectual disabilities to have the same command of the nuances of communication around these issues is not reasonable. Most people I know with intellectual disabilities (and given my job that means 100s) are concerned to be treated as well as everybody else, many have internalised stigma about their disability because it’s been used as an insult all their lives. That the government appears to believe it would be better if they had never been born, and no one else like them be born in the future, does not in anyway decrease this stigma.
Sorry that people with Down's might have to share space with other disabled people in that case but that's how it works. I'm all for people with Down's joining me and other disabled people in working for disabled liberation, but that's not compatible with finding 'disabled' to be an offensive term. It's not like 'crip' or other disability liberation language that's more of a reclaimed slur.
I think that you are failing to understand what the lives of most people with Down’s syndrome are like.
The difference between a foetus and a newborn is that the treatment of one directly involves the body of the pregnant person, and the other does not. As I've said several times already, for me abortion is an issue of medical autonomy - this is separate though obviously related to bodily autonomy. Consent is able to be withdrawn at any time, because that's how consent works. A pregnancy that was wanted and is now not wanted is not a wanted pregnancy.
I believe abortion should be legal, but I do believe that the selective abortion of pregnancies for what would be protected characteristics after birth is highly undesirable. If people’s choices are being determined by shit services or prejudice occurring after birth we should try to fix that. But I don’t see why whatever regulation we do or don’t have around abortion should be differentially applied, either abortion is permitted to x weeks gestation, or it isn’t.
I am also unclear why very late abortions (say after 36 weeks) which are then a surgical intervention anyway - could not be a medically assisted premature birth with the parent rejecting custody.
Comments
Gwai,
Epiphanies Host
*Since I am hosting, I am not putting forth opinions about whether it is fair or not.
I wouldn't call that an obligation, unless your country is horribly impoverished.
And anyway, caring for people with disabilities generates economic activity, so is it a net financial loss anyway ?
[hypothetical mercenary hat off]
And anyway, money is not the only value people have.
Sorry to pop in and double host but could I ask people to be really careful here and not to speak in terms of 'obligation' to save 'money' where the lives of people with disabilities are concerned. It's OK to talk about fears that other people or organisations might think in this way but it needs to be really clear that these are not your views and you are not advocating them, and these views need not to be accidentally linked to shipmates who are not saying that.
Thanks,
Louise
Epiphanies Host
hosting off
It's not even the only thing governments value, which was the subject of @Leorning Cniht's observation. A state is not a for-profit corporation. It can, and often does, pursue policies for non-economic reasons.
Another child I knew as my contemporary, the oldest of four boys, born unexpectedly to a mother in her 20s, and the little girl who was the adored younger sister of one of my daughter's peers.
A lot of ink/pixels have been spilled/darkened pointing out the apparent hypocrisy of the professional anti-abortion movement in the U.S. Over at New York magazine Sarah Jones argues fairly convincingly that the GOP is not hypocritical, they're authoritarian.
Read the rest, if you're so inclined. Anyway, taken in this light the institutional anti-abortion movement makes a lot more coherent, internal sense.
[hypothetical mercenary]
This argument looks quite a lot like the broken window fallacy, doesn't it?
[/hm]
Canada has abortion managed as a health issue since the law was struck down in the late 1980s. It's not illegal at any stage. It's allowed legally at all stages of pregnancy. Which means it's regulated as a health procedure only. Nearly no providers do abortions beyond 24 weeks. Those rare situations where they are done up to almost 9 months are severe tragedies for everyone. No law about abortion means the tragedy is private. It's okay not to have any law about abortion. We're generally told the abortion rate is at the lower end for industrialized countries.
We should do everything we can to reduce the need for abortions, like increasing access to birth control and providing support services for mothers who bring their pregnancies to term. Rather than outlawing abortion, the better way is to do like Colorado which made IUDs and other forms of contraception available to teens. They have been able to reduce the number of abortions and teen pregnancies by half since 2014.
I am betting the Texas Republicans will rue their anti-abortion law. Many corporations are not going to support it. Some will relocate out of Texas. Texas depends on a number of conventions coming to the state to support its economy, but many will look for other venues. Ultimately, I think legislators who voted for this law will have to answer to their electors. When the majority of Texans support freedom of choice, it will be a tough road for the legislators next go around.
https://www.greenbelt.org.uk/talks/the-body-of-christ-has-downs-syndrome/
This is an astounding talk, BTW.
John Swinton has also written extensively on theology and spirituality and disability.
I think the whole topic is worthy of a thread which I am very happy to start if others are interested.
However for our purposes here, there is one exert I want to highlight. [From 20:30 - 26:00 but especially from 23:10]
And the quote I want to highlight here is a person with Down's being asked about prenatal testing and termination for Down's (or other anomaly) said "Well that's not very friendly is it?"
John then uses a definition of love derived from Aquinas: Love says "It's good that you exist, it's good that you are here."
If you think this through carefully, it is a difficult tension and people on both sides of the abortion debate are guilty of pretending that this tension does not exist.
It is not controversial to suggest that parents have significant responsibilities to their children. Killing a baby because it is not wanted is considered murder is every durastiction I know of. Conversely, pregnancy is dangerous and their are significant mental and physical health implications of carrying a pregnancy to term. It is true that many men with absolutely no self-awareness or insight declare a simplistic position about this. In purely biological terms a foetus is a parasite.
But just to complete this line of thought, as I indicated earlier, there is clearly a public policy position to prevent the birth of babies with certain conditions, especially Down's.
I guess it comes down to the key question: what is/isn't a human person?
AFZ
(Wikipedia specifies that the parasite and host are two different species: but I can think of behaviour that could be described as intra-specific brood parasitism.)
I’d be interested to read your take on termination and neural tube defects: not so much anencephaly which is a lethal defect but terminations in the context of spina bifida which as you know better than I is hard on the individual, the family and the taxpayer ( and this is a huge issue before a Host jumps on this).
If you think the framing of the law, the attitudes of medics and ignorance of Down's don't have an impact on those decisions I don't know what to tell you.
Indeed it does. But that is to miss the point.
What @Arethosemyfeet said. None of us live in a vacuum. Moreover, it's difficult to argue that on a societal level we actually consider someone with Down's to be fully human and of equal worth when we have a public health screening programme and a clear legal differential that says you may terminate after 24wks if your foetus has Down's, but you may not if there is no diagnosis.
Paediatric Surgery within the UK includes Urology. I mention this because Spina bifida is in many ways a urological condition and something with which I have a lot of experience.
Surgical correction of neural tube defects became widely available in the latter half of the twentieth century and children no longer died shortly after birth. As a consequence, they died from urinary sepsis and renal failure in childhood.
Most children with Spina bifida will have a degree of bladder dysfunction which if not managed carefully will result in renal failure. As a consequence, all are closely followed up by a paediatric urologist. Many require surgery. The level of physical disability is incredibly variable. The level of intellectual disability is incredibly variable.
Life expectancy is now into the forth-fifth decade of life.
AFZ
You're a good person and this is a heartfelt reasonable starting point in my view. But we've moved beyond "we should do everything we can ton reduce the number of abortions". No. We shouldn't do anything. Just make it private and don't do anything in law or politics about it. Let it be merely a health care issue. Private. Leave it alone. No external (frequently male) involvement. Let people organize their personal, sexual, reproductive lives privately. It doesn't create more abortions, it results in a slight decline and then a stable, relatively low rate. Which 23 years of no abortion law anywhere in Canada shows. It's about health, not law and it's private.
Healthcare is a political issue. If you have a taxation-funded healthcare system, what medical treatments should be offered? Who decides? How do you decide whether a particular procedure is worth paying for?
If you have a private insurance-funded system, do you have any regulations? Do you (should you) require health insurance to have any particular level of coverage?
Your ‘But’ makes it look as though you’re contradicting Gramps49. But he was saying ‘We should do everything we can to reduce the need for abortions’ which is not the same as your ‘we should do everything we can to reduce the number of abortions’, and none of the things he suggests contradict your wish to ‘Let people organize their personal, sexual, reproductive lives privately.’
That's fair. I didn't read it properly. I agree with many more supports for people in general. $10 per day childcare is on the table right now in Canada with the federal election. I don't know that this would have anything to do with abortion per se, while we see it as a general good for society to have people with kids less stressed.
It is sort of political about abortion in Canada, but because the Supreme Court of Canada quashed the federal law about abortion in 1988 taking it out of the Criminal Code because the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is a constitutional issue. And because the Canada Health Act which specifies that in order for the provinces to receive federal funding for health care (each province in Canada runs its own health care), it isn't possible for provinces to stop providing free access to abortions without losing federal money and having a constutional challenge. So perhaps the Canadian situation is unique. Provinces have in the past tried to designate abortion as available only in certain hospitals but this is pretty quiet now. Provinces are allowed to restrict reasonable access to any medical service without penalty. No-one really seems to care much. The big issue for us right now (it's come up during the election) is the province trying to allow private MRI and CT clinics so that people who want to pay privately can do that, jumping the queue and getting their's before those who can't in the public queue.
So in Canada, medically necessary services must be provided to everyone, no cost, and with reasonable access, without barriers erected because of an ideology (you can use your provincial health card for any province anywhere in Canada without charge). These are medical decisions, in my province, the subject of discussion and negotiation between the associations of physicians, other medical providers and gov't within the boundaries of the federal Canada Health Act, and the province having the necessary funds. This last- "province having the necessary funds- is often cooked by politicians because they love to fund expensive hospitals when all the data shows that the primary needs are within the community and not hospitals. There's no reason abortions can't be provided in suburban strip mall clinics (also diabetes care, kidney dialysis, cardiac assessments, etc - we have this to a degree here-hospitals should be for severe things only). I can't speak to private health insurance as it isn't allowed for general medical care services.
<tangent>
It is a bit like the legalisation of marijuana (legal everywhere in Canada, subject to provincial regulation like alcohol), it really doesn't merit much controversy (I dislike the smell myself). I suspect other drugs will be legalised this decade, they are de-facto legalised with supervised consumption sites being subject to non-enforcement by police in many places because this approach reduces crimes and treats drugs like the health issue it is.
<tangent>
Of course it does. And if you legalised every single thing anyone could ever do then your crime rate would fall to zero overnight. Because nothing would be a crime any more.
I have a feeling he means 'other crimes' - theft, robbery, public disorder and violence. Your reading might be correct, but given the context, I think a general reduction in ancillary crime is likely a welcome, and not unexpected, result of decriminalisation of the drug itself.
Agreed. I similarly find it doesn't work to suggest that because something is about healthcare, it will cease to be relevant to the world of law and politics.
Correct. However this is variable, as the local "harm reduction" site is relatively recent, there was report locally yesterday of police responding aside from protocol and treating intoxicated people as nuisances versus troubled people. This can result in provocation of the individuals such that conflict with others arises, drawing legal charges. Thankfully the situation was observed, a liaison officer attended and it went in the helping versus enforcement direction. This kind of thing takes a lot of work to change approaches.
I don't want to prolong this. But I hope I'm making the point that laws, legislation, enforcement and all the justice approaches are not the solution to many complex human problems, and are better left aside.
@alienfromzog perhaps that person with Down's should consider that pregnancy and birth aren't very friendly. I don't think wanting to keep pregnant people ignorant about what is happening to their own body is very friendly either. Neither is wanting to take away people's right to consent to medical procedures. It's all very easy to glibly talk about how a medical procedure isn't friendly when it isn't your body. It's frankly disgusting that Down's is being used as a weapon to take away the rights of pregnant people and what they choose for their bodies. Why can't they take their noses out of other people's medical decisions and campaign for better social welfare provision instead? Why the desire to control women's bodies rather than campaign for UBI and more support for parents of disabled children? They can't get the Tory voters on board with that I guess.
Preventing screening for Down's does not prevent ableism. It does not prevent parents from then abandoning the child post-birth. It simply takes away the right of the pregnant person to be informed about what is happening to their body. As a disabled person, I already have so many decisions about my body taken away from me. Having another decision taken from me does not actually improve the quality of my life, or that of other disabled people. It doesn't seem like the people calling for ending screening are very invested in ending ableism in general, only for their pet project. How many of them will then vote for political parties who penalise disabled people via the benefits system?
It is illegal in India, or so I understand, for medical staff to reveal the sex of a foetus, precisely so people can't use that information to "make a decision".
That's making an additional assumption I didn't read, rather one you made.
That noted, we might expect the rate for Downs Syndrome to be reduced with free abortion access, except prenatal diagnosis of that takes some testing that isn't without risk. Where I live testing is offered to everyone by the provincial health authority. About 25% want it.
- a combined test between 10-14 weeks, which is a blood test and a measurement of the nuchal translucency, during a 12 week ultrascan. The nuchal translucency measurement may or may not be possible. That screening also checks for other conditions;
- between 14-20 weeks and/or if the nuchal translucency test was unsuccessful there is another blood test available which only screens for Downs and is not that accurate;
- a 20 week ultrasound screening scan which looks for physical signs of other conditions including spina bifida - this screening requires consent.
- if this is inconclusive or suggests a number of conditions, including Downs Syndrome, additional tests, including amniocentesis (which has a risk of triggering miscarriage), are offered, again requiring consent.
Not all of these tests were available when I was pregnant 30 odd years ago. I had the 12 week blood test, which also checked anaemia and other issues, and was told I had slightly raised markers for Downs Syndrome (and low iron levels), which showed a slightly raised risk. I also had a standard ultrascan, I think at 20 weeks, where a lot of things were checked, but nothing else was picked up. I said I wouldn't abort for Downs so wasn't offered any additional testing, which at the time was amniocentesis. My daughter does not have Downs.That is the NHS site, which makes it clear that the tests are optional.
It also shows why the few post 24 week abortions happen - many of the more major conditions that are severely disabling or not conducive to life are not picked up until 20 - 22 weeks into pregnancy, followed by additional tests.
There are 7 grounds for abortion, numbered A-G. Abortions because the baby would be disabled are under Ground E, and in the abortion statistics (link) 3083, 1.5% of abortions were carried out under Ground E, 229 at over 24 weeks (clause 4.7). In addition it is also reported how many of these Ground E abortions are due to congenital malformations, 55%, and chromosomal abnormalities, 27%.
But that doesn't seem to reduce societal misogyny within Indian culture. It just removes the ability to make a decision. The improved welfare of women in Indian states like Kerala does not appear to be connected to abortion laws.
Are you familiar with any of the ethical discussions around screening programs?
I want to highlight the specific sentence. Firstly, you are describing something that is not happening. In the UK there is no serious prospect of further restrictions on abortion. In the USA, the battleground is entirely different. Secondly, as I said above, the notion that there is no tension here is the problem. Consider this hypothetical: A woman goes into labour at 35 weeks and delivers a baby who has Down's syndrome. If the mother did not want said child (for whatever reason, including a belief that the child will suffer intolerably due to their trisomy 21) euthanasia is not a legal option. Conversely if she discovered she was pregnant at 35 weeks with a child who has Down's (I know of a real case, where this happened), termination of pregnancy is an option. Are you really arguing that because labour has not happened there is a clear and unambiguous difference between termination (pre-birth) and euthanasia (after birth)? If so, what is that difference?
If you want to use emotive language, I can introduce you to Down's support groups who think it's frankly disgusting that Down's is classed as a disability at all and hugely object to the notion that anyone "suffers from Down's Syndrome."
My professional life involves caring for these children after they are born and sometimes before they are born. This is my perspective. The quote I referred to is a person with Down's syndrome expressing their view on a public health screening program. I think we need to be clear here, we are not talking about unwanted pregnancies. We are talking about a pregnancy that is wanted until it isn't. The difference being a diagnosis that is considered sufficiently 'bad' for want of a better word.
If your position is that termination at any gestation should be the unequivocal right of any pregnant person, that's fine, that is a clear and consistent position. However, the majority of congenital conditions are not diagnosed pre-birth. Is it purely a matter of personal choice of new parents whether they accept or reject their newborn? Also, no-one has a legal/moral/ethical right to demand treatment from a practitioner. That's an established legal and ethical principal. Do I think women should have access to safe, available terminations of pregnancy? Yes, I do. Do I think that this means a doctor must perform it when someone demands it? No. That is not true of any medical procedure. I am not going to remove your kidney just because you ask me to. There is a serious discussion to be had here.
Whether you agree with the law or not, UK law clearly specifies limited reasons for termination beyond 24 weeks gestation. There is a public health program that promotes screening for Down's (i.e. it is offered to everyone). That is not the same thing as allowing people to specifically request testing. Moreover it is a valid perspective (especially for those with Down's) to argue that Down's does not constitute a 'serious disability' which is the legal requirement for a late-term termination.
AFZ
I mean...that's my job...
Not "entirely different", apparently. Despite being theoretically opposed to abortion at all gestational stages the U.S. anti-abortion movement spends a lot of its time and energy demagoguing late-term abortions. For context, these are very rare (~1% of all induced abortions in the U.S.) and typically involve previously wanted pregnancies that involved late-diagnosed birth defects (anencephaly, underdeveloped heart, underdeveloped lungs, etc.) or a late-diagnosed risk to the mother's health/life. (The second most common type of late-term abortion in the U.S. involves minors who have been impregnated by their fathers or other male authority figures who have enough control over their victim's life and movements that an earlier abortion was not an option for them.) At any rate I'm pretty sure that there are some diagnoses that are "sufficiently 'bad' for want of a better word" that I suspect even you would permit someone to legally terminate a pregnancy. You're just arguing about where to draw that line based on personal preferences.
It's a better poster child (quite literally!)
A late-term foetus looks like a baby. It's easy to wave around pictures of late-term foetuses and shout "they're killing babies" and look credible.
This Pub Med abstract (link) suggest that the incidence of Downs Syndrome births reduced by 20% over 20 years, but that I suspect that is in the US. This demographic study (link) for the UK suggests that the incidence of live births of Downs Syndromes remains constant but that 85.2% of diagnosed Downs Syndrome babies were aborted antenatally.
A late-term foetus looks like a baby. It's easy to wave around pictures of late-term foetuses and shout "they're killing babies" and look credible.
Conversely, when our son was born, he did not look like one of the pictures of a late-term foetus.
I thought he was lovely, but the photo of him we have on display in our house with the photos of our other two simply show me holding a bundle in a shawl. David is not visible at all. We don't want to scare our visitors. We do have proper photos of him, but they are in a box in a drawer.
Some amazingly kind person donated clothes for stillborn babies to the hospital David was born in, which make allowance for the fact that many stillborn babies have proportions which won't fit into "normal" baby clothes. David got a white gown with wee puff sleeves and green and yellow smocking across the chest, and a hat which covered most of his head, except for his face.
I suspect most of the people waving "photos" of "late-term foetuses" haven't actually thought it through. I saw one Facebook post of a "this is what a 7 month foetus looks like" and it was pink. I pointed out that babies don't turn pink until they start breathing, and that an actual foetus would be a purply-blue colour. The man who posted it said that people found it easier to envisage if it was pink, as though it had been live-born. I asked him if he thought that the delay in turning pink was a design flaw in God's creation, and he was improving on God's design? He didn't reply.....
Two things.
1. As has been clear throughout this thread, the US anti-abortion movement is nothing if not totally hypocritical, morally inconsistent, deeply insensitive, misogynistic and vile.
2. You have deeply mischaracterised what I have written which isn't conducive to a meaningful discussion.
AFZ
I've already asked people to be careful in their wording not to imply accidentally or otherwise that other Shipmates hold views they don't hold.
Crœsos you seem to be implying Alienfromzog holds views he doesn't. Alienfromzog, Pomona identifies as disabled and has nowhere used terms like 'suffered from' but because you're directly quoting him with 'frankly disgusting' it would be easy to read it that way. Pomona assumes that Leorning Cniht's talking about obligation to have an abortion is aimed at him because LC didn't carefully distinguish this as an opinion Pomona doesn't hold while talking about positions Pomona does hold - and Pomona assumes badly of LC that this may have been done deliberately and not accidentally.
Could people be a bit more careful about establishing what others think? Maybe ask questions and check carefully what positions other folk hold and if quoting or talking about other shipmates please be careful not to run on to positions they don't hold while discussing those they do.
Please just be just a bit more careful in establishing each others positions and keeping clear what people have or have not said.
Thanks
Louise
Epiphanies Host
Hosting off
I'm not sure why you haven't answered any of my actual questions. What is the problem with allowing pregnant people to know what is happening with their bodies? There is, in fact, a concerted campaign to remove the ability to screen for Down's and other conditions as well as removing the option to terminate later for disability reasons, led by Sally Philips et al. I've watched her campaign film and read the notes, and it's clear that she actively wants to ban the screening as well as the abortion exception. But as I've said, this doesn't prevent ableism or remove it from society. Again, why not campaign for real material improvement in the lives of disabled people, instead of taking rights away from people who will inevitably include other disabled people? Disabled people get pregnant too, why don't their rights to medical autonomy matter? I get that taking away prenatal screening is cheaper than say, increased parental leave for parents of disabled babies, but that doesn't make the former an actual better choice.
The problem with people with Down's claiming to not be disabled is that you can't claim ableism and also claim to not be disabled. It's like saying that you're straight but that you also experience homophobia. Sorry that people with Down's might have to share space with other disabled people in that case but that's how it works. I'm all for people with Down's joining me and other disabled people in working for disabled liberation, but that's not compatible with finding 'disabled' to be an offensive term. It's not like 'crip' or other disability liberation language that's more of a reclaimed slur.
The difference between a foetus and a newborn is that the treatment of one directly involves the body of the pregnant person, and the other does not. As I've said several times already, for me abortion is an issue of medical autonomy - this is separate though obviously related to bodily autonomy. Consent is able to be withdrawn at any time, because that's how consent works. A pregnancy that was wanted and is now not wanted is not a wanted pregnancy. Also nobody is asking any medical professional to perform any procedure that they don't want to do, so not sure where that straw man has come from.
It's the same argument as the one India uses about sex selection.
Nobody thinks that this would prevent ableism or remove it from society, any more than, for example, having harsher punishments for racially aggravated assault removes racism from society. That's not how people work.
The current state of play in the UK, as illustrated by @alienfromzog, is that parents are fairly strongly steered towards aborting a baby with Down Syndrome. In Iceland, as illustrated in this article, almost all Down Syndrome pregnancies are terminated.
Is that a good thing, a bad thing, or just a thing?
From that article, here's a quote from a woman who counsels people who have had a chromosomal abnormality detected in their foetus:
I wonder if we consider a hypothetical. Imagine a techno-future in which all embryos are created in vitro, and that it was normal, and reliable, to be able to do a genetic screen at this point, and choose to not implant a "defective" embryo. If someone's squicky about an unimplanted embryo being "life", suppose the screening process happens on the gametes before fertilization instead. No abortions involved - nothing that you could reasonably describe as "ending a life".
How many people do you think would choose to have a baby with Down Syndrome, or haemophilia, or whatever other disorder, when they could equally easily chose to have one without those problems? Is that OK?
If you think this argument is getting close to eugenics, then you're probably right. Is the a difference between "I don't want a disabled kid" and "I want to select for being a concert violinist"?
Here: https://iwhc.org/resources/unconscionable-when-providers-deny-abortion-care/ is a report from the "International Women's Health Coalition" claiming, amongst other things, "Experts from 22 countries agree that denial of health care services based on personal belief is a violation of human rights" and "A person’s need for evidence-based, medically sound, legal health care services should take precedence over a provider’s religious or personal beliefs", and "Participants at the IWHC- and MYSU-led convening agreed that, while health care professionals are entitled to their religious beliefs, they must not prioritize these beliefs over their duty to provide services."
That looks a lot like "asking medical professionals to perform procedures they don't want to do" to me. Last time we had this discussion on the ship, there was quite a lot of support for "if you don't want to do abortions, don't be an ob/gyn" and similar opinions.
There is a considerable difference between the position "I'm not just going to remove your perfectly healthy kidney and throw it away, because you want me to" that @alienfromzog alluded to (which is the medical judgement "you don't require this treatment - go away!") and the position "I'm not going to remove your foetus because I don't think abortion is morally right", which is a generic position that you would apply to any pregnant patient, rather than a medical assessment of this particular patient's needs.
Why do they matter differently to anyone else's? What is there about a disabled person being pregnant that makes their disability even slightly relevant to the ethics surrounding an abortion they might choose?
"The difference between a foetus and a newborn is that the treatment of one directly involves the body of the pregnant person."
This is true. However a foetus with Down's has zero impact on the mother over and above the (large) impact of any pregnancy. Nor does a foetus with Down's need treatment.
Conversely a newborn witb Down's can be a much bigger burden on the family than one without.
Just to be clear; your position on termination, does that include the gender of the foetus?
AFZ
(X-posted)
Well, arguably the foetus is not their body, it is within their body. But I take your point - I think the issue is with the way the process is geared towards terminating the pregnancy, if a disabled person would otherwise be born.
See above, but also I think Sally Phillips is arguing also from her religious convictions, but I don’t think that applies to everyone in the don’t screen us out movement.
It’s not an either or choice for these campaigners, they campaign for both.
See above.
The vast majority, but not all, people with Down’s syndrome have an intellectual disability (learning disability in U.K. speak, other terms used elsewhere). Expecting people with an intellectual disabilities to have the same command of the nuances of communication around these issues is not reasonable. Most people I know with intellectual disabilities (and given my job that means 100s) are concerned to be treated as well as everybody else, many have internalised stigma about their disability because it’s been used as an insult all their lives. That the government appears to believe it would be better if they had never been born, and no one else like them be born in the future, does not in anyway decrease this stigma.
I think that you are failing to understand what the lives of most people with Down’s syndrome are like.
I believe abortion should be legal, but I do believe that the selective abortion of pregnancies for what would be protected characteristics after birth is highly undesirable. If people’s choices are being determined by shit services or prejudice occurring after birth we should try to fix that. But I don’t see why whatever regulation we do or don’t have around abortion should be differentially applied, either abortion is permitted to x weeks gestation, or it isn’t.
I am also unclear why very late abortions (say after 36 weeks) which are then a surgical intervention anyway - could not be a medically assisted premature birth with the parent rejecting custody.