Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Iwasafool · 18/07/2023 18:13

AllOfThemWitches · 18/07/2023 12:23

Good, her children need her.

Well let's hope they aren't ever "inconvenient" or who knows what might happen to them.

FOJN · 18/07/2023 18:14

Brefugee · 18/07/2023 18:06

Women can have an abortion for any reason (practically if not technically) up to 24 weeks, no one has to give birth to a child they don't want and it's necessary to permit abortion beyond 24 weeks in some cases. I think the UK has it about right.

You are woefully underinformed. Some women only find out after 24 weeks that their foetus has conditions that are not compatible with life. Forcing them to "carry to term" and then force them to birth a child is inhumane. Which is why: as early as possible and as late as necessary is my mantra. (not to mention free)

I'm not sure how you have reached the conclusion I woefully under informed.

Abortion is permitted beyond 24 in some cases, this is true. Have I not given enough detail about what "some cases" means.

I am well aware that some women do not find out about foetal abnormalities until after 24 weeks and the law provides for that, right up until term in fact.

Iwasafool · 18/07/2023 18:20

JustMint · 18/07/2023 13:26

Agree.

Covid has and still is killing women’s health.

Show quote history

Covid is responsible for many things but she aborted the baby in May 2020, six or seven weeks after lockdown started so she was way past the time for legal abortion before lockdown.

Let's not pretend this was all because of lockdown and covid.

FrivolousTreeDuck · 18/07/2023 18:21

The right decision - I can't see that her being in prison was serving any good purpose, and she has an autistic child with whom she'd been denied all contact.

Kitkatandcoffee · 18/07/2023 18:36

Imisscoffee2021 · 18/07/2023 12:19

I'm pro choice totally, and there are some circumstances where a pregnancy has to be ended even when the baby is perfectly viable for the health of the mother or the baby having an issue that is unserviceable outside the womb.

However in this case, the reasoning behind the late term abortion was to hide the fact the baby was conceived by someone other than her partner or that it would mess up her life, when she knew she was pregnant from a much much earlier stage and could have ended the pregnancy well before viability. I think it was correct to be punishable by law. Having cut offs is necessary as where would it end otherwise, is a child not a valid human and member of society until they can differentiate themselves from their mother, or when certain parts of their brain are fully formed etc? A termination at the stage she did it would be acceptable if her life was in danger or the baby would suffer on delivery and expire due to a health issue. This just isn't the case with this situation. So many choices were made to get to that late stage and each time she chose to continue the pregnancy. Why not birth the child and give the child up for adoption instead?

This is exactly how I feel.

JamieFrasersfurrysporran · 18/07/2023 18:42

KleineDracheKokosnuss · 18/07/2023 12:21

She knowingly killed a perfectly viable baby, causing it to suffocate in utero. She lied to others to be able to do it. She belongs in jail.

This

Nuttkin · 18/07/2023 18:59

AllOfThemWitches · 18/07/2023 12:23

Good, her children need her.

Let's remember this the next time a male commits a crime. His children need him! Prisons will be empty.

Nuttkin · 18/07/2023 19:05

TorviShieldMaiden · 18/07/2023 15:36

You aren’t pro choice if you put any limits on it, except the choice of the woman.

As early as possible, as late as necessary, for whatever reason.

You can actually access abortion after 24 weeks for medical reasons.

😵‍💫

Ok I'm not pro choice then because I don't support this. Don't care, I think it's much more backwards to think this is ok (I.e. waiting til your 34 weeks to abort because you had sex with multiple people and can't fess up to your actions)

Lottapianos · 18/07/2023 19:07

'As early as possible, as late as necessary, for whatever reason'

That's exactly where I stand too. I'm not ok with any woman being forced to give birth for any reason

Crunchymum · 18/07/2023 19:18

Call me cynical but all this story serves to do is corrupt the pro-choice ethos. Its indirect and subtle but it's happening.

How many times has "I am pro choice but....." been said on this thread.

It's opened up a very unpalatable moral debate and is making people question what it really means to be pro-choice.

The pro-choice movement has been very damaged by this case. And I think that is by design more than anything.

Brefugee · 18/07/2023 19:23

Let's remember this the next time a male commits a crime. His children need him! Prisons will be empty.

no man has ever, or will ever, be convicted for administering a late term abortion on himself.

This particular crime didn't need a custodial sentence, plenty of us said that at the time and i'm very happy the justice system agrees. Not because she has other children, but because this particular crime did not require it. Other crimes, not so much.

But in general, yes, there are many times a man commits a crime for which a custodial sentence wouldn'T be proportionate. Sometimes the courts get it right sometimes not. But the chances are, even if he did have kids and was jailed, the liklihood that he would be a single parent with sole custody of those children would be unlikely. (but not zero)

ashesopera · 18/07/2023 19:24

The number of posts saying she ought to be in prison is shocking.

NameChangeAgainChange · 18/07/2023 19:25

I'm struggling to think of anything more likely to endanger abortion rights than people trying to redefine "pro choice" as "pro choice without limits".

YetMoreNewBeginnings · 18/07/2023 19:31

ashesopera · 18/07/2023 19:24

The number of posts saying she ought to be in prison is shocking.

It’s very interesting given the judge was very clear that “her case had "exceptionally strong mitigation".

FOJN · 18/07/2023 19:43

NameChangeAgainChange · 18/07/2023 19:25

I'm struggling to think of anything more likely to endanger abortion rights than people trying to redefine "pro choice" as "pro choice without limits".

I completely agree. I watched the "pro choice without limits" campaigners in the US and some of them seemed to take pleasure in being provocative, they came across as quite unhinged. They lost the argument and if the same fanaticism takes hold here then our abortion rights could go the same way. It doesn't help if you tell people who are pro choice that anything less than agreement with your extreme position makes them a forced birther.

Why squander public support for perfectly reasonable abortion access by demanding no limits when there seems to be little need or demand for it?
It's seems necessary is now being defined as whatever a woman says it is and that any limits at all are denying women choice.

In the UK we have freely available contraception, the morning after pill, abortion pills posted to your home up to 12 weeks and surgical termination for any reason up to 24 weeks with provision for termination right up until full term for medical reasons. We have no shortage of opportunity to decide not to have a baby if we don't want one. There are additional risks with late term abortions because the procedure is more complicated which is a good reason in itself to restrict it to medically necessary situations.

Not having legal acces to abortion at 39 weeks just because you want one is not oppression.

Blossomtoes · 18/07/2023 19:47

FrivolousTreeDuck · 18/07/2023 18:21

The right decision - I can't see that her being in prison was serving any good purpose, and she has an autistic child with whom she'd been denied all contact.

This. Imprisoning her was pointless and cruel. I’m delighted sense has been seen.

MrsFinkelstein · 18/07/2023 20:04

Brefugee · 18/07/2023 18:06

Women can have an abortion for any reason (practically if not technically) up to 24 weeks, no one has to give birth to a child they don't want and it's necessary to permit abortion beyond 24 weeks in some cases. I think the UK has it about right.

You are woefully underinformed. Some women only find out after 24 weeks that their foetus has conditions that are not compatible with life. Forcing them to "carry to term" and then force them to birth a child is inhumane. Which is why: as early as possible and as late as necessary is my mantra. (not to mention free)

You're actually incredibly misinformed.

In the UK termination of pregnancy after 24 weeks is allowed, but only the case of severe fetal abnormality & severe risk of maternal life (and realistically after 24 wks if the mothers life was at risk steroids would be given and the baby would be delivered).

So the situation uou described wouldn't happen the UK. Safe, legal abortion would still be offered in that case.

MrsFinkelstein · 18/07/2023 20:08

NameChangeAgainChange · 18/07/2023 19:25

I'm struggling to think of anything more likely to endanger abortion rights than people trying to redefine "pro choice" as "pro choice without limits".

Absolutely, it's shocking.

CurryandSnuggle · 18/07/2023 20:29

KleineDracheKokosnuss · 18/07/2023 12:21

She knowingly killed a perfectly viable baby, causing it to suffocate in utero. She lied to others to be able to do it. She belongs in jail.

Wholeheartedly agree, she belongs in jail.

Nuttkin · 18/07/2023 21:04

Brefugee · 18/07/2023 19:23

Let's remember this the next time a male commits a crime. His children need him! Prisons will be empty.

no man has ever, or will ever, be convicted for administering a late term abortion on himself.

This particular crime didn't need a custodial sentence, plenty of us said that at the time and i'm very happy the justice system agrees. Not because she has other children, but because this particular crime did not require it. Other crimes, not so much.

But in general, yes, there are many times a man commits a crime for which a custodial sentence wouldn'T be proportionate. Sometimes the courts get it right sometimes not. But the chances are, even if he did have kids and was jailed, the liklihood that he would be a single parent with sole custody of those children would be unlikely. (but not zero)

Having children is not a get out of jail free card for men, and it shouldn't be for women either. That's my only point.

Nuttkin · 18/07/2023 21:05

NameChangeAgainChange · 18/07/2023 19:25

I'm struggling to think of anything more likely to endanger abortion rights than people trying to redefine "pro choice" as "pro choice without limits".

100%

morelippy · 18/07/2023 21:08

ashesopera · 18/07/2023 19:24

The number of posts saying she ought to be in prison is shocking.

What do you suggest? She is released with only her conscience to punish her? Are you going to apply that to anyone else? Where will you draw the line?

Blossomtoes · 18/07/2023 21:25

You draw the line by not imprisoning a woman who is no danger to anyone else. Imprisonment was entirely inappropriate in this instance.

morelippy · 18/07/2023 21:30

So what are the consequences of such a hideous crime? Bugger all?

AnotherTownAnotherTrain · 18/07/2023 21:42

JustMint · 18/07/2023 13:25

You cannot just get a baby adopted in the UK.

It is a long process.

True, but you can have a new born baby placed in foster care. I get that it's not an easy decision to make but I don't see how it is worse having a child given up than actually killing it. And yes I use the word killing deliberately. When a healthy woman (as far as we know) gets rid of a perfectly viable (as far as we know) pregnancy, I call it killing.