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.

Great post.

An early termination is not remotely comparable to this situation.

The omission versus commission argument is irrelevant. The point is that under current law no one apart from an unborn baby has the right to use someone else's body for life support, and no one apart from a pregnant woman can be compelled to act as a life support machine. This is rooted in the misogynist belief that women's bodies are exploitable resources.

Can I suggest people read the actual sentencing.

https://crimeline.co.uk/carla-foster-sentencing-remarks-12-june-2023/

She was over 30 weeks, she knew this as evidenced by her internet searches. She lied to the Dr on the phone and the paramedics who were first called out. Her daughter was viable.

Abortion needs reforms but this case is not the one to hold up as an example.

It's terrible for all concerned.

Yes. "Forced to give birth". Pregnancy is a natural bodily reaction to fetus fertilisation. Are you forced to breath or digest food?Still a life at 8 weeks. I think there's a heartbeat at week 5/6?

But this hypothetical woman does not want children. She does not want to be pregnant. She has never wanted a child.

You believe she should continue a pregnancy against her wishes as opposed to safely and humanely aborting at 8 weeks?

Thank you. I had forgotten about the self-defense argument.

If an unborn baby can use my body against my will for fourteen weeks in the third trimester, it undermines the argument that a rapist shouldn't be allowed to use my body against my will for fourteen minutes during a rape.

This is a completely false comparison and a thoroughly dishonest argument. Self evidently the unborn baby who is not in the uterus of its own volition and who is dependent on its mother for survival is not comparable to a rapist who is acting completely of his own volition and who has no reason to need to rape whatsoever. A rapist who tried that argument would probably end up getting his sentence doubled.

Just for the record, I'm very thoroughly pro-choice up to 24 weeks and arguably up to 26 or 28. If this woman had had the pregnancy terminated throughout the long period when she had a perfect right to do so and also had the relevant facilities fully available to her, I would support her to the hilt. I am just very uneasy indeed with a decision to lie to get hold of and take a pill at 32-34 weeks which is highly likely to cause the foetus/baby severe distress and pain, and to leave that baby disabled if she survives.

QueenofKattegat the laughing emoticons are disgusting in this context, whatever your opinion, an almost full term baby was effectively "put to sleep". Very funny

Why would they name her😡

So if the baby was concieved while she and her ex were apart (on a break if you like) she didnt cheat on him so why was she so scared to tell him that the alternative was this?

Yes to taking responsibility, also guilty plea is entered early them a judge can reduce a custodial sentance by 1 /3rd. They also have the choice of a suspended sentence if the sentence is under 2 years , which is why the judge said

“one of the tragedies” of the case is she did not indicate her guilty plea at the earliest opportunity —sentence would have been eligible to be suspended with full credit.

QueenofKattegatthe laughing emoticons are disgusting in this context, whatever your opinion, an almost full term baby was effectively "put to sleep". Very funny

Does my post refer to the foetus in this particular case? No. Maybe if you read it again (it isn't very long) you'll see that the "laughing emoticons" are in direct response to the frothing forced birther who asked people how they'd feel if they were an abortion. A sentence that well deserves many laughing 'emoticons'.

I'm sure there are more posts you could go and police though. Enjoy!

Absolutely. In fact the case came to light because there was an emergency services call that she'd gone into labour. The paramedics tried and failed to save the child, and with a 33/34 week pregnancy why wouldn't they? It's a horrible situation all around, but it doesn't really illustrate a general problem with the law (unless of course those that are saying 'as late as necessary' really do mean up to 42 weeks. )

There's no need to use language like "less right to bodily autonomy than a corpse". It's inaccurate, factually incorrect and disrespectful.

In what way is it inaccurate or factually incorrect? My "as clear as possible" edition of my stance is upthread at https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4825963-aibu-to-think-throwing-a-mum-of-four-in-prison-for-having-an-abortion-is-never-the-answer?reply=126843912

Your analogy to rape is gross. And stupid.

It is accurate as a specific case of the generalised question: "A is using B's body against B's will. Does B have the right to use any means necessary, including lethal force, against A to make A stop?" The rapist's intent versus unborn baby's lack of intent isn't relevant to my argument because I always answer "yes" to that generalised question. I'm not accusing an unborn baby of intending to hurt the woman, which would be "gross" and "stupid". The unborn baby is completely innocent of all intent, which is one of the reasons why abortion is such a contentious issue.

What a horrifically sad situation for all.

im saddened but not surprised that some are using this as a stick to beat women with.

@MakesMeFeelSad Thanks.

Well particularly in the light of this case, I am vehemently against it. Taking the life of a viable baby is immoral and just wrong!

Maybe scrap the 'two doctor' thing up to 12 weeks. Seems like a nonsense anyway, but there would I guess have to be a scan to determine gestation. Up to 24 weeks, I agree with the legality here even if I am deeply uncomfortable with termination as late as 24 weeks unless for medical reasons.

The idea of willynilly legalising women aborting healthy babies right up to birth is anathema to me. Fortunately I think the majority would agree with me.

It's crazy to compare pregnancy to being dead!!!

If she had killed her new born baby she would most likely NOT have been imprisoned. That's one of the concerning things in this case. Trying to end the pregnancy before term has ended up with her getting a greater punishment than she likely would have got if she'd gone to term, given birth and then killed her baby. The whole thing is a mess.

Copy-pasting some of what I just wrote:

The rapist's intent versus unborn baby's lack of intent isn't relevant to my argument

I would like to know why she was too scared to tell her ex despite the baby being conceived while they were apart

@VitoCorleoneOfMNMafia except she had 24 weeks in which to stop the fetus making use of her body. You could argue that extending the pregnancy beyond that point implies consent.

It's crazy to compare pregnancy to being dead!!!

I'm specifically talking about the right to bodily autonomy of pregnant women versus the right to bodily autonomy of a corpse. I think it's crazy that the corpse has more rights to decide what happens to it's body than a living pregnant woman does to hers. I don't think I can be any more clear.

So, aborting a viable baby at 34 weeks because you don't want it is OK.

Giving birth to a baby at 34 weeks and then smothering it the next day because you don't want it is murder.

OK.

I would assume he might not want to take on another man's child?

Consent must be revocable, otherwise it's not consent. If there comes a point in time after which the woman isn't able to back out and say "no, I'm not doing this any more", then she can't be said to be consenting after that point.