First of all I want to see this supposed "Evidence" these doctor fucks have that this woman would suffer more from giving birth than having an abortion. Has she given birth before? Has she had an abortion before? Because if the answer is "NO" to either of them, they're making bullshit assumptions because they just don't want to have to deal with a tard having a baby.
Psychiatrists aren't magicians. They can't peep into a person's mind's-eye and predict exactly what they're going to do or how they would react to certain stressors, and they fuck up nigh-constantly, especially with older special needs people (16+ years). We all know the story of that one psychopath who did that "guided communication" thing with some tard and ended up raping him.
This is basically the same thing. Making assumptions on behalf of people they feel they have control of, and they feel they have authority over, because "well, I'm his/her DOCTOR, so OF COURSE I know what's more or less stressful and what he/she wants". The truth is they don't. They have somewhat educated guesses, and most of the time, these fuck up really badly and have to be reconsidered on the spot for the wellbeing of the person. And about the definition of "wellbeing" being cared for by a doctor...
These egomaniacs of "doctors" have to learn that, when it comes to the wellbeing of special needs people with little or no chance for recovery, or people with outright brain deformations, they're not there to morally bastion them through life like they're Moses bringing the poor slaves and Jews through the Red Sea and leading them to Paradise. They're there to make sure the tard doesn't seriously hurt themselves or someone else. PERIOD. That's all that it means to make decisions for another, mentally challenged human being. To let them do what they want as safely as possible insofar that they make their own decisions, and then let them the fuck alone.
Although it's never really thought of or brought up, this is probably why things like the Hartley Hooligans disturb and rile up such immense discomfort and hate. Because their crazy bitch of a mother is doing this exact same thing: going, "Oh, I KNOW my GIRLS, and they LOOOVE nailpolish", when really they don't love anything and she's just making wild assumptions based on 10% "evidence" and 90% her own observations, that become more and more warped and egocentric over time. Eventually her little pet theories about what her girls "personalities" became self-proving as she could just go "well she's been like this for her WHOOOLE life, I would know, I'm her mother!" Every single person with munchausen's or munchausen's by proxy does the exact same thing. They just have to find an "accredited doctor" who believes the same fallacy.
Or, in this case, the doctor has to find the "judge" who believes the same fallacy.
This is probably why this case only came about 20-some weeks into the pregnancy. The girl is raped (either raped wholly nonconsensually, or goes and has sex with a man despite her mental deficiencies), the staff find out, and they don't know what to do. A tard can't have a baby! But none of the staff have ever actually had to deal with a tard having a baby and wanting to KEEP it. All the stories and all the things they've heard have probably either been about rape where the special needs person and their family didn't want the baby, so it's smoothly aborted, or cases of a special needs person desperately wanting a baby but not being allowed to by medical staff and usually given some kind of doll instead. And so in their heads, the idea of a tard actually managing to have a baby is an automatic loss condition.
And so they start "collating evidence". They start interpretting any slightly weird things that she does even vaguely related to babies or pregnancy as "proof" that she wouldn't be able to take care of the child, so it should be aborted!
Grandmother steps in. She agrees her daughter isn't fit to care for a baby. Then the midwife, childrearer grandmother, says "no, it's alright. I would care for the baby".
But at this point, the doctors have dug themselves neck-deep into this idea that the woman coming to term would be unacceptable and inhumane no matter what; they can't have this proven wrong, or else all this evidence was pointless, and their intuitions as doctors are all wrong. So they shift it. They start reinterpretting.
"Oh, did we say she wouldn't be able to care for the baby? Well, that's true! But also, she couldn't... give birth! Yeah, that's right. She can't give birth. See? Isn't she just so exceptional that giving birth and having her baby go safely into the arms of her mother would be TORTUROUS and would lead her into PSYCHOSIS? Well, I would know, I'm her doctor!
So it's definitely just easier--uh, I mean, healthier--to force her to have an abortion. That would definitely be significantly less damaging, after all, none of my "evidence" says that she would have equal if not more psychological trauma from getting an abortion. Aren't I right, Judge?"
The truth is that they don't have evidence that the woman would be severely damaged emotionally or psychologically by giving birth; they just don't have evidence that it wouldn't turn out badly, and all of their predisposed bias about this is that tards having kids is a horrible, horrible thing to completely avoid at all costs, no matter the cost. Even if that cost is what little human agency this poor woman has.
A couple more things. So how exceptional is "medium severe"? Is that like fucking medium rare steak or something? Putting "severe" in there sure does make it sound better that they want to rip from her hands any kind of human bodily liberty that she still has, in order to make her a complete slave to The State.
It's very easy for people to fall into the slippery slope of "how special is too special". For example, most people with cerebral palsy are totally capable of simple jobs, and can have normal yet unfulfilling lives, but it's a common assumption to think that they're all 10 IQ diaper-shitting maniacs who regularly accidentally kill cats by strangulation trying to hug them. They're preying on this idea that all mentally delayed people are completely incapable of critical bodily autonomy, regardless of the level of their illness, in order to medically assault someone with the court's stamp of approval.
For all we know, this woman is just your average smoothbrain with a fucked up face who rings people up at Tesco, just as well she could be some bed-ridden microcephalic with no legs who screams and babbles like a baby. Afterall, the judge won't release her identity. Convenient, huh?
Also, love that the judge dismisses the baby as "not real". Saying that, if the woman actually delivers the baby, it will "become real" to her, as if she doesn't consider herself to be carrying, you know, a human child. Very blatantly this judge is projecting her fucky legalese ideas of what constitutes as a "real" baby onto this mentally challenged woman with nowhere near the same concept of what "makes a human" as some dumbshit liberal abortionist judge.
I love abortion, I think abortions should be allowed and encouraged in cases where the child couldn't have a guarenteed quality of life, but holy fuck. Accepting that a foetus isn't the same as a living human child is a difficult thing philosophically and intellectually. It's ingrained in human nature to protect a pregnant woman and her unborn child as if the baby were a living, breathing human, because if we didn't do that, our species would be extinct. You have to set aside or completely give up a piece of your inherent biological coding as a human being and think solely intellectually, with no feelings whatsoever involved, in order to see that your emotional, very human interpretation of a foetus isn't the same as what it physically constitutes and what really gives a human life indiscretionable value. But it's a worthwhile philosophy to consider, no matter how difficult it might be to grapple with, no matter what side of the fence you come out on, in a world where there's already 7 billion people, and so many children already who don't have parents.
PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT ISN'T SOMETHING SOMEONE WITH AN INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY CAN REALLY GRAPPLE WITH.
Pretty sure that woman sees her pregnancy as A HUMAN BABY that SHE'S CARRYING. Pretty sure some doctors leading her into a room, shoving scary tools that she doesn't recognize up her genitals, and taking out THUS KILLING HER BABY would fuck her up A LOT more than having her baby, and just not being able to see it too much. It would take a very, very extreme level of disability for me to genuinely buy that this woman would be viciously, irreperably traumatized, and completely psychologically ruined, by the very thing that human bodies and minds are physiologically designed to do: having children.
) that I don't support this whatsoever. But they kind of do have evidence if the story is correct. They say the girl has a mood disorder, up to 54% of women who have postpartum psychiatric issues have some form of a mood disorder. Postpartum psychosis in particular is often seen in new mothers with mood disorders, they didn't just pull that out of their ass. Is that justification to order this woman to have an abortion? in my opinion, no but it seems like this needed some context.
