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

*lied

For all those saying she decided to kill the nearly term foetus before giving birth to it because of mental health reasons and this should thus mean she does not face charges: had she not taken the pills knowing she was at this point carrying a child that was able to survive, she would likely have birthed a live baby (instead of birthing a dead one - this is not ‘abortion’ in the sense of bleeding heavily). If she did not want to have another child/felt unable to have another child at this point in her pregnancy then birthing her child alive would have allowed said baby to be adopted and live out its life.
So yes, her mental health must have been impacted before her decision and certainly after. But would you also argue that eg a father struggling anxiety who is struggling say three weeks later with a term baby at home who shakes said baby in a moment of feeling extremely overwhelmed ending this child’s life, should not face any legal consequences?

How is that a fact?

It's like saying a dandelion is a weed is a fact. It's not. It's a classification some people use, but it's not objectively true.

There is no metaphysical difference between a fetus and a born child of the same age/gestation. The only difference is one breathes through their lungs and the other a cord.

It seems to me (from the judge's comments) that she had to move in with her ex once lockdown began and that's what instigated her wanting an abortion as the child she was pregnant with was not ex's. That sounds like a very vulnerable situation to me.

I'm fully pro choice (in fact I have become more so since actually going through pregnancy) and think it's abhorrent what has happened

@RoseBucket
She tbh sounds completely irresponsible, multiple
pregnancies, adoption, in care, 'body never recovered' is that another miscarried baby? Has she not heard of contraception? especially if juggling 3 men 🤷🏼‍♀️
She cannot be absolved of responsibility here, she knew what she was doing.

I wonder how an 'autopsy proved the truth'. The abortion pills, misoprostol and mifepristone, aren't detectable on any drugs testing

(Ex sexual health nurse who's worked for a British pregnancy service)

But would you also argue that eg a father struggling anxiety who is struggling say three weeks later with a term baby at home who shakes said baby in a moment of feeling extremely overwhelmed ending this child’s life, should not face any legal consequences

That baby has been born, and that would be murder, so of course he should face legal consequences.

In this situation, she was pregnant, clearly vulnerable, her life sounds utterly chaotic, and she made a stupid decision about her health and pregnancy, which led to a heartbreaking outcome for all concerned. Her choosing a late term abortion by herself over having keeping a baby says a lot, and it's not a choice anyone in a good place would make.

The two aren't comparible at all.

32-34 weeks is usually fully viable. She killed an unborn baby, she didn't just get rid of a fertilised egg. At what point do we accept it isn't 'her body' anymore? When the baby graduates?

The agreed legal point is when the baby is born. Then it's not her body. The laws around abortion and the law about child destruction are not about the rights of the foetus they are very much more about controlling the reproductive capabilities of women.

Lockdown was not the excuse - she had plenty of time before the pandemic began to have procured an entirely legal TOP.

Rather it was the opportunity for he to acquire abortifacient drugs by deception and use them well beyond the legal limits. 32+ weeks gestation isn't a near miss by any stretch.

At what point do you draw the line between abortion and murder? Is it not a baby in your eyes until it's actually born? You think it's ok to terminate a full term pregnancy? What about one that's been born for 10 seconds?

At birth.

There has to be a legal point at which personhood begins. Birth is the agreed point, legally and for many people morally too. No one thinks it's ok for a a full or late term pregnancy to be terminated. It is vanishingly rare in the UK and is almost always for medical health reasons for the mother or severe issues with the foetus.

Having severe criminal punishments for women who do end up in this circumstance won't prevent it happening again. It'll just make women who do end up in that desperate situation even less likely to access any healthcare support of any kind.

The abortion pills, misoprostol and mifepristone, aren't detectable on any drugs testing

They must be. Otherwise the autopsy wouldn't have found them.

Why? Why stop there? If we're okay with killing a perfectly healthy baby who just hasn't made it out of the birth canal yet, why not set the limit at 15 years of age?

You think it's ok to terminate a full term pregnancy? What about one that's been born for 10 seconds?

The answer will probably be: the law says that it's murder to kill a newborn.

Yet when the law of 24 weeks is exercised like in this case, suddenly the law is wrong and we should ignore it.

Greta question though, because there really is no difference besides 'the law says one is murder'.

In that case the what's the point in improving neonatal and antenatal care? They're not babies anyway. What's the point. It seems we're only allowed to be sad over miscarriages.
I fully support abortions, but there has to be a limit. We've gone mad with the idea that a foetus isn't a human until it's born.

@Foxesandsquirrels are you being deliberately obtuse? The point is because that pregnancy will go on to be a child and then an adult, which is negatively impacted when there is poor maternity care and neonatal support, obviously.

The difference is quite clearly because in one situation the baby is within another human being, and in the other, they aren't. If you start to suggest that an unborn baby has full human rights then you will end up in very tricky situations where the apparent rights of the unborn baby are in conflict with the mother.

You think there's no point improving neonatal care because a tiny percentage of women want a late term abortion?

Because a 15 year old has been born and lived for 15 years... do you really need that explained 🙄

Which is why this is a huge deal and the whole thing needs changing. Because it's a slippery slope and people forget this case has the power to get in the way of basic stuff like very early medical abortion. It fucks that up too if we're not careful so I'd always say - not my body, not my choice. As early as possible, as late as necessary

Personal emotions regarding pregnancy should never come into this

But it seems people think 'life against all odds' is better than actual quality of life and decisions for someone who has to actually carry the pregnancy

Two doctors signing it off protects the dr and the patient. Otherwise a dr could give a woman abortion tablets she hasn't asked for and or a women could accuse a dr of giving abortion pills that where not asked for.

You are wrong @mumoftwobarnyboys, it is not fact. In this case, and in law, it was a child. The woman was in court charged with "Destruction of a Child".

And for those saying a prison sentence is wrong, I'd urge you to read the judge's comments posted in the fourth comment. Had the woman admitted what she'd done and pleaded guilty the prison sentence wouldn't have been applied, but she chose to plead not guilty.

I'm struggling to feel sympathy for her, hearing how she looked into abortion over several months but didn't pursue it, then lied in order to go ahead with it at a very late stage, then lied again when paramedics attended claiming she was not pregnant.

She was not on trial for being irresponsible. Snitty judgements about how she lived prior to conviction of the offence are not relevant.