So if you're a person with a uterus, and you want kids that are biologically yours, your choices are either to carry them yourself, or to employ a surrogate to do so for you.
This isn't true - for couples where both have a uterus and at least one has functional ovaries, the fertilised egg from one can be implanted into the other. This isn't surrogacy as if the couple are married or living together as married at the time of conception, they are both automatically the legal parents (as in the case where the pregnant partner uses their own egg).
You're right - I was trying to simplify, and seem to have ended up creating more confusion.
Yes, one of the couple could have eggs harvested, the egg could be fertilized with donor sperm, and implanted in the uterus of the other of the couple. But for the purposes of the discussion we were having, isn't the egg donor in this scenario in exactly the same situation as Gwai's cis man Joe, who wants his cis female wife to carry his children? (Granted, the process of getting pregnant is probably simpler for Joe, but the discussion of who hopes or expects who to do what seems to be to be basically the same.)
This is one of the things that religiously motivated anti-abortionists don't face, that according to the premise that it's a human life from conception, then God (or just nature) is killing off far more humans than women ever do.
Sure, but that's not actually an argument. Before we had things like modern medicine and sanitation, then deaths in infancy were commonplace. Having a couple of siblings who died in childhood was the norm, not the exception. That didn't make it somehow acceptable to kill children. So I don't think you can reason anything about the morality of abortion based on the fact that a large number of zygotes never become pregnancies.
It's totally an argument if you think there's a significant difference between infants and zygotes.
And the history of infanticide suggests that throughout much of human history killing children has been acceptable.
I think for me the issue - as someone who does want children, as I have said - is that worth not being intrinsic doesn't mean the worth you give something is less real. I definitely believe that your miscarried child was really your child, and also that my aborted foetus really would NOT be a child. But also, if me and a future partner experienced a miscarriage, that would be our child. I suppose it's not hugely dissimilar to many Eucharistic theologies, akin to Spiritual Union maybe? It doesn't make it not real.
There are a lot of possible tangents here, all of which would be interesting philosophical or theological (or both) threads but which we probably shouldn’t explore too much here. I guess I have a problem with the worth (and, indeed, right to exist) of a given human life being determined by how much anyone else cares about them. But that then opens up the question of exactly when a human life becomes a human life, which is not something there’s any kind of consensus about at all.
I appreciate that everyone was a foetus at one stage, but you're not a foetus anymore.
I think what I’m trying to do is promote the thought that there are two lives involved in a pregnancy. That doesn’t mean I think abortion is always wrong, which needs to be stressed - I’m perfectly in favour of it in cases where the mother’s life or health is in real danger or where the pregnancy is the result of rape. In other cases I wouldn’t argue for it to be illegal, but I would argue that the life that’s going to be destroyed deserves to be considered as such rather than casually dismissed. That’s all.
Lifehood (if such a word exists) in general isn't the same as personhood though. I'm aware that a foetus is alive, but it's not a person. A foetus does not have their own thoughts or feelings or ability to consent/not consent. I would categorise the form of life as being akin to someone in a vegetative state - they may be alive, but the person that the person was is no longer there and has effectively died already. This is different to disabled people who may be limited in their communicative abilities, but clearly have brain activity and thoughts and feelings. Even a newborn has clear *feelings* and expresses them even if they don't have thoughts as such. Phrases like 'two lives' implies a form of equality between the pregnant person and the foetus which simply doesn't exist, imo.
Edited to add that I'm aware of the difficulties my comment about newborns may prompt for some people regarding late abortions, but in practice late abortions are normally really stillbirths induced to prevent sepsis. Certainly they are done for medical reasons alone. I would never let myself get to that stage if I got pregnant in the first place, for people who do not want to be pregnant it doesn't happen unless they are prevented from getting an early abortion.
And the history of infanticide suggests that throughout much of human history killing children has been acceptable.
Well, it was explicitly banned in the Christianization of Europe, and in Islam, so sure - I'll agree with this statement as written. I'm not sure why what the Spartans, for example, thought moral should be of much influence in my thought, though.
Sex is a pretty damn strong human drive. It's kept the human race going all these many long years. Telling people "you might get pregnant" (which they already know) isn't going to make them keep their trousers zipped or their knickers up. It's hard to see even why this should be a topic of conversation other than to arouse derision and laughter while having a beer around a campfire.
Lifehood (if such a word exists) in general isn't the same as personhood though. I'm aware that a foetus is alive, but it's not a person. A foetus does not have their own thoughts or feelings or ability to consent/not consent. I would categorise the form of life as being akin to someone in a vegetative state - they may be alive, but the person that the person was is no longer there and has effectively died already. This is different to disabled people who may be limited in their communicative abilities, but clearly have brain activity and thoughts and feelings. Even a newborn has clear *feelings* and expresses them even if they don't have thoughts as such. Phrases like 'two lives' implies a form of equality between the pregnant person and the foetus which simply doesn't exist, imo.
Edited to add that I'm aware of the difficulties my comment about newborns may prompt for some people regarding late abortions, but in practice late abortions are normally really stillbirths induced to prevent sepsis. Certainly they are done for medical reasons alone. I would never let myself get to that stage if I got pregnant in the first place, for people who do not want to be pregnant it doesn't happen unless they are prevented from getting an early abortion.
Depends what you mean by late, but parents expecting a baby with Down's are offered (encouraged to have, even) terminations well after viability.
Lifehood (if such a word exists) in general isn't the same as personhood though. I'm aware that a foetus is alive, but it's not a person. A foetus does not have their own thoughts or feelings or ability to consent/not consent. I would categorise the form of life as being akin to someone in a vegetative state - they may be alive, but the person that the person was is no longer there and has effectively died already. This is different to disabled people who may be limited in their communicative abilities, but clearly have brain activity and thoughts and feelings. Even a newborn has clear *feelings* and expresses them even if they don't have thoughts as such. Phrases like 'two lives' implies a form of equality between the pregnant person and the foetus which simply doesn't exist, imo.
Edited to add that I'm aware of the difficulties my comment about newborns may prompt for some people regarding late abortions, but in practice late abortions are normally really stillbirths induced to prevent sepsis. Certainly they are done for medical reasons alone. I would never let myself get to that stage if I got pregnant in the first place, for people who do not want to be pregnant it doesn't happen unless they are prevented from getting an early abortion.
Depends what you mean by late, but parents expecting a baby with Down's are offered (encouraged to have, even) terminations well after viability.
By late I mean up to the point of birth, hence me bringing up the point about newborns. A foetus beyond the point of viability is not at the point of birth for quite some time.
Also someone who is pregnant with a foetus with Down's Syndrome is not specifically treated differently to those pregnant with a foetus with any other chromosonal abnormality. The forced-birther obsession with Down's is quite creepy. Also speaking as a disabled person, you don't make society less ableist by forcing people to give birth.
especially when the people advocating for said feelings are cis men (as per fucking usual)
It's true that I never have, nor ever will be pregnant. But I have been a zygote, an embryo and a fetus. Does that give me the right to comment on issues that affect zygotes, embryos and fetuses?
Rather depends on whether you have any memories of those experiences.
I mean, there might be other reasons why you have the right to comment on the issues, but that particular basis seems rather to depend on whether you can genuinely identify with the group in question.
It's totally an argument if you think there's a significant difference between infants and zygotes.
That infants and zygotes are different is an argument.
"Loads of X die anyway, so killing off a few more isn't a big deal" really isn't.
There's rather more to it than that, though. The argument of some religiously-motivated people against abortion gets into far stronger notions of the sanctity of life and how precious it is to God, that fail to wrestle with the reality that, once you start with those sorts of premises, God appears to be remarkably casual about caring whether zygotes live or die.
As to the stuff about children dying and infanticide, the reality is that previous generations and cultures who dealt with child death as a regular event did not have the same attitude to life and death that we do. Plus for a long time we didn't value the life of children as much as adults. Literally. You can find legal formulas about the value of a life that look at things like earnings and basically convey that an adult male is the most important kind of person.
Lifehood (if such a word exists) in general isn't the same as personhood though. I'm aware that a foetus is alive, but it's not a person. A foetus does not have their own thoughts or feelings or ability to consent/not consent. I would categorise the form of life as being akin to someone in a vegetative state - they may be alive, but the person that the person was is no longer there and has effectively died already. This is different to disabled people who may be limited in their communicative abilities, but clearly have brain activity and thoughts and feelings. Even a newborn has clear *feelings* and expresses them even if they don't have thoughts as such. Phrases like 'two lives' implies a form of equality between the pregnant person and the foetus which simply doesn't exist, imo.
Edited to add that I'm aware of the difficulties my comment about newborns may prompt for some people regarding late abortions, but in practice late abortions are normally really stillbirths induced to prevent sepsis. Certainly they are done for medical reasons alone. I would never let myself get to that stage if I got pregnant in the first place, for people who do not want to be pregnant it doesn't happen unless they are prevented from getting an early abortion.
Depends what you mean by late, but parents expecting a baby with Down's are offered (encouraged to have, even) terminations well after viability.
By late I mean up to the point of birth, hence me bringing up the point about newborns. A foetus beyond the point of viability is not at the point of birth for quite some time.
Also someone who is pregnant with a foetus with Down's Syndrome is not specifically treated differently to those pregnant with a foetus with any other chromosonal abnormality. The forced-birther obsession with Down's is quite creepy. Also speaking as a disabled person, you don't make society less ableist by forcing people to give birth.
How many other non-fatal chromosomal abnormalities are screened for pre-natally and termination strongly encouraged?
I'm also a disabled person, and there are people and organisations right now trying to find a test to allow people like me to be terminated before birth, just like they've already done with people like my cousin (who has Down's).
Families of disabled children need support and information, not being pushed into disposing of the "defective" one. The attitudes displayed by medical staff in this article (including offering a termination at 38 weeks to a couple who had already made clear they intended to keep their Down's baby) are really disturbing: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-51658631
It's totally an argument if you think there's a significant difference between infants and zygotes.
That infants and zygotes are different is an argument.
"Loads of X die anyway, so killing off a few more isn't a big deal" really isn't.
There's rather more to it than that, though. The argument of some religiously-motivated people against abortion gets into far stronger notions of the sanctity of life and how precious it is to God, that fail to wrestle with the reality that, once you start with those sorts of premises, God appears to be remarkably casual about caring whether zygotes live or die.
God seems to be remarkably casual about whether anyone dies, given that everyone does it eventually. That’s rarely taken to invalidate religious arguments about the sanctity of life though.
Life being precious to God and every life coming to a natural end sooner or later are not incompatible statements. This is a bad line of argument to pursue.
I would categorise the form of life as being akin to someone in a vegetative state - they may be alive, but the person that the person was is no longer there and has effectively died already.
I get what you’re saying, but I also think there’s one key difference between the two - namely that a fetus will become an independent person.
If gestation is to be compared to a vegetative state then surely it should be a vegetative state that the person will wake up from in less than a year. I think it’s fair to say that knowing such a recovery was going to happen would affect the decision about whether or not to pull the plug.
I mean, there might be other reasons why you have the right to comment on the issues, but that particular basis seems rather to depend on whether you can genuinely identify with the group in question.
The group in question is “human beings”. That’s the point I’ve been making.
It's been hard to read this thread, but very worthwhile at times. In my early 20s I had a miscarriage and the circumstances around that changed much of the way I thought about choices and freedom as a young bisexual woman.
At the time I was taking a contraceptive pill that failed because of a medical history my gynaecologist should have understood and treated. I was leaving a cis-het man for a lesbian woman and did not realise I was pregnant because missed periods were the norm. Although the miscarriage was atrociously painful, it came as a relief because I could not have had a legal abortion in South Africa at that time. As a student, I didn't have the money to leave the country and fly to London or Geneva for a safe legal abortion. I was warned by friends not to try to get an illegal 'backstreet' abortion because if reported, I would face a prison term of up to two years.
In order to get a legal abortion in South Africa at that time, rarely given except on grounds of rape or mental health (danger of suicide), I would need the written approval of two independent physicians, a psychiatrist or a state magistrate as well as an ordained minister. Fewer than 1 000 abortions were carried out legally each year. In contrast, between 1975 and 1996, it is estimated that 250 000 illegal abortions were carried out in major cities.
At the time I was in South Africa on a student visa and had no way of earning enough money to support a child, had no family support, and my former partner would not have been able to help in any way. The desperation of my predicament was so stressful it made have contributed to the onset of the miscarriage. In the year I fell pregnant, 400 women/persons in Cape Town died of septic abortions from illegal procedures. Before 1996, patients presenting with incomplete abortions constituted almost 50% of the gynaecology and obstetrics caseload of public-sector hospitals in the country. Many patients presenting at clinics and hospitals with symptoms following miscarriages would be arrested and charged with attempting to induce an abortion.
The South African Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act only came into effect in 1997, allowing abortions to be performed upon the patient's request through the first trimester of pregnancy, without any need for the approval of doctors, psychiatrists or magistrates. Minors are now counseled to notify their parent or guardian of their decision but are not required to receive consent for the procedure. Survivors of rape or incest are no longer required to provide any documentation in order to obtain an abortion.
I can't think about what is happening in Texas without feeling enraged.
Mary Louise it was a similar story in Oz right up to the 1970s; the dufference being that there has been in the last 40-odd years as “grey area” about abortion as a criminal offence in my jurisdiction ( New South Wales) which was not thrown out until 2019. I was close to apoplectic at the crowds of “good” Catholics protesting the proposed repeal of the old law outside State Parliament at that time.
A septic abortion would be a rarity these days, thank God
It's totally an argument if you think there's a significant difference between infants and zygotes.
That infants and zygotes are different is an argument.
"Loads of X die anyway, so killing off a few more isn't a big deal" really isn't.
There's rather more to it than that, though. The argument of some religiously-motivated people against abortion gets into far stronger notions of the sanctity of life and how precious it is to God, that fail to wrestle with the reality that, once you start with those sorts of premises, God appears to be remarkably casual about caring whether zygotes live or die.
God seems to be remarkably casual about whether anyone dies, given that everyone does it eventually. That’s rarely taken to invalidate religious arguments about the sanctity of life though.
Life being precious to God and every life coming to a natural end sooner or later are not incompatible statements. This is a bad line of argument to pursue.
Yes, but nobody says of a zygote "ah well, he/she had a good life". We have a sense of what is a normal lifespan, and that sense of every life coming a to a "natural end sooner or later" doesn't seem to take into account the proposition that over half of human beings die before birth.
@Sojourner, yes, the role played in SA by the Catholic church and Dutch Reformed Church in supporting repressive legislation to criminalise abortion was appalling.
There's another aspect too, and just as frightening. Under the 1975 Abortion and Sterilisation Act in South Africa, thousands of young black women/persons were forcibly sterilised because the state was determined to control reproduction across all population demographics. Injectable contraception was often administered without the consent of patients at state hospitals.
During his time as head of the chemical and biological weapons programme, Dr Wouter Basson initiated anti-fertility research for drugs that could be administered in bulk clandestinely to Black South Africans in order to severely curtail birth rates.
Originally posted by orfeo: We have a sense of what is a normal lifespan, and that sense of every life coming a to a "natural end sooner or later" doesn't seem to take into account the proposition that over half of human beings die before birth.
Our son's gravemarker has "Ps 139 13-16" engraved on it. "The days allotted to me had all been recorded in your book before any of them ever began."
Actually, what really, really annoyed me during the miscarriage / stillbirth years, was people who would describe as live birth as a gift from God, describing miscarriage as "Nature's way" as though God was strangely absent from my life at the time, because he was too busy gifting live babies to other women. As though God was some souped-up fucking Santa Claus. My reaction to the sad years is still WTF, God? but I never thought He wasn't there, or wasn't involved in the vast numbers who die before birth. And I've never thought He would turn away from me had I chosen to abort either.
I put this in the wrong place, originally, and it probably belongs here:
One of the problems with debates about abortion is that there's always a mismatch of emotional understanding of the reality of abortion depending on the experiences of the people involved.
Anecdotally, when I was pregnant with my daughter, I spent a few weeks supervised in hospital on the ante-natal ward, where there were a couple of us on long stay and a revolving cast of other mothers staying short term. It was part of the maternity wing, and I was allowed to wander the maternity area, but not outside without a huge amount of checking*, so I'd often walk down to coo over the new babies of the mothers who'd been in our ward overnight and chat to the mothers who'd given birth. I also won a prolonged stay after giving birth as it was somewhat *interesting*.
The women who stayed overnight with us were often stressed and not sleeping, so there were many late night, after lights out, conversations, in which abortion featured several times. The women who were most anti-abortion were those who had had problems conceiving and for whom every pregnancy was a much hoped for, desired baby or child. Those women who conceived easily and were in that ward overnight because they'd conceived too fast after their previous child was born, and were preparing for another caesarean when they had not properly healed from the last, were not convinced that every conception was desirable.
I've also heard anecdotally of a mother who has just aborted her fourth pregnancy. Her first was the result of break-up sex with her ex-husband who produces sub-fertile sperm, which produced twins. That marriage broke up as the husband wanted children so much that it destroyed the relationship. Her second set of twins were conceived as she started getting involved with her second husband, and the third pregnancy resulted in triplets, which was not detected until too late for an abortion. That time her husband had had a vasectomy, she was taking oral contraceptives and no-one believed she could get pregnant again. She now has seven children under 3, and this time around has acted far faster when she suspected she was pregnant, conceiving within weeks of giving birth to the triplets. The vasectomy healed.
I understand where you're coming from @Marvin the Martian as you have wanted every conceived foetus within your relationship passionately, each and every one has been a much wanted child. But for some women, another baby would be a disaster that is to be avoided at all costs. For me after having had complications with a first baby, a second was likely to put me in hospital for most of the pregnancy on prolonged bed rest and my daughter's father was not a suitable person to care for my daughter (I walked out when she was 16 months), which killed my sex life dead as there was no way, no how, I was getting pregnant again, and certainly not until the two years to heal properly after a caesarean was up.
Abortion is a very different thing to different people and in different situations. I think in these discussions, we have to be aware that people's situations and pregnancies vary so widely that some empathy to understand the different situations, rather than an unconscious extrapolation from our own situations, is required.
This time I'll add the asterisk
* On another wing in the hospital one of my work colleagues was being treated for cancer, and it took a lot to persuade the staff to allow me to walk over to visit her. Hiding the following as it's horrible medical detail:
I was being kept in as I had placenta praevia diagnosed at that final appointment. The morning before I arrived I'd walked the dogs on Wimbledon Common, which turned various medics faces white when they heard and was not allowed to go home. Placenta praevia means the placenta is low in the uterus and likely to be born first, so if I'd gone into labour away from hospital I'd have bled to death and neither I nor the baby would have survived. It is more likely in subsequent pregnancies as there is already a propensity and uterine scarring that increases the risk. There's also a concern that I cannot give birth naturally as my pelvis is so narrow and repeated caesareans are complicated as the scarring tends to weld organs together.
I saw film of an anti-mask demonstration, with signs saying "my body, my choice". The old sign about abortion was "my body, your choice", not funny really.
@Curiosity killed, that primacy of firsthand experience is what makes discussion of abortion so diverse and volatile. In my experience working with rape survivors, it is also the one issue in which long-held beliefs and attitudes can flip within minutes when family members are faced with a teen daughter/non-binary teen who has been raped and is pregnant.
One reason though that I was deeply moved by the posts from @Marvin the Martian and @North East Quine and yourself, was that five years after my own traumatic miscarriage, I experienced deep feelings of loss, ambivalence and 'what ifs', the more so as I knew by then that I would not be able to have children. That powerless, choiceless experience I went through need not have been so lonely if I had been able to talk to someone who didn't have a vested interest in guiding or steering me towards certain decisions and it has influenced my listening to women from poorer or marginalised communities as they try to work through difficulties to find more options for themselves.
I can't think about what is happening in Texas without feeling enraged.
Thanks for sharing, @MaryLouise. You paint a vivid picture of the kind of reality that the Texas legislature and their ilk want to impose on women everywhere.
I saw film of an anti-mask demonstration, with signs saying "my body, my choice". The old sign about abortion was "my body, your choice", not funny really.
This is a purposeful comparison by the anti-mask idiots. They (the anti-mask nuts tend to be religious and social conservatives) used this slogan on purpose to call out what they view as the "hypocrisy" of the "leftists" who want to force them to wear a mask on their body whilst insisting on "my body, my choice" for reproductive freedom. It's obviously a stupid comparison, and the fact that the anti-mask people think that they're somehow being clever in invoking it only goes to illustrate how separated from reality they are.
Lifehood (if such a word exists) in general isn't the same as personhood though. I'm aware that a foetus is alive, but it's not a person. A foetus does not have their own thoughts or feelings or ability to consent/not consent. I would categorise the form of life as being akin to someone in a vegetative state - they may be alive, but the person that the person was is no longer there and has effectively died already. This is different to disabled people who may be limited in their communicative abilities, but clearly have brain activity and thoughts and feelings. Even a newborn has clear *feelings* and expresses them even if they don't have thoughts as such. Phrases like 'two lives' implies a form of equality between the pregnant person and the foetus which simply doesn't exist, imo.
Edited to add that I'm aware of the difficulties my comment about newborns may prompt for some people regarding late abortions, but in practice late abortions are normally really stillbirths induced to prevent sepsis. Certainly they are done for medical reasons alone. I would never let myself get to that stage if I got pregnant in the first place, for people who do not want to be pregnant it doesn't happen unless they are prevented from getting an early abortion.
Depends what you mean by late, but parents expecting a baby with Down's are offered (encouraged to have, even) terminations well after viability.
Lifehood (if such a word exists) in general isn't the same as personhood though. I'm aware that a foetus is alive, but it's not a person. A foetus does not have their own thoughts or feelings or ability to consent/not consent. I would categorise the form of life as being akin to someone in a vegetative state - they may be alive, but the person that the person was is no longer there and has effectively died already. This is different to disabled people who may be limited in their communicative abilities, but clearly have brain activity and thoughts and feelings. Even a newborn has clear *feelings* and expresses them even if they don't have thoughts as such. Phrases like 'two lives' implies a form of equality between the pregnant person and the foetus which simply doesn't exist, imo.
Edited to add that I'm aware of the difficulties my comment about newborns may prompt for some people regarding late abortions, but in practice late abortions are normally really stillbirths induced to prevent sepsis. Certainly they are done for medical reasons alone. I would never let myself get to that stage if I got pregnant in the first place, for people who do not want to be pregnant it doesn't happen unless they are prevented from getting an early abortion.
Depends what you mean by late, but parents expecting a baby with Down's are offered (encouraged to have, even) terminations well after viability.
By late I mean up to the point of birth, hence me bringing up the point about newborns. A foetus beyond the point of viability is not at the point of birth for quite some time.
Also someone who is pregnant with a foetus with Down's Syndrome is not specifically treated differently to those pregnant with a foetus with any other chromosonal abnormality. The forced-birther obsession with Down's is quite creepy. Also speaking as a disabled person, you don't make society less ableist by forcing people to give birth.
How many other non-fatal chromosomal abnormalities are screened for pre-natally and termination strongly encouraged?
I'm also a disabled person, and there are people and organisations right now trying to find a test to allow people like me to be terminated before birth, just like they've already done with people like my cousin (who has Down's).
Families of disabled children need support and information, not being pushed into disposing of the "defective" one. The attitudes displayed by medical staff in this article (including offering a termination at 38 weeks to a couple who had already made clear they intended to keep their Down's baby) are really disturbing: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-51658631
First of all, I completely empathise with the horror at the societal ableism at play here. I totally agree that the families of disabled children need support and information - but it's also important that they get support and information before birth, which isn't possible without screening. The test for Down's is in fact a general test that tests for a range of chromosonal abnormalities. All chromosonal abnormalities are screened for before birth.
While I empathise with and support greater representation of people with Down's, I also object to them being used by the forced-birth brigade to campaign for removing pregnant people's right to medical autonomy, while also voting for political parties and government policies that kill far more disabled people. Many disabled people themselves want and need abortions, yet we are infantilised in this way by being represented in the debate by angelic-looking children. I think churches in particular have a real blind spot with viewing disability as primarily something children have, and a stick to beat reproductive rights campaigners with. Being viewed as a weapon is dehumanising and ableist too.
Pregnant people deserve to know what is happening with their pregnancy, including whatever chromosonal abnormality the foetus may have. That is a basic part of prenatal healthcare. If said foetus happens to have Down's, it is utterly terrifying that because of that one reason someone may not be able to get an abortion they would otherwise be able to access. I am terrified of getting pregnant with a disabled foetus and being denied an abortion (because I would terminate *any* pregnancy) because the law has then since decided that a disabled foetus is more important than my actual disabled personhood and life. All pregnant people should be able to terminate their pregnancy, because forcing someone to give birth is a gross abuse of medical autonomy. That the foetus may be disabled doesn't take away that medical autonomy.
I appreciate the personal and difficult emotions involved here, and I am not trying to sound cold or impersonal - but I'm not joking when I say that I would rather end my life than continue a pregnancy, and yet it doesn't seem that this would matter at all if the foetus had Down's because their life trumps mine apparently. That other disabled people would be willing for that to happen, campaigning for it even, is frightening to me. Taking away my right to an abortion doesn't make society less ableist.
U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland is announcing a civil suit by the Justice Department against the state of Texas to reverse this law. Live announcement here.
And he's done. Garland apparently doesn't want to spend a lot of time taking questions, preferring to let his Department's briefs speak for him. Recording of press conference here, for those who are interested in the parameters of the DoJ's suit.
.... I think what I’m trying to do is promote the thought that there are two lives involved in a pregnancy. That doesn’t mean I think abortion is always wrong, which needs to be stressed - I’m perfectly in favour of it in cases where the mother’s life or health is in real danger or where the pregnancy is the result of rape. In other cases I wouldn’t argue for it to be illegal, but I would argue that the life that’s going to be destroyed deserves to be considered as such rather than casually dismissed. That’s all.
In practical terms, what does that part in bold mean? Who or what decides if a woman has done sufficient consideration or if she just casually dismissed the pregnancy?
(IME, women of reproductive age have generally done a huge amount of considering about abortion long before (even if never) actually choosing abortion. It was definitely on my radar when I was still a virginal teenager.)
I appreciate the personal and difficult emotions involved here, and I am not trying to sound cold or impersonal - but I'm not joking when I say that I would rather end my life than continue a pregnancy, and yet it doesn't seem that this would matter at all if the foetus had Down's because their life trumps mine apparently. That other disabled people would be willing for that to happen, campaigning for it even, is frightening to me. Taking away my right to an abortion doesn't make society less ableist.
I think you are severely misrepresenting their campaign here. As you know, in England and Wales, abortions are effectively permitted on demand up to a gestational age of 24 weeks. The campaign to which you refer doesn't have anything to say about that. If you don't want to be pregnant at all, then you can seek and obtain an abortion early in your pregnancy without difficulty. The large majority of UK abortions occur in the first trimester. Roughly one abortion in 1000 is currently performed after the 24 week limit, on grounds of significant foetal abnormality.
The campaign addresses the differential treatment of foetuses with Down Syndrome, or other abnormalities, vs "normal" foetuses. It takes issue with the fact that the law in England and Wales permits parents to terminate a late-term pregnancy because the child is disabled, in cases where it would not ordinarily permit parents to terminate a pregnancy.
There are no circumstances under which the campaign wishes to privilege a foetus with Down Syndrome or some other chromosomal abnormality over a normal foetus: what they seek is equal treatment.
Lifehood (if such a word exists) in general isn't the same as personhood though. I'm aware that a foetus is alive, but it's not a person. A foetus does not have their own thoughts or feelings or ability to consent/not consent. I would categorise the form of life as being akin to someone in a vegetative state - they may be alive, but the person that the person was is no longer there and has effectively died already. This is different to disabled people who may be limited in their communicative abilities, but clearly have brain activity and thoughts and feelings. Even a newborn has clear *feelings* and expresses them even if they don't have thoughts as such. Phrases like 'two lives' implies a form of equality between the pregnant person and the foetus which simply doesn't exist, imo.
Edited to add that I'm aware of the difficulties my comment about newborns may prompt for some people regarding late abortions, but in practice late abortions are normally really stillbirths induced to prevent sepsis. Certainly they are done for medical reasons alone. I would never let myself get to that stage if I got pregnant in the first place, for people who do not want to be pregnant it doesn't happen unless they are prevented from getting an early abortion.
Depends what you mean by late, but parents expecting a baby with Down's are offered (encouraged to have, even) terminations well after viability.
Lifehood (if such a word exists) in general isn't the same as personhood though. I'm aware that a foetus is alive, but it's not a person. A foetus does not have their own thoughts or feelings or ability to consent/not consent. I would categorise the form of life as being akin to someone in a vegetative state - they may be alive, but the person that the person was is no longer there and has effectively died already. This is different to disabled people who may be limited in their communicative abilities, but clearly have brain activity and thoughts and feelings. Even a newborn has clear *feelings* and expresses them even if they don't have thoughts as such. Phrases like 'two lives' implies a form of equality between the pregnant person and the foetus which simply doesn't exist, imo.
Edited to add that I'm aware of the difficulties my comment about newborns may prompt for some people regarding late abortions, but in practice late abortions are normally really stillbirths induced to prevent sepsis. Certainly they are done for medical reasons alone. I would never let myself get to that stage if I got pregnant in the first place, for people who do not want to be pregnant it doesn't happen unless they are prevented from getting an early abortion.
Depends what you mean by late, but parents expecting a baby with Down's are offered (encouraged to have, even) terminations well after viability.
By late I mean up to the point of birth, hence me bringing up the point about newborns. A foetus beyond the point of viability is not at the point of birth for quite some time.
Also someone who is pregnant with a foetus with Down's Syndrome is not specifically treated differently to those pregnant with a foetus with any other chromosonal abnormality. The forced-birther obsession with Down's is quite creepy. Also speaking as a disabled person, you don't make society less ableist by forcing people to give birth.
How many other non-fatal chromosomal abnormalities are screened for pre-natally and termination strongly encouraged?
I'm also a disabled person, and there are people and organisations right now trying to find a test to allow people like me to be terminated before birth, just like they've already done with people like my cousin (who has Down's).
Families of disabled children need support and information, not being pushed into disposing of the "defective" one. The attitudes displayed by medical staff in this article (including offering a termination at 38 weeks to a couple who had already made clear they intended to keep their Down's baby) are really disturbing: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-51658631
First of all, I completely empathise with the horror at the societal ableism at play here. I totally agree that the families of disabled children need support and information - but it's also important that they get support and information before birth, which isn't possible without screening. The test for Down's is in fact a general test that tests for a range of chromosonal abnormalities. All chromosonal abnormalities are screened for before birth.
While I empathise with and support greater representation of people with Down's, I also object to them being used by the forced-birth brigade to campaign for removing pregnant people's right to medical autonomy, while also voting for political parties and government policies that kill far more disabled people. Many disabled people themselves want and need abortions, yet we are infantilised in this way by being represented in the debate by angelic-looking children. I think churches in particular have a real blind spot with viewing disability as primarily something children have, and a stick to beat reproductive rights campaigners with. Being viewed as a weapon is dehumanising and ableist too.
Pregnant people deserve to know what is happening with their pregnancy, including whatever chromosonal abnormality the foetus may have. That is a basic part of prenatal healthcare. If said foetus happens to have Down's, it is utterly terrifying that because of that one reason someone may not be able to get an abortion they would otherwise be able to access. I am terrified of getting pregnant with a disabled foetus and being denied an abortion (because I would terminate *any* pregnancy) because the law has then since decided that a disabled foetus is more important than my actual disabled personhood and life. All pregnant people should be able to terminate their pregnancy, because forcing someone to give birth is a gross abuse of medical autonomy. That the foetus may be disabled doesn't take away that medical autonomy.
I appreciate the personal and difficult emotions involved here, and I am not trying to sound cold or impersonal - but I'm not joking when I say that I would rather end my life than continue a pregnancy, and yet it doesn't seem that this would matter at all if the foetus had Down's because their life trumps mine apparently. That other disabled people would be willing for that to happen, campaigning for it even, is frightening to me. Taking away my right to an abortion doesn't make society less ableist.
I think we're dealing with rather different circumstances. I've no objection to screening to inform or prepare, but in the UK screening is encouraged with a presumption of termination, and there is a right in law to abort a foetus with an impairment at any stage, beyond the 24 week limit for "healthy" foetuses. I'm coming from somewhere Down's foetuses have less protection than others, not more, and I fear a not too distant future where people like me will be erased in the womb in a similar fashion. I do get that if I try to say I'm pro-choice but want informed choice I know that's likely to make you think of vaginal ultrasound bills and other such hideousness, but I do find myself torn between a commitment to bodily autonomy and a worry about eugenics by ignorance and fear.
.... I think what I’m trying to do is promote the thought that there are two lives involved in a pregnancy. That doesn’t mean I think abortion is always wrong, which needs to be stressed - I’m perfectly in favour of it in cases where the mother’s life or health is in real danger or where the pregnancy is the result of rape. In other cases I wouldn’t argue for it to be illegal, but I would argue that the life that’s going to be destroyed deserves to be considered as such rather than casually dismissed. That’s all.
In practical terms, what does that part in bold mean?
Not comparing it to cataract removal, maybe? Just to take it seriously, with the full knowledge of what it is you’re destroying. Pomona mentioned turning off someone’s life support earlier, and to be honest if abortion was treated with the same respect and consideration as that decision is then I’d be happier. Nobody (that I’m aware of) tries to claim that people on life support don’t even count as human lives.
Pomona mentioned turning off someone’s life support earlier, and to be honest if abortion was treated with the same respect and consideration as that decision is then I’d be happier.
Respect and consideration are relative. I'm recalling the complete circus around Terri Schiavo, most of it instigated by America's professional pro-life* movement.
Part of the problem here is that it assumes that everyone who has ever dealt with the issue of artificial life support has always and in every instance treated it with "respect and consideration", rather than making the much more plausible assumption that humans can and do react to the same situation in a variety of different ways an that there's not one "right" emotional response.
A query today, which I can't answer, was if this Texas abortion law is just a typical (and successful) an expression of white American evangelical Christianity. The same conversation asserted that there are parties outside prisons when people are executed, cheering when death is announced, also asserted to be part of this variety of Christianity. Are these things true at all? Or made up.
In practical terms, what does that part in bold mean? Who or what decides if a woman has done sufficient consideration or if she just casually dismissed the pregnancy?
As I see it, the logic behind the "abortion is allowed up to a certain gestational age" position seems to tacitly recognize that the foetus becomes gradually closer to a "person" as it grows, and simultaneously as a pregnancy progresses through to the late stages, the imposition on the mother / parent to continue the pregnancy for the remainder of the term reduces.
Perhaps it's too simplistic to say that the law thinks that those things cross at the 24 week limit, but I think that kind of logic is effectively encoded in the law.
The 24 week limit is based on the fact that a premature birth after 24 weeks is now survivable. Previously the limit was 28 weeks on the same basis.
AIUI the thinking was that it was wrong to abort a pregnancy at a stage at which a child born then would normally be expected to live.
The 24 week limit is based on the fact that a premature birth after 24 weeks is now survivable. Previously the limit was 28 weeks on the same basis.
AIUI the thinking was that it was wrong to abort a pregnancy at a stage at which a child born then would normally be expected to live.
And the exception for fœtal deformities after that is typically in recognition that many such problems aren’t diagnosable earlier and can either pose danger to the mother, prevent post-birth viability, or both.
AIUI the thinking was that it was wrong to abort a pregnancy at a stage at which a child born then would normally be expected to live.
Right, but we don't offer people who decide at 24 or 25 weeks gestation that they don't want to be pregnant immediate elective birth, do we? Even though premature birth at that age is "normally survivable", unless you have complications that cause premature birth, you won't be giving birth until some approximation of "term". So the law effectively states that it's reasonable to force people whose pregnancies have progressed that far to continue to carry the child for an additional three months.
A query today, which I can't answer, was if this Texas abortion law is just a typical (and successful) an expression of white American evangelical Christianity. The same conversation asserted that there are parties outside prisons when people are executed, cheering when death is announced, also asserted to be part of this variety of Christianity. Are these things true at all? Or made up.
I have seen news reports of people celebrating executions outside prisons in the USA. Though I suppose if you see nothing wrong with executions in the first place, there's no logical reason not to celebrate one.
And given that I've also seen news reports from non-death penalty countries about vans transporting infamous killers to court being mobbed by angry demonstrators, I think it likely you'd see at least a few execution parties, in the event of those countries returning to the death penalty. At least in particularly notorious cases.
Orwell apparently found it shocking that people in England in the 1940s were calling for the execution of a woman. Even though the woman in question had been convicted of killing random passersby just for the lulz.
The 24 week limit is based on the fact that a premature birth after 24 weeks is now survivable. Previously the limit was 28 weeks on the same basis.
AIUI the thinking was that it was wrong to abort a pregnancy at a stage at which a child born then would normally be expected to live.
And the exception for fœtal deformities after that is typically in recognition that many such problems aren’t diagnosable earlier and can either pose danger to the mother, prevent post-birth viability, or both.
But many don't. The use in the legislation of "seriously handicapped" has all kind of ableist assumptions about quality of life baked into it. I suspect if the exemption were removed the clauses protecting the physical and mental health of the mother would still suffice to allow terminations in the case of non-survivable or severely life-limiting abnormalities.
It also occurs to me that in some sense the discovery of an abnormality is not about the disabled foetus themselves but about the effect on the pregnant person, how able they feel to cope with supporting a disabled child and the sudden alteration of their "vision" of their child's life. That's a very personal thing and the mental health aspects are potentially severe. But so are the impacts on someone who built their plan for caring for their baby on the financial and practical support of a partner who has abandoned them or died close to the due date. Rather than making it about the status of the foetus I think either we accept a total right to choose, and accept the consequences in terms of a handful of awful cases, or we make it about the health of the mother. Either way, however, you end up placing a lot of power in the hands of medical staff - a right to a late termination is only a right if you have a medical team willing to carry it out. I'm also aware that, while UK laws currently facilitate abortions relatively easily, the same laws applied in, say, Texas or El Salvador would have very different outcomes.
My brain has suddenly retrieved a case of a politician in the US south two or three years back. (Sorry I can't be more precise. My memory usually places items on a map, but with a rather large marker and I can't be sure if it was Texas or not.) This middle aged or older white male held that a woman could not become pregnant through rape as the body would reject the sperm, and if a woman did become pregnant it was because in some way she had collaborated with the conception. Thus guilty and so not eligible for abortion. I suppose this sort of thinking has informed the failure to allow exceptions in the current law. I shudder to think about the thinking behind not excluding incest.
My brain has suddenly retrieved a case of a politician in the US south two or three years back. (Sorry I can't be more precise. My memory usually places items on a map, but with a rather large marker and I can't be sure if it was Texas or not.) This middle aged or older white male held that a woman could not become pregnant through rape as the body would reject the sperm, and if a woman did become pregnant it was because in some way she had collaborated with the conception. Thus guilty and so not eligible for abortion. I suppose this sort of thinking has informed the failure to allow exceptions in the current law. I shudder to think about the thinking behind not excluding incest.
Hoo, boy, yes I remember that one. Specifically the phrase "shuts that whole thing down", which I was able to google and thus correctly point the finger of opprobrium at that fine specimen of male humanity Todd Akin, former Rep for the Missouri 2nd and GOP senatorial candidate. Somewhat reassuringly he got his arse kicked in that election largely it seems as a result of that "insight".
Personally - and I've tried to avoid mentioning it in order to avoid controversy! - I would be in favour of removing the 24 week limit for all pregnancies, to bring other pregnancies into line with the laws regarding pregnancy with pregnancies involving disabled foetuses. I believe in making abortion available on demand because 1) forcing someone to give birth is wrong, even if the foetus is viable and 2) so few people have later term abortions anyway that it provides unnecessary legal complications for doctors.
For me the implications that disabled people who don't want the screening banned - because that's what Sally Philips et al are campaigning for - don't care about ableism or protecting disabled people is upsetting. We do care about that. But it's society that has made life as a disabled person or a parent caring for a disabled child far harder than it needs to be, and that has to be untangled in order to get rid of ableism. Why not campaign for better social welfare for parents of disabled children instead of focusing on taking away women's rights (and ofc trans men and others get abortions too, but women are the target) over their own bodies? Unfortunately the involvement of conservative Christians means I cannot trust that it's not simply trying to ban abortion via the back door. I may not like the idea of someone aborting just because the foetus has Down's, but it's not my body and not my decision to make, fundamentally. I believe that the only reason needed to have an abortion should be wanting one.
I am aware that my views are unpopular and also uncommon, which is why I find it disingenuous that @Marvin the Martian keeps coming back to the cataract comparison as if that's somehow a common comparison to make. It isn't. It's how I *personally* feel - I've already said that everyone views pregnancy differently. Most people who get abortions already have children and are not likely to view it as so uncomplicated an event. I appreciate that the comparison was upsetting for you Marvin, but it's just one person's view. I've never claimed that it's representative of all pro-choice people.
In 2020, 58% of women undergoing abortions had had one or more previous pregnancies that resulted in a live or stillbirth, up from 50% in 2010 (Table 3a.vii). 22% of women had a previous pregnancy resulting in a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy, up from 16% in 2010.
Hosting
I really appreciate your viewpoint Pomona and your clarification. It's important to get a good range of lived experience so I don't want to be off-putting at all but just a wee reminder that 'disingenuous' carries implications of posting in bad faith so it's not OK for anyone to say about anyone else's experience here - it would belong on a Hell thread as a personal insult.
If people keep coming back to things it can be because these things really bother them or exercise them and have pressed a button for them and upset them or made them see red.
And that also can get out of hand when something is said that is very unusual or different from the mainstream and leads to a lot of people getting their buttons pressed at the same time and dog-piling the person they deem to have mis-spoken and that is also a problem. So as you've explained the cataract reference as something personal to you I'm going to gently suggest that people move on from it.
Wow powerful stuff. I think one of the great truisms of life is that we, as human beings, inhabit stories. That is life. Which is why anecdotes are so often much more powerful than statistics in arguments. As was noted above, the profound experiences that shape everyone's views are often really powerful and hence different people will have very different starting points on this topic, more than most.
So here's a few of my stories...
In my professional life, I am a paediatric surgeon. We care for humans from birth to 16 years of age. And a particularly prominent part of our practice is premature babies. It is routine for me to be looking after babies born at 24 weeks gestation. Recently there has been a change of practice that means neonatologists will attempt perinatal resuscitation on 23 and 22 weekers. (This was rare previously). Thus, we are looking after more babies born even earlier.
Imagine for a moment if I - at the request of the parents - gave a lethal injection to such a baby. I would be charged with murder. At the same time, one of my gynaecological colleagues could be performing a surgical termination on another baby/foetus of the same gestation at the parent's request.
In 2006 a major report of ethics and decision-making with premature babies was published. This was called the Nuffield report. There was a submission to this report from the Royal College of Gyaenocology and Obstetrics that advocated a change in the law to allow euthanasia of babies up to a certain age so that parents could see what the exact nature of the congenital deformity was rather than having to rely on antenatal scans.
Also someone who is pregnant with a foetus with Down's Syndrome is not specifically treated differently to those pregnant with a foetus with any other chromosonal abnormality. The forced-birther obsession with Down's is quite creepy. Also speaking as a disabled person, you don't make society less ableist by forcing people to give birth.
This is simply not true. Until a recent advance in technology, screening for Down's involved what was called the Triple Test (or variations on the theme). The triple part being a measure of Nuchal thickness on the 20 week scan, a series of maternal blood tests and maternal age. These three factors were then put into a calculator and a risk of Trisomy 21 was then calculated. If the risk for high enough (>1 in 200) then invasive testing in the form of amniocentesis / chorionic vilus sampling was offered. If you don't think this was a deliberate policy to screen-out Down's then you're not paying attention because the cost of this program (offered to every expectant mother) is huge. 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.
There are literally thousands of chromosomal abnormalities and the majority are not diagnosed antenatally. It is because of some observations made in the 1980s and some very meticulous science that a means of detected Down's specifically was developed and then widely used for three decades. Whether you like it or not, Down's syndrome has been singled out for special treatment as a matter of public policy.
I would also suggest that use of prejorative terms like 'forced-birther' on a thread like this is particularly unhelpful.
The UK law allows termination up to birth for 'serious disability.' The very first thread I ever commented on, on the Old Ship was a discussion around a case where a termination was carried out for an antenatal diagnosis of Cleft Lip. Just to be clear, whilst Cleft Lip is not a purely cosmetic condition, it is one that is 100% surgically correctable.
In my professional life, we provide antenatal counselling for a range of conditions that will require surgical treatment after birth. In each case, we aim to provide as much information as possible so the parents know what to expect. In some cases, such as congenital diaphragmatic hernias, the prognosis is often not known with any degree of certainty. In others, such as cystic fibrosis or gastroschisis for example, we do know. In each of these cases, the parents will be offered a termination either before or after meeting with a surgeon.
In a similar but different vein, as a medical student I attended an antenatal ultrasound list with a foetal medicine consultant. This is a list for re-screening by a specialist with the option of amniocentesis for pregnancies where the routine screening scan had detected an anomaly. One patient I vividly remember. The scan showed soft signs of chromosomal anomalies. I.e. The picture didn't fit with Down's or Edwards or Patau's for example but could be consistent with a congenital deformity. The woman in question opted for a an amniocentesis. Amnio carries around a 1% risk of causing a miscarriage and involves using USS to insert a needle in to the uterus to extract some amniotic fluid for analysis. Because of the miscarriage risk, amnio's are not offered to women unless they think they will opt for a termination if the test shows an abnormality. (For the record, the last time I checked the figure was about 80% who actually went on to have a termination after a positive test). The reason this story sits so strongly in my memory is because we watched on the screen as the needle was safely inserted and fluid was drawn. The foetus seemed on the screen to be interacting with this new thing in its environment and try to hold it with its little hands. Now I choose those words carefully to try to describe the reaction of this specific pregnant woman. She was interacting with the foetus inside her and bonding with it. Now, note here that she had made the provisional decision to have a termination but this foetus was clearly much more than a potential life to her in that moment.
A long time ago now, someone I was very close to became pregnant after being raped. Now, she was someone who was very much against abortion. She felt strongly that it was a selfish choice. After discovering that she was pregnant she had three weeks of soul-searching before concluding that she would have a termination. That's not the end of the story but I will add here that being unable to reconcile her personal choice with what she believed to be right and wrong - even in such a desperate situation - was incredibly difficult for her.
I have so many, many thoughts about this Texas law. The vigilante part of it is particularly craven and evil. But here's a fact that I think is important. The law as written will probably lead to more abortions.
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. To this bill specifically: There are a lot of people who find themselves pregnant when they did not plan to be so. Some will be immediately happy, some will seek a termination. Many will not know what they want to do. So here's the thing; under Roe vs Wade from finding out that you are pregnant, you have up to 2 months to make a decision. (Most women find out at about 5-6 weeks and the Constitutional position grants the right in the first trimester). Many women contemplate an abortion but after thinking about it decide to continue with the pregnancy. Now Imagine you have to decide in less than a week or lose the option...
Anyway these are some of the stories that shape my feelings
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.
Comments
You're right - I was trying to simplify, and seem to have ended up creating more confusion.
Yes, one of the couple could have eggs harvested, the egg could be fertilized with donor sperm, and implanted in the uterus of the other of the couple. But for the purposes of the discussion we were having, isn't the egg donor in this scenario in exactly the same situation as Gwai's cis man Joe, who wants his cis female wife to carry his children? (Granted, the process of getting pregnant is probably simpler for Joe, but the discussion of who hopes or expects who to do what seems to be to be basically the same.)
It's totally an argument if you think there's a significant difference between infants and zygotes.
And the history of infanticide suggests that throughout much of human history killing children has been acceptable.
There are a lot of possible tangents here, all of which would be interesting philosophical or theological (or both) threads but which we probably shouldn’t explore too much here. I guess I have a problem with the worth (and, indeed, right to exist) of a given human life being determined by how much anyone else cares about them. But that then opens up the question of exactly when a human life becomes a human life, which is not something there’s any kind of consensus about at all.
I think what I’m trying to do is promote the thought that there are two lives involved in a pregnancy. That doesn’t mean I think abortion is always wrong, which needs to be stressed - I’m perfectly in favour of it in cases where the mother’s life or health is in real danger or where the pregnancy is the result of rape. In other cases I wouldn’t argue for it to be illegal, but I would argue that the life that’s going to be destroyed deserves to be considered as such rather than casually dismissed. That’s all.
Edited to add that I'm aware of the difficulties my comment about newborns may prompt for some people regarding late abortions, but in practice late abortions are normally really stillbirths induced to prevent sepsis. Certainly they are done for medical reasons alone. I would never let myself get to that stage if I got pregnant in the first place, for people who do not want to be pregnant it doesn't happen unless they are prevented from getting an early abortion.
That infants and zygotes are different is an argument.
"Loads of X die anyway, so killing off a few more isn't a big deal" really isn't.
Well, it was explicitly banned in the Christianization of Europe, and in Islam, so sure - I'll agree with this statement as written. I'm not sure why what the Spartans, for example, thought moral should be of much influence in my thought, though.
Depends what you mean by late, but parents expecting a baby with Down's are offered (encouraged to have, even) terminations well after viability.
By late I mean up to the point of birth, hence me bringing up the point about newborns. A foetus beyond the point of viability is not at the point of birth for quite some time.
Also someone who is pregnant with a foetus with Down's Syndrome is not specifically treated differently to those pregnant with a foetus with any other chromosonal abnormality. The forced-birther obsession with Down's is quite creepy. Also speaking as a disabled person, you don't make society less ableist by forcing people to give birth.
Rather depends on whether you have any memories of those experiences.
I mean, there might be other reasons why you have the right to comment on the issues, but that particular basis seems rather to depend on whether you can genuinely identify with the group in question.
There's rather more to it than that, though. The argument of some religiously-motivated people against abortion gets into far stronger notions of the sanctity of life and how precious it is to God, that fail to wrestle with the reality that, once you start with those sorts of premises, God appears to be remarkably casual about caring whether zygotes live or die.
As to the stuff about children dying and infanticide, the reality is that previous generations and cultures who dealt with child death as a regular event did not have the same attitude to life and death that we do. Plus for a long time we didn't value the life of children as much as adults. Literally. You can find legal formulas about the value of a life that look at things like earnings and basically convey that an adult male is the most important kind of person.
Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If a sperm gets wasted
God gets quite irate...
How many other non-fatal chromosomal abnormalities are screened for pre-natally and termination strongly encouraged?
I'm also a disabled person, and there are people and organisations right now trying to find a test to allow people like me to be terminated before birth, just like they've already done with people like my cousin (who has Down's).
Families of disabled children need support and information, not being pushed into disposing of the "defective" one. The attitudes displayed by medical staff in this article (including offering a termination at 38 weeks to a couple who had already made clear they intended to keep their Down's baby) are really disturbing:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-51658631
God seems to be remarkably casual about whether anyone dies, given that everyone does it eventually. That’s rarely taken to invalidate religious arguments about the sanctity of life though.
Life being precious to God and every life coming to a natural end sooner or later are not incompatible statements. This is a bad line of argument to pursue.
I get what you’re saying, but I also think there’s one key difference between the two - namely that a fetus will become an independent person.
If gestation is to be compared to a vegetative state then surely it should be a vegetative state that the person will wake up from in less than a year. I think it’s fair to say that knowing such a recovery was going to happen would affect the decision about whether or not to pull the plug.
The group in question is “human beings”. That’s the point I’ve been making.
At the time I was taking a contraceptive pill that failed because of a medical history my gynaecologist should have understood and treated. I was leaving a cis-het man for a lesbian woman and did not realise I was pregnant because missed periods were the norm. Although the miscarriage was atrociously painful, it came as a relief because I could not have had a legal abortion in South Africa at that time. As a student, I didn't have the money to leave the country and fly to London or Geneva for a safe legal abortion. I was warned by friends not to try to get an illegal 'backstreet' abortion because if reported, I would face a prison term of up to two years.
In order to get a legal abortion in South Africa at that time, rarely given except on grounds of rape or mental health (danger of suicide), I would need the written approval of two independent physicians, a psychiatrist or a state magistrate as well as an ordained minister. Fewer than 1 000 abortions were carried out legally each year. In contrast, between 1975 and 1996, it is estimated that 250 000 illegal abortions were carried out in major cities.
At the time I was in South Africa on a student visa and had no way of earning enough money to support a child, had no family support, and my former partner would not have been able to help in any way. The desperation of my predicament was so stressful it made have contributed to the onset of the miscarriage. In the year I fell pregnant, 400 women/persons in Cape Town died of septic abortions from illegal procedures. Before 1996, patients presenting with incomplete abortions constituted almost 50% of the gynaecology and obstetrics caseload of public-sector hospitals in the country. Many patients presenting at clinics and hospitals with symptoms following miscarriages would be arrested and charged with attempting to induce an abortion.
The South African Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act only came into effect in 1997, allowing abortions to be performed upon the patient's request through the first trimester of pregnancy, without any need for the approval of doctors, psychiatrists or magistrates. Minors are now counseled to notify their parent or guardian of their decision but are not required to receive consent for the procedure. Survivors of rape or incest are no longer required to provide any documentation in order to obtain an abortion.
I can't think about what is happening in Texas without feeling enraged.
A septic abortion would be a rarity these days, thank God
Yes, but nobody says of a zygote "ah well, he/she had a good life". We have a sense of what is a normal lifespan, and that sense of every life coming a to a "natural end sooner or later" doesn't seem to take into account the proposition that over half of human beings die before birth.
There's another aspect too, and just as frightening. Under the 1975 Abortion and Sterilisation Act in South Africa, thousands of young black women/persons were forcibly sterilised because the state was determined to control reproduction across all population demographics. Injectable contraception was often administered without the consent of patients at state hospitals.
During his time as head of the chemical and biological weapons programme, Dr Wouter Basson initiated anti-fertility research for drugs that could be administered in bulk clandestinely to Black South Africans in order to severely curtail birth rates.
We have a sense of what is a normal lifespan, and that sense of every life coming a to a "natural end sooner or later" doesn't seem to take into account the proposition that over half of human beings die before birth.
Our son's gravemarker has "Ps 139 13-16" engraved on it. "The days allotted to me had all been recorded in your book before any of them ever began."
Actually, what really, really annoyed me during the miscarriage / stillbirth years, was people who would describe as live birth as a gift from God, describing miscarriage as "Nature's way" as though God was strangely absent from my life at the time, because he was too busy gifting live babies to other women. As though God was some souped-up fucking Santa Claus. My reaction to the sad years is still WTF, God? but I never thought He wasn't there, or wasn't involved in the vast numbers who die before birth. And I've never thought He would turn away from me had I chosen to abort either.
One of the problems with debates about abortion is that there's always a mismatch of emotional understanding of the reality of abortion depending on the experiences of the people involved.
Anecdotally, when I was pregnant with my daughter, I spent a few weeks supervised in hospital on the ante-natal ward, where there were a couple of us on long stay and a revolving cast of other mothers staying short term. It was part of the maternity wing, and I was allowed to wander the maternity area, but not outside without a huge amount of checking*, so I'd often walk down to coo over the new babies of the mothers who'd been in our ward overnight and chat to the mothers who'd given birth. I also won a prolonged stay after giving birth as it was somewhat *interesting*.
The women who stayed overnight with us were often stressed and not sleeping, so there were many late night, after lights out, conversations, in which abortion featured several times. The women who were most anti-abortion were those who had had problems conceiving and for whom every pregnancy was a much hoped for, desired baby or child. Those women who conceived easily and were in that ward overnight because they'd conceived too fast after their previous child was born, and were preparing for another caesarean when they had not properly healed from the last, were not convinced that every conception was desirable.
I've also heard anecdotally of a mother who has just aborted her fourth pregnancy. Her first was the result of break-up sex with her ex-husband who produces sub-fertile sperm, which produced twins. That marriage broke up as the husband wanted children so much that it destroyed the relationship. Her second set of twins were conceived as she started getting involved with her second husband, and the third pregnancy resulted in triplets, which was not detected until too late for an abortion. That time her husband had had a vasectomy, she was taking oral contraceptives and no-one believed she could get pregnant again. She now has seven children under 3, and this time around has acted far faster when she suspected she was pregnant, conceiving within weeks of giving birth to the triplets. The vasectomy healed.
I understand where you're coming from @Marvin the Martian as you have wanted every conceived foetus within your relationship passionately, each and every one has been a much wanted child. But for some women, another baby would be a disaster that is to be avoided at all costs. For me after having had complications with a first baby, a second was likely to put me in hospital for most of the pregnancy on prolonged bed rest and my daughter's father was not a suitable person to care for my daughter (I walked out when she was 16 months), which killed my sex life dead as there was no way, no how, I was getting pregnant again, and certainly not until the two years to heal properly after a caesarean was up.
Abortion is a very different thing to different people and in different situations. I think in these discussions, we have to be aware that people's situations and pregnancies vary so widely that some empathy to understand the different situations, rather than an unconscious extrapolation from our own situations, is required.
This time I'll add the asterisk
* On another wing in the hospital one of my work colleagues was being treated for cancer, and it took a lot to persuade the staff to allow me to walk over to visit her. Hiding the following as it's horrible medical detail:
One reason though that I was deeply moved by the posts from @Marvin the Martian and @North East Quine and yourself, was that five years after my own traumatic miscarriage, I experienced deep feelings of loss, ambivalence and 'what ifs', the more so as I knew by then that I would not be able to have children. That powerless, choiceless experience I went through need not have been so lonely if I had been able to talk to someone who didn't have a vested interest in guiding or steering me towards certain decisions and it has influenced my listening to women from poorer or marginalised communities as they try to work through difficulties to find more options for themselves.
Thanks for sharing, @MaryLouise. You paint a vivid picture of the kind of reality that the Texas legislature and their ilk want to impose on women everywhere.
This is a purposeful comparison by the anti-mask idiots. They (the anti-mask nuts tend to be religious and social conservatives) used this slogan on purpose to call out what they view as the "hypocrisy" of the "leftists" who want to force them to wear a mask on their body whilst insisting on "my body, my choice" for reproductive freedom. It's obviously a stupid comparison, and the fact that the anti-mask people think that they're somehow being clever in invoking it only goes to illustrate how separated from reality they are.
Just a gentle reminder not to bring tangents about anti-maskers/anti vaxxers into this thread.
Thanks!
Louise
Epiphanies Host
Hosting off
By late I mean when there's
First of all, I completely empathise with the horror at the societal ableism at play here. I totally agree that the families of disabled children need support and information - but it's also important that they get support and information before birth, which isn't possible without screening. The test for Down's is in fact a general test that tests for a range of chromosonal abnormalities. All chromosonal abnormalities are screened for before birth.
While I empathise with and support greater representation of people with Down's, I also object to them being used by the forced-birth brigade to campaign for removing pregnant people's right to medical autonomy, while also voting for political parties and government policies that kill far more disabled people. Many disabled people themselves want and need abortions, yet we are infantilised in this way by being represented in the debate by angelic-looking children. I think churches in particular have a real blind spot with viewing disability as primarily something children have, and a stick to beat reproductive rights campaigners with. Being viewed as a weapon is dehumanising and ableist too.
Pregnant people deserve to know what is happening with their pregnancy, including whatever chromosonal abnormality the foetus may have. That is a basic part of prenatal healthcare. If said foetus happens to have Down's, it is utterly terrifying that because of that one reason someone may not be able to get an abortion they would otherwise be able to access. I am terrified of getting pregnant with a disabled foetus and being denied an abortion (because I would terminate *any* pregnancy) because the law has then since decided that a disabled foetus is more important than my actual disabled personhood and life. All pregnant people should be able to terminate their pregnancy, because forcing someone to give birth is a gross abuse of medical autonomy. That the foetus may be disabled doesn't take away that medical autonomy.
I appreciate the personal and difficult emotions involved here, and I am not trying to sound cold or impersonal - but I'm not joking when I say that I would rather end my life than continue a pregnancy, and yet it doesn't seem that this would matter at all if the foetus had Down's because their life trumps mine apparently. That other disabled people would be willing for that to happen, campaigning for it even, is frightening to me. Taking away my right to an abortion doesn't make society less ableist.
In practical terms, what does that part in bold mean? Who or what decides if a woman has done sufficient consideration or if she just casually dismissed the pregnancy?
(IME, women of reproductive age have generally done a huge amount of considering about abortion long before (even if never) actually choosing abortion. It was definitely on my radar when I was still a virginal teenager.)
I think you are severely misrepresenting their campaign here. As you know, in England and Wales, abortions are effectively permitted on demand up to a gestational age of 24 weeks. The campaign to which you refer doesn't have anything to say about that. If you don't want to be pregnant at all, then you can seek and obtain an abortion early in your pregnancy without difficulty. The large majority of UK abortions occur in the first trimester. Roughly one abortion in 1000 is currently performed after the 24 week limit, on grounds of significant foetal abnormality.
The campaign addresses the differential treatment of foetuses with Down Syndrome, or other abnormalities, vs "normal" foetuses. It takes issue with the fact that the law in England and Wales permits parents to terminate a late-term pregnancy because the child is disabled, in cases where it would not ordinarily permit parents to terminate a pregnancy.
There are no circumstances under which the campaign wishes to privilege a foetus with Down Syndrome or some other chromosomal abnormality over a normal foetus: what they seek is equal treatment.
I think we're dealing with rather different circumstances. I've no objection to screening to inform or prepare, but in the UK screening is encouraged with a presumption of termination, and there is a right in law to abort a foetus with an impairment at any stage, beyond the 24 week limit for "healthy" foetuses. I'm coming from somewhere Down's foetuses have less protection than others, not more, and I fear a not too distant future where people like me will be erased in the womb in a similar fashion. I do get that if I try to say I'm pro-choice but want informed choice I know that's likely to make you think of vaginal ultrasound bills and other such hideousness, but I do find myself torn between a commitment to bodily autonomy and a worry about eugenics by ignorance and fear.
Not comparing it to cataract removal, maybe? Just to take it seriously, with the full knowledge of what it is you’re destroying. Pomona mentioned turning off someone’s life support earlier, and to be honest if abortion was treated with the same respect and consideration as that decision is then I’d be happier. Nobody (that I’m aware of) tries to claim that people on life support don’t even count as human lives.
Respect and consideration are relative. I'm recalling the complete circus around Terri Schiavo, most of it instigated by America's professional pro-life* movement.
Part of the problem here is that it assumes that everyone who has ever dealt with the issue of artificial life support has always and in every instance treated it with "respect and consideration", rather than making the much more plausible assumption that humans can and do react to the same situation in a variety of different ways an that there's not one "right" emotional response.
*Offer expires at birth.
As I see it, the logic behind the "abortion is allowed up to a certain gestational age" position seems to tacitly recognize that the foetus becomes gradually closer to a "person" as it grows, and simultaneously as a pregnancy progresses through to the late stages, the imposition on the mother / parent to continue the pregnancy for the remainder of the term reduces.
Perhaps it's too simplistic to say that the law thinks that those things cross at the 24 week limit, but I think that kind of logic is effectively encoded in the law.
AIUI the thinking was that it was wrong to abort a pregnancy at a stage at which a child born then would normally be expected to live.
And the exception for fœtal deformities after that is typically in recognition that many such problems aren’t diagnosable earlier and can either pose danger to the mother, prevent post-birth viability, or both.
Right, but we don't offer people who decide at 24 or 25 weeks gestation that they don't want to be pregnant immediate elective birth, do we? Even though premature birth at that age is "normally survivable", unless you have complications that cause premature birth, you won't be giving birth until some approximation of "term". So the law effectively states that it's reasonable to force people whose pregnancies have progressed that far to continue to carry the child for an additional three months.
I have seen news reports of people celebrating executions outside prisons in the USA. Though I suppose if you see nothing wrong with executions in the first place, there's no logical reason not to celebrate one.
And given that I've also seen news reports from non-death penalty countries about vans transporting infamous killers to court being mobbed by angry demonstrators, I think it likely you'd see at least a few execution parties, in the event of those countries returning to the death penalty. At least in particularly notorious cases.
Orwell apparently found it shocking that people in England in the 1940s were calling for the execution of a woman. Even though the woman in question had been convicted of killing random passersby just for the lulz.
Though interesting, the execution/murder party tangent needs to go to its own thread or stop.
Thanks
Louise
Hosting off
But many don't. The use in the legislation of "seriously handicapped" has all kind of ableist assumptions about quality of life baked into it. I suspect if the exemption were removed the clauses protecting the physical and mental health of the mother would still suffice to allow terminations in the case of non-survivable or severely life-limiting abnormalities.
It also occurs to me that in some sense the discovery of an abnormality is not about the disabled foetus themselves but about the effect on the pregnant person, how able they feel to cope with supporting a disabled child and the sudden alteration of their "vision" of their child's life. That's a very personal thing and the mental health aspects are potentially severe. But so are the impacts on someone who built their plan for caring for their baby on the financial and practical support of a partner who has abandoned them or died close to the due date. Rather than making it about the status of the foetus I think either we accept a total right to choose, and accept the consequences in terms of a handful of awful cases, or we make it about the health of the mother. Either way, however, you end up placing a lot of power in the hands of medical staff - a right to a late termination is only a right if you have a medical team willing to carry it out. I'm also aware that, while UK laws currently facilitate abortions relatively easily, the same laws applied in, say, Texas or El Salvador would have very different outcomes.
Hoo, boy, yes I remember that one. Specifically the phrase "shuts that whole thing down", which I was able to google and thus correctly point the finger of opprobrium at that fine specimen of male humanity Todd Akin, former Rep for the Missouri 2nd and GOP senatorial candidate. Somewhat reassuringly he got his arse kicked in that election largely it seems as a result of that "insight".
Personally - and I've tried to avoid mentioning it in order to avoid controversy! - I would be in favour of removing the 24 week limit for all pregnancies, to bring other pregnancies into line with the laws regarding pregnancy with pregnancies involving disabled foetuses. I believe in making abortion available on demand because 1) forcing someone to give birth is wrong, even if the foetus is viable and 2) so few people have later term abortions anyway that it provides unnecessary legal complications for doctors.
For me the implications that disabled people who don't want the screening banned - because that's what Sally Philips et al are campaigning for - don't care about ableism or protecting disabled people is upsetting. We do care about that. But it's society that has made life as a disabled person or a parent caring for a disabled child far harder than it needs to be, and that has to be untangled in order to get rid of ableism. Why not campaign for better social welfare for parents of disabled children instead of focusing on taking away women's rights (and ofc trans men and others get abortions too, but women are the target) over their own bodies? Unfortunately the involvement of conservative Christians means I cannot trust that it's not simply trying to ban abortion via the back door. I may not like the idea of someone aborting just because the foetus has Down's, but it's not my body and not my decision to make, fundamentally. I believe that the only reason needed to have an abortion should be wanting one.
I am aware that my views are unpopular and also uncommon, which is why I find it disingenuous that @Marvin the Martian keeps coming back to the cataract comparison as if that's somehow a common comparison to make. It isn't. It's how I *personally* feel - I've already said that everyone views pregnancy differently. Most people who get abortions already have children and are not likely to view it as so uncomplicated an event. I appreciate that the comparison was upsetting for you Marvin, but it's just one person's view. I've never claimed that it's representative of all pro-choice people.
From the the gov.uk statistics, clause 4.12
I really appreciate your viewpoint Pomona and your clarification. It's important to get a good range of lived experience so I don't want to be off-putting at all but just a wee reminder that 'disingenuous' carries implications of posting in bad faith so it's not OK for anyone to say about anyone else's experience here - it would belong on a Hell thread as a personal insult.
If people keep coming back to things it can be because these things really bother them or exercise them and have pressed a button for them and upset them or made them see red.
And that also can get out of hand when something is said that is very unusual or different from the mainstream and leads to a lot of people getting their buttons pressed at the same time and dog-piling the person they deem to have mis-spoken and that is also a problem. So as you've explained the cataract reference as something personal to you I'm going to gently suggest that people move on from it.
Thanks very much!
Louise
Epiphanies Host
Hosting off
So here's a few of my stories...
In my professional life, I am a paediatric surgeon. We care for humans from birth to 16 years of age. And a particularly prominent part of our practice is premature babies. It is routine for me to be looking after babies born at 24 weeks gestation. Recently there has been a change of practice that means neonatologists will attempt perinatal resuscitation on 23 and 22 weekers. (This was rare previously). Thus, we are looking after more babies born even earlier.
Imagine for a moment if I - at the request of the parents - gave a lethal injection to such a baby. I would be charged with murder. At the same time, one of my gynaecological colleagues could be performing a surgical termination on another baby/foetus of the same gestation at the parent's request.
In 2006 a major report of ethics and decision-making with premature babies was published. This was called the Nuffield report. There was a submission to this report from the Royal College of Gyaenocology and Obstetrics that advocated a change in the law to allow euthanasia of babies up to a certain age so that parents could see what the exact nature of the congenital deformity was rather than having to rely on antenatal scans.
This is simply not true. Until a recent advance in technology, screening for Down's involved what was called the Triple Test (or variations on the theme). The triple part being a measure of Nuchal thickness on the 20 week scan, a series of maternal blood tests and maternal age. These three factors were then put into a calculator and a risk of Trisomy 21 was then calculated. If the risk for high enough (>1 in 200) then invasive testing in the form of amniocentesis / chorionic vilus sampling was offered. If you don't think this was a deliberate policy to screen-out Down's then you're not paying attention because the cost of this program (offered to every expectant mother) is huge. 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.
There are literally thousands of chromosomal abnormalities and the majority are not diagnosed antenatally. It is because of some observations made in the 1980s and some very meticulous science that a means of detected Down's specifically was developed and then widely used for three decades. Whether you like it or not, Down's syndrome has been singled out for special treatment as a matter of public policy.
I would also suggest that use of prejorative terms like 'forced-birther' on a thread like this is particularly unhelpful.
The UK law allows termination up to birth for 'serious disability.' The very first thread I ever commented on, on the Old Ship was a discussion around a case where a termination was carried out for an antenatal diagnosis of Cleft Lip. Just to be clear, whilst Cleft Lip is not a purely cosmetic condition, it is one that is 100% surgically correctable.
In my professional life, we provide antenatal counselling for a range of conditions that will require surgical treatment after birth. In each case, we aim to provide as much information as possible so the parents know what to expect. In some cases, such as congenital diaphragmatic hernias, the prognosis is often not known with any degree of certainty. In others, such as cystic fibrosis or gastroschisis for example, we do know. In each of these cases, the parents will be offered a termination either before or after meeting with a surgeon.
In a similar but different vein, as a medical student I attended an antenatal ultrasound list with a foetal medicine consultant. This is a list for re-screening by a specialist with the option of amniocentesis for pregnancies where the routine screening scan had detected an anomaly. One patient I vividly remember. The scan showed soft signs of chromosomal anomalies. I.e. The picture didn't fit with Down's or Edwards or Patau's for example but could be consistent with a congenital deformity. The woman in question opted for a an amniocentesis. Amnio carries around a 1% risk of causing a miscarriage and involves using USS to insert a needle in to the uterus to extract some amniotic fluid for analysis. Because of the miscarriage risk, amnio's are not offered to women unless they think they will opt for a termination if the test shows an abnormality. (For the record, the last time I checked the figure was about 80% who actually went on to have a termination after a positive test). The reason this story sits so strongly in my memory is because we watched on the screen as the needle was safely inserted and fluid was drawn. The foetus seemed on the screen to be interacting with this new thing in its environment and try to hold it with its little hands. Now I choose those words carefully to try to describe the reaction of this specific pregnant woman. She was interacting with the foetus inside her and bonding with it. Now, note here that she had made the provisional decision to have a termination but this foetus was clearly much more than a potential life to her in that moment.
Sorry, overly long post; more to follow....
AFZ
A long time ago now, someone I was very close to became pregnant after being raped. Now, she was someone who was very much against abortion. She felt strongly that it was a selfish choice. After discovering that she was pregnant she had three weeks of soul-searching before concluding that she would have a termination. That's not the end of the story but I will add here that being unable to reconcile her personal choice with what she believed to be right and wrong - even in such a desperate situation - was incredibly difficult for her.
I have so many, many thoughts about this Texas law. The vigilante part of it is particularly craven and evil. But here's a fact that I think is important. The law as written will probably lead to more abortions.
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. To this bill specifically: There are a lot of people who find themselves pregnant when they did not plan to be so. Some will be immediately happy, some will seek a termination. Many will not know what they want to do. So here's the thing; under Roe vs Wade from finding out that you are pregnant, you have up to 2 months to make a decision. (Most women find out at about 5-6 weeks and the Constitutional position grants the right in the first trimester). Many women contemplate an abortion but after thinking about it decide to continue with the pregnancy. Now Imagine you have to decide in less than a week or lose the option...
Anyway these are some of the stories that shape my feelings
AFZ
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.