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

But abortion isnt permitted past 24 weeks.

Yes, hence the 24 week rule which is to do with viability. After that point there is a distinction as it can survive, which is what is so controversial about this case. I’m more than happy that the 24 week rule is right because of this.

The question which is key here is why the mother let her pregnancy get to this late stage. The rest is completely irrelevant.

And I completely agree with that.

I was just responding to another poster who was asking about the differentiation between a foetus and a baby.

I think 24 weeks is also quite late on unless there is risk to the mother or severe disability in the baby.

I had a termination when I younger when I was 10 weeks along and I still have moments of guilt even now.

That’s not to say I judge other women who have early terminations, I believe a woman does have the right to choose in those early months, I just mean that I can’t understand how anyone can think it’s ok to abort a baby at such a late stage as this woman did.

From a medical standpoint it's not about semantics of "fetus" or "baby". We talk about monitoring the fetal heart rate during labour, but we're all expecting a live baby at the end.

It's about age of viability. 24 weeks is generally stated to be that. That's when the chances of survival after birth are deemed hopeful (still small, but hopeful).
Even then it depends on health of pregnancy thus far, clarification of EDD, birth weight, risk of infection if the membranes have ruptured, has the mother had steroid injections to mature the lungs (& when were they given ie., will they have been given long enough to be effective), mode of delivery, access to high level advanced life support. That's why gestations of 23 weeks (under certain circumstances) may be considered for resuscitation, but expectations are then very low.

It is, if there is severe fetal abnormality.

I've always taken the "late as necessary" to mean that. Because some abnormalities can't be detected until just over 20 weeks, and to allow for confirmation of diagnosis, and for the mother/parents to decide what they feel is best. That can often take it to over 24 weeks, but the legal exemption does allow for "late terminations" ie over 24 weeks in those rare cases.

I've never thought "as late as necessary" was for "just don't want to have a baby anymore" decisions. That's what the 1st 24 weeks are for.

@MrsFinkelstein I have the same understanding as you.

As I mentioned down the thread I was offered a TFMR after a finding on the 20 week scan. They tried to speed up testing so if I did go through with the abortion we were still within 24 weeks. As it happens I chose not to terminate - though legally I still could up until birth.

As late as necessary is taking advantage of women who need a termination late because they've discovered their child is very unwell.

I can't stand hearing that mantra, "Her body, her choice." It's basically just excusing a despicable act because the so calked "mother" couldn't be bothered dealing with her unwanted pregnancy until it was too late. If this woman in particular was so careful about her choices and her bodily autonomy she might have started out better by not having sex with multiple partners to the point that she didn't know who the father was of that poor baby, the reason she wanted rid but y'know, her body, her choice to kill an almost at term baby so it's fine....

What about the baby's body? You said your cut off is when baby is out of the body. So an hour earlier, fully viable, human, sentient, able to feel pain, it's ok to dismember, inject lethally to kill, sorry "terminate"? Go under a torturous death, cos let's face it, no one knows what lethal injection feels like, an innocent being who didn't ask for any of this. Why? She has no right, her faith is to be decided by a person who simply not only not want her, but doesn't want her to live, when she could be born, and adopted?

You keep saying you don't believe people would terminate late, this case is an example. You keep saying you don't believe women won't terminate cos of gender, take a look at China one child policy and the current sex ratios.

@Bananananananananana

IFrom a biological point of view that is correct but can you see how looking at equivalence of a foetus being in and out of utero if applied to earlier gestational ages throws the whole abortion debate into open discussion?

There are arguments that at the latest legally allowable abortion dates a foetus may be viable i.e. an extremely premature baby.

At these earlier gestational ages I think there are important distinctions between foetus and baby.

TheOnlyLivingBoyInNewCross · 12/06/2023 17:46
Clymene · 12/06/2023 17:39

If you're judging a woman for having an abortion at any time for any reason, you're not fully pro choice.

“Happy not to be fully pro-choice if the alternative is being ok with the aborting of a baby at 32-34 weeks’ gestation.”

This.

Bbq1 · Today 10:25
I can't stand hearing that mantra, "Her body, her choice." It's basically just excusing a despicable act because the so calked "mother" couldn't be bothered dealing with her unwanted pregnancy until it was too late. If this woman in particular was so careful about her choices and her bodily autonomy she might have started out better by not having sex with multiple partners to the point that she didn't know who the father was of that poor baby, the reason she wanted rid but y'know, her body, her choice to kill an almost at term baby so it's fine....”

And this.

The debate around this is really sad. A black and white view of late stage abortion is not helpful, whatever side of the argument you're on. The idea that a baby is not a baby until it's outside of the womb is so dehumanising and I believe fuels arguments for the extreme anti abortion groups. It also belittles the suffering of many women who suffered horrific miscarriages. Likewise, it is quite depressing how much of our body autonomy is in the control of laws.
I always liked the saying, the more laws a country requires, the more broken it is. I think not just the UK, but much of the world has lost any moral compass it had.

But foxes, I'm not black and white at all. There's a legal limit which is there for a reason. Beyond a certain time the baby feels, and is viable. Meaning it's own person. Imo at that point the baby has autonomy too, but it is helpless. That's why the law is there to protect the baby. Clearly its not just me thinking in this way, hence the law. I feel advocates of feel free to kill upto exiting the birth canal, even if nothing is wrong with the baby, are extreme ones instead. How is it that a baby, in 5 minutes before and after exit magically becomes a real person according to this opinion? Isn't that black and white? I'm leaving grey areas for health reasons,I'm not advocating puritan living here. but simply not wanting a baby to live, and be adopted, and resorting to lethal injection or dismemberment to kill that baby up to 5 mins before being born, that for me is not right at all, and she should go to prison. I don't think this is an extreme view at all.

I'm not saying I don't agree with you, I think what I wrote makes that clear actually. All I'm saying is, it's not black and white.

I'm not saying I don't agree with you, I think what I wrote makes that clear actually. All I'm saying is, it's not black and white.”

It was in the case in point. Proven in court. The mother could have aborted far, far earlier.

I find this truly tragic, mostly for the baby. He or she was fully developed and could have been adopted, loved and had a life. People are desperate to adopt!

I’m all for women’s rights but in this case she murdered her baby, there’s no other way about it. Murder often leads to prison. If the baby was born & she killed it, she would go to prison but killing 4 weeks before being born requires more tolerance and a softer approach? She broke the law. she should pay for it as it’s not like her baby has a voice.

I had my baby at 27 weeks, no oxygen needed as he had steroids to help his lungs develop 2 weeks prior, he was perfectly formed, just needed fattening up. When I finally got to hold him a few days after birth, he lifted his head & looked up at me and it was like he knew I was his mum. So a baby has feelings, brain developed, can connect with the parent at 27 weeks… why did she do this when the option of adoption was only a month away??