Mum sentenced to 28 months in prison for abortion pills

[mumoftwobarnyboys]

Used after the cut off point of 10 weeks.

Regardless of how far gone she was, surely this isn't right?

It is her body, despite me morally really thinking what she did was very wrong.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/12/woman-in-uk-jailed-for-28-months-over-taking-abortion-pills-after-legal-time-limit?CMP=twtgu&utmmsource=Twitter&utmmedium=&s=08#Echobox=1686577294

Ok, I've got a question for you.

Say there is a drug which is safe for an adult to take, but lethal for babies, and is transmitted in breastmilk to the extent that it would kill the baby.

Mum knows this, takes the drug knowing it will kill the baby, and then breastfeeds her child. Child dies.

Should she be liable for murder? If someone can do whatever they please with their own body, then does that extent do deliberately poisoning her baby? Does that freedom to do what you want with your body extend to the freedom to hit and punch? Or do you accept that actually you don't have compete freedom to do what you want with your own body, especially when it harms someone else?

Ah, you say, but an unborn baby isn't a person. It's not a legal person, it can't bring legal action, it can't own property etc, but after 28w, legally it has enough 'personhood' that deliberately killing it is (with very limited exceptions) an offence akon to murder in seriousness.

You also are not considering that although morally the woman may have the right to end the pregnancy, she should not have the right to decide what happens to someone else's body, and to choose to kill it, when if born it would survive at that stage.

And I would argue that child destruction at the hands of the man is also not comparable. That is the harm to somebody else. That is the fundamental difference.

but this is harm to somebody else. The mother, harming her baby. At that age, the baby is a separate person, who is living, and can live outside. That is the fundamental concept you seem to differ in your opinion.

Reading now that she posted “no one has the right to judge you” on Facebook the night before her sentencing.
Mr justice pepperall begs to differ, madam.
Always a shame when people have to be taught life’s realities the hard way.

No. You misunderstand the law.

The mother is not the victim for 'child destruction' the child is. It's not about loss to the mother, harm to the mother, assault on the mother. It's about causing the death of a viable child. It's all about the baby. Hence why the mother can be prosecuted for it as well.

You may not see the mother and baby as seperate (though I'm not sure then why you think men should be convicted of it...) but the law does.

The man is usually prosecuted for he assault on the mother as well, but they are seperate, because the harm is against seperate people.

Presumably you don't think there should be any seperate offence for a man killing an unborn baby either? It can be all wrapped up in the assault on the woman surely if the baby isnt a seperate entity?

It is not a separate person until it is born. That is the difference. It is about having autonomy for your own body. End of story. When a man beats up a pregnant woman he is beating up both the mother and the unborn child. Neither of which are a part of him. He does not get to make that decision.

The breast milk example is just ridiculous. Clutching at straws.

Its the same reason that women are allowed to make the choice to have an abortion and men are not. It is not the mans choice to make. Therefore child destruction at the hands of a man or anyone that isn't the mother is a completely separate thing and should be prosecutable for.

PP said:

”Once a child is born they are a person in their own right. Until then they are just an extension of the mother and the mother should be able do to her own body whatever she pleases or where does it stop? Are we going to start arresting pregnant women that are having a few glasses of prosseco!”

There is a misunderstanding of the law here. A foetus at a certain point is not just an extension of the mother under the existing law. That seems right to me once it has developed beyond 24 weeks. Goodness when I was in my third trimester I was very aware that I had a little person inside of me and of my obligations to protect her. It would be horrific if any harm could be inflicted on an unborn foetus by its mother right up until the point of birth without any responsibility for that. Killing a 34 week foetus was at the extreme end but I expect the mother would also have been prosecuted if her baby survived the drugs with severe disabilities.

She knew what she was doing was illegal, she knew she obtained the pills by deception and after four children, she knew that that baby could survive without her. She absolutely deserves the sentence she got. We don’t get to pick and choose which laws we abide by.

It is not a separate person until it is born. That is the difference. It is about having autonomy for your own body. End of story.

It is a separate person when the nervous system develops and that is why there is a legal limit to abortion. End of story. We disagree.

I think most people would never think it is right to kill a baby at 40 weeks. A human’s development and birth is not a binary concept. What exactly is the scope of your view? How about when the woman is literally giving birth but the head is not out yet? Is that ok? How about when you are on your way to the hospital? Head out, not the feet? How about the day before? Is that ok? 39 weeks? 38 weeks? Is that ok for you?

I think that it is correct she is being prosecuted and jailed.

Being able to prescribe pills over the phone for early abortions that was brought in during COVID is such a positive and helpful step forward for so many women. Abusing the system by lying she was under 10weeks when she was well over could put that in jeopardy if more women did it.

Actions like this could potentially affect the abortion rights of many other women.

I also hate the need to make abortion into a black and white issue of you are either completely pro choice or completely anti abortion. It is far more sensible to accept it isn't as clear cut as that. It is possible, and fairly common I would guess, to be supportive of abortions up to a certain gestation, have a grey area and be anti them above another gestation. Also to waiver those opinions when there are other factors involved such as severe disabilities, rape etc

Three children.

Betsy you could also ask where do you draw the line regarding prosecution. What about smokers, drug takers. A glass or two of wine ok ? but if someone goes on a binge and loses the baby should they be prosecuted? What if they do a reckless sport? Stop trying to find extreme examples to fit your argument.

I'm appalled, like many, at what she did. But why is she named, shamed, punished and publicly humiliated and the people who supplied her get off scot free? They must know the postal service could be abused, that some people aren't mentally capable to take decisions, that people can be coerced. I agree she must take responsibility for her actions, but what about the supplier?

@Nutellaonall

But she did and does have autonomy over her body. She has the autonomy not to have sex with somebody she doesn’t want to have a child with. Failing that, if she chooses to have sex With somebody she doesn’t want to have a child with, she has birth control. If birth control fails, she has emergency birth control and if it all that fails, she has the right to an abortion for 5 months. She had several safety nets that she chose not to utilise. She then made the decision to end a life that otherwise would have survived by means of deception. She is accountable for a crime. This did not need to happen.

Betsy you could also ask where do you draw the line regarding prosecution. What about smokers, drug takers. A glass or two of wine ok ? but if someone goes on a binge and loses the baby should they be prosecuted? What if they do a reckless sport? Stop trying to find extreme examples to fit your argument.

Nutella, I am not the extreme one here, but your views seem to be. Like what @Hmmph just said, I take a considerate, case based view on these things, and do not have a black and white view. She said: I also hate the need to make abortion into a black and white issue of you are either completely pro choice or completely anti abortion. It is far more sensible to accept it isn't as clear cut as that. It is possible, and fairly common I would guess, to be supportive of abortions up to a certain gestation, have a grey area and be anti them above another gestation. Also to waiver those opinions when there are other factors involved such as severe disabilities, rape etc I feel the same.

Wine is ok for me. Drugs etc, of course terrible, but that’s not murder. Murdering a 34 week old baby isn’t ok for me. Totally different things. I dont understand your arguments.

Maybe you should reply my question about whether killing the baby when head out feet in. Or not out yet but at 40 weeks? Or coming out, on the way to the hospital. Or 39 weeks? 38 weeks? Where do you draw the line here?

She is named because few criminal trials come with anonymity. I don’t know if her lawyer tried for it.

The supplier was BPAS, I believe. Like all telemedicine, the treatment must rely on the person’s answers, as a physical examination is not possible.

To @user9630721458

What if the woman asked the man to do it to induce an abortion?

The supplier who didn’t break any laws, you mean? What do you think the courts can do with people who haven’t broken the law?

@user9630721458

Because she is the one who commited the crime, the supplier did not.

I can’t understand why people are trying to remove accountability from somebody who did such a thing and willingly?

should have been murder

this was a baby not an embryo

at 34 weeks that baby is viable

@SheilaFentiman Did papers need to print her photo and give her name? Maybe it's usual. I consider it thoughtless to prescribe these pills to women without seeing them. Imagine if an abusive partner forces a woman to take them, imagine they are used to secretly cause an abortion in someone else. There's all sorts that could go wrong, as this tragic case shows. They should be also held accountable.

If you cannot perceive the difference between the sort of actions you describe and deliberately taking drugs with intent to kills nearly full term foetus then really, god help you (and all who come into contact with you).

Because women are babies, with no developed moral faculties and incapable of being accountable for our own actions.
Apparently.

Would it have been better to have had no viable way for many women to get abortions during covid and thousands of unwanted pregnancies and babies? The supplier was providing a necessary service during a really difficult time