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

@Foxesandsquirrels I agree, and I think that the drive to make abortion easier to access coincides with a lack of oversight and care. That does not absolve the woman charged, but I think it's worth considering that, if she had been seen by a caring doctor, given thorough counselling, maybe this would never have happened.

The pills don't work when the women is in the second trimester?

@Foxesandsquirrels

Yh and I think belittling an abortion is largely at fault. I think we've been really screwed over by this type of wording. It's given health services an excuse to not give further care and actually it's really not safe. A lot of women struggle to conceive post abortion NO THEY DONT. IT DOESN'T AFFECT FERTILITY. MANY WOMEN HAVE MULTIPLE TERMINATIONS The psychological effects are long lasting for many women and this isn't just because abortions are shamed by some. I don't think reducing a pregnancy to 'a clump of cells' is really very helpful when someone is making this difficult decision. VERY TRUE THEY ARE PREVENTING LIFE. ABORTION AT 9 V 29 WEEKS IS THE SAME IN MY BOOK, LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION. Women aren't idiots, they know this 'clump of cells' is gong to grow into a proper baby, that's why they've made the choice they have. There is no shame in that choice but there is also absolutely no support after. VERY TRUE
I think there needs to be far more support for women in general tbh but this won't happen, because as soon as I say the above, an army of women will attack me and say I'm not pro life, that it is just a clump of cells. ITS DISGUSTING AND I ALWAYS SAY IF ITS JUST A CLUMP OF CELLS THAN GIVE THE FATHET THE OPTION TO ABORT - THEIR TUNE CHANGES. The amount of people defending this woman on here is astounding. The baby could've easily survived and been very disabled THE PILLS WOULDN'T HAVE DONE ANYTHING. THE WOMEN NEEDED SUPPORT BEFORE AND AFTER.

Why counselling would she be given? Other than you have to have the child and give birth to it.... either keep it or adopt?

We don't know her story, she could have a lot of circumstances but let's not suggest people actually would support her to have a child

What I think people fail to realise is this brazen approach to abortions also makes it seem like women are just these holding vessels for these babies. Our bodies are complex and whilst we deserve the right to choose whether we'd like to keep a baby or not, we also deserve for it to be treated like the serious medical procedure it is. I don't for one second believe men would get this level of healthcare. Whilst easy access to abortions is great, and I do think we've shot ourselves in the foot with this whole clump of cells rhetoric.

@anallaise I'd like to think a good counsellor would be able to dissuade her from desperate actions, and explore whatever motivations she had. Maybe even alert authorities if the woman seemed like a danger to herself or others. Perhaps suggest a legal late termination if they suspected a grave and permanent risk to mother or child. That kind of thing.

@anallaise With all due respect, lots of women struggle with fertility after having abortions. Bodies are complex and there's no where near enough research into women's health. The only thing that seems to have money thrown at it is breast cancer. I wonder if that's because men are obsessed with boobs.

@Foxesandsquirrels I expect some of it is about being cost effective, as abortion services are charities. I do agree with you though, that there is a language around abortion that trivialises it to the level of a consumer health product, like colonic irrigation or something. Maybe capitalism is to blame.

She was 32-34 weeks if she gave birth at that stage then smothered the child would you have the same opinion? She lied went against medical advice it's murder.

Even if it means murdering a baby that may have survived?

It's not murder if the baby isn't classed as a life.

Most mothers would call their fetus “ A life”, especially when “ Quickening” occurs and the fetus is felt moving around.

A baby at 30 plus weeks is definitely a life, and that’s a reason there are time limits on abortion.

Late state abortion is pretty grim ( Programme followed medical students in U.K. and they has to watch a late stage abortion- it sounded horrendous by description of commentator- their student’s faces looked traumatised.

If someone doesn’t want a baby, an early termination is by far preferable.

Many people are not “ Pro choice” for late abortion- It’s grim and inhumane.

It's not murder if the baby isn't classed as a life.

Not a legal person but it's objectively a life as it has life processes.

I posted on this thread last night but my thoughts have evolved- mainly due to Shelagh Fogarty's phone in on LBC this afternoon, well worth a listen on catch up- so wanted to add something else.

I think that the way that Carla Foster was thinking about and googling her pregnancy was less like someone premeditating a crime and more like someone finding a lump in their breast that they're worried is cancer but can't face seeing a doctor about. She knew it was a problem, she knew there was going to be an awful outcome (for her, obviously a baby can be a blessing but not if you don't want it for whatever reason) and she knew it wasn't going away, but she couldn't face properly dealing with it and then by the time it was totally necessary to do something, lockdown happened and other mechanisms that might have picked up her mental state/concealing a pregnancy/whatever other problems she had weren't happening and therefore there was no intervention.

I think that to Foster the pregnancy was like a growing cancer or potentially fatal illness that she was ignoring. I believe that her actions were as desperate and mad as somebody drinking battery acid to cure AIDS because they heard a mad rumour that it worked. The way she behaved was irrational and mad and she did lie to get those pills, but I suspect that she was so far gone mentally speaking that she didn't think that she had a choice.

I don't believe that it was It like murdering a child, it didn't come from the same place as doing that and didn't involve the same heartlessness as strangling a baby or poisoning a baby. It was about ending the pregnancy, not the baby. Even to those of us who most want a baby, pregnancy is pretty abstract, even when we've previously had a baby. I never thought of my babies as real people until they were born and in my arms. And by his sounds of it, the reality of that dead baby hit her hard once she gave birth to it (judges remarks talk about her being haunted by the baby's face).

Full disclosure, although I don't think I'm that unusual in this; I do believe in abortion on demand and probably in later term abortion as a choice if necessary (I am conflicted about this with the advances in neonatal technology, but with that aside I do generally think women should be allowed to abort whenever they feel they need to for whatever reason).

I think that to Foster the pregnancy was like a growing cancer or potentially fatal illness that she was ignoring.

I could believe that if she was a teenager. Not of a mother of 3 in her 40s.

It absolutely does not set a precedent. No new law has been made here. Existing law has been applied.
BPAS behaviour is extremely confused. As the judge pointed out, if they do not like the existing law, they need to petition the legislature, not attempt improperly to influence the sentencing judge.
I remain suspicious that they are making this noise to distract from their role in promoting pills by post.

I'm just going to say one more thing
Lily , her name was Lily , she was not an it , a foetus , a mere addendum to her mother.
She was a daughter , a sister , a grandchild .
Her family (possibly her mother ) gave her a name and we should give her the dignity in death she didn't have in life and , at least , call her by her name when discussing the circumstances of her death.

Not a legal precedent, simple a principle in this case.

You can be suspicious as you like about pills in the post - it’s such obvious nonsense.

BPAS has been vocal in this case as they can see it will deter women from being honest, it will damage services and may potentially lead to suicides.

I’ve only just stumbled across this thread and I had no idea that this has been going on in the news.

I feel so conflicted.

I have tried Googling about the story but all I can find is information about the trial, not about what she did, what happened to Lily or why she did it etc so I can’t really create an informed opinion.

I’m guessing the medication the mother took ends the life of a baby whatever their gestation is, but that it’s only safe to use under 10 weeks because that’s the gestation where medical intervention isn’t required and the tablets alone will perform the abortion?

So did the mum then go on to give birth in a hospital and Lily was born dead and the midwives/doctors assumed she was simply still born but an autopsy showed differently?

Exactly, though even so it's still fucked up.

I was pregnant as a teenager through non-consensual sex, and had a family who forbade abortion and barely let me go out. I know the feeling of just wanting it to go away, but knowing the fetus gets bigger everyday and you can't escape.

Even then, I can't imagine killing a nearly full term baby. And this woman was a grown adult mother who had options. She presumably had access to contraception plus abortion for 24 weeks, plus adoption as a last resort to not be a parent.

Not ok.

How could she not have been in a panic?! And if she was so blasé about it all, why didn't she just sort out an abortion earlier in the gestation and when it would have been easier and less painful for her? Makes no sense.

But @FlippyFloppyFlappy we know nothing about this woman's intellectual abilities, or anything. She might be intellectually impaired for all we know, or hugely immature or even have special needs. We've got no idea. She may well think like a 16yr old for all we know.

@IJustHadToLookHavingReadTheBook

If she had an intellectual impairment then it would have been raised in her defence and addressed in the judgement.

Exactly. People are basically making stuff up.

What principle has been set? The principle that prosecutors and judges should apply the law? That’s not new, thankfully.