AIBU to think throwing a mum-of-four in prison for having an abortion is never the answer?

[therescoffeeinthatnebula]

Spotted this on Twitter and haven't seen it already being discussed.

Apparently, a woman is being sentenced today for having an abortion over the limit during lockdown. I don't know of the circumstances (can't find anything other than the Sunday Times article), only that she already had four children and claims she didn't know exactly how far along she was.

I think most of us would agree making medical appointments during lockdown was bloody difficult and that it's even harder to attend any appointment if you have children, given you're not normally allowed to take them with you.

Whatever the truth, I'm appalled to see a woman potentially thrown in prison for trying to seek an abortion during lockdown, especially when you look at how violence against women is treated. I'd have thought referring her for mandatory counselling would be more of an appropriate outcome than prison because finding out you aborted what could have been a viable baby has got to mess with anyone's head.

It's all very sad - she should have been able to access proper services earlier - but prison, to me, should never have been on the table as a consequence.

I didn't actually realise that abortion in this country was blanket illegal and that our rights to seek abortions up to the limit are actually exceptions to that law rather than a piece of legislation that stands on its own.

But your stated reason is that it is better to be alive in any circumstances than dead, which doesn't make any sense if your position on the morality changes at viability. Your argument isn't coherent.

@StrawberryWasp
I agree I think the only logical positions are: no abortion at all or abortion on demand for any reason up to birth
I completely disagree with this. I think this is a subject that is complex and involves balancing rights and therefore is totally capable and deserving of nuanced rules.

Aborting a fetus at 6 weeks compared to aborting a unborn baby at 39 weeks are two very very different things. The type of medical procedure involved, amount of pain likely to be felt by the fetus and the trauma the mother is likely to experience will differ massively.

I think there is general argument about what is humane and a large factor in this is how developed a fetus is. At early stages the science suggests that a fetus is unlikely to be capable of feeling pain, this changes as the fetus matures and there is absolutely no doubt that by 30+ weeks the unborn baby will feel pain. It therefore seems absolutely barbaric to suggest that abortion is treated the same for all unborn babies irrespective of their gestational age.

How could she have dealt with it during lockdown, when services weren't available?

Are there any links to this, I can’t find any. How awful, all round.

I really feel for this poor woman. Imagine how desperate she must have been.

Mumsnet is so interesting, it's one of the only places where any limits on abortion is accused of extremism and the right to kill 40 week, about to born, healthy fetus' is morally just.

I'm a bit baffled how some PPs seem to view the unborn here - a baby in the womb isn't in some sort of suspended animation or a coma, it doesn't only start feeling and experiencing things once it's out in the fresh air!
That's part of the issue with late abortion, you can't just dismiss the child as being an unconscious clump of cells by that point.

I, and the law, view taking the life of a 34 week baby just because you choose to is an immorality we should not tolerate.

Your language makes no sense @StrawberryWasp. If a fetus is a 34-week-old baby then how old is a 34-week-old baby?

I genuinely do not understand your logic.

No thought for the existing alive children? Just the foetus. Your lot are so tedious.

I never said she was, they don't just think meh, this child is under a year old mush be psychiatric issues

She could have been given a much longer sentance but wasn't, they can't just go against sentancing guidelines though and she very likely would have been given a suspended sentence if they could by the sounds of it

Always are, right up until after the forced birth when an actual living and potentially profoundly disabled child needs care and funding.

They used to trot out the 24 week argument about 28 weeks, then 26 - every time some poor premature baby survives via massive medical intervention and intensive care its used to chip away at the number. The fact that most babies born that early either don't survive or survive with significant developmental and other problems doesn't matter.

Its like all the rape myths and the "she must have known she was pregnant" for late confirmations. Its really not uncommon to discover very late, even where a woman has previous children. Its particularly common amongst pre menopausal women and even more so if they are from a disadvantaged group.

If its was the woman seeking how to conceal a pregnancy and not the man then one also has to ask what conditions she was living under to need to conceal.

Similarly "I managed to get a scan for X" - well lucky old them. In my area there were no scans even for confirmed pregnancies until beyond the 12 week period, let alone "non urgent" conditions. GP appointments were a nightmare.

So we have a woman in a crisis pregnancy struggling to access timely support and healthcare and having long term mental health issues as a result (according to the court reporting). Obviously she must be sent to prison because that will really help both her and her children 🙄

Funny how the CPS found the time and public interest to this at a time where rape and male assault on women is pretty much a punishment free time and we see even the few convicted men using the impact on their career to evade prison.

I've not seen this reported myself but apparently she was 19 weeks pregnant when lockdown started and the prosecution found evidence of her searching for ways to end her pregnancy when she was 12 weeks pregnant. Way before lockdown.

I think lockdown may have been one of her defences that isn't strictly speaking true as she seems to have had both knowledge and opportunities, unaffected by lockdown.

The existing alive children would have had a new brother/sister. That's now been stolen from them forever.

Pah. the existing children don't need any more siblings; they have too many as it is.

Sorry if it has been posted already

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/12/woman-in-uk-jailed-for-28-months-over-taking-abortion-pills-after-legal-time-limit

Good to see that RCOG are calling for a change in the law

"In a joint statement issued before the sentencing, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (of which Dr Lord is co-chair of their abortion taskforce) and the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare called on the UK government to decriminalise abortion across the UK, saying: “It is our belief that prosecuting a woman for ending their pregnancy will never be in the public interest.”

"they don't need anymore". Said who? "Too many as it is?" Should we kill the younger children then? If the family size is too much.

That reminded me of the heartbreaking note in "Jude the Obscure"!

Yes that would be better for the fetus but up until viability the woman's right to choose supecedes this.

I argued that at 34 weeks the arguemnt of a aless than ideal life is not justifiable to kill a baby.

I've expliend my position several times, I've said the balancing of rights means that not one simple logical reason can be applied and why. Feel free to disagree, as I presume you do, but I think my position in trying to balance rights is pretty clear and common place.

I apply a different criteria at 9 weeks and 39 weeks. I agree with the law.

Do you want the law chnaged to allow abortion of helathy babaies up to 40 weeks even if the mothers life isn't in danger?

The existing alive children would have had a new brother/sister. That's now been stolen from them forever

This is the level of argument I'd expect from a 12 year old.

Women don't exist to provide siblings for their existing children. Or to provide babies for infertile couples.

My sympathy lies with this poor woman and her children. Not an unwanted foetus.

Utterly ridiculous. There was no need to send her to prison.

No, of course she shouldn't have done what she did. I doubt any woman would choose to go through that, and especially at such a late stage. We have no idea what caused her to make that decision, but whatever it was it's unlikely she just couldn't be arsed to deal with the problem until it was almost too late.

Fine, give her a criminal record. But prison is ridiculous and makes me scared for the future of abortion rights in this country.

Actually yes, if someone has been charged with infanticide that is what they think. That’s the point of the Act.

My point was that had she committed infanticide it is more likely than not that she would not have faced prison.

The pregnancy had already happened. She killed another human being (albeit in utero)

The mother didn't want the foetus. That's never going to be a good life for the unborn child, regardless of how many siblings they have.

Oh dear. Yes, killing alive existing children is exactly the same as aborting an unwanted foetus.

Tell me, how many children have you adopted? How do you feel about the hundreds of children under 5 who die every day just because they don't have clean water? Is it just unwanted foetuses that bother you? Surely not. That would smack of wanting to control what women do with their bodies.

You concentrate on the contents of your uterus, and worry less about other women's.