AIBU to be think that most women would be jailed for their abortions as so many of us embellish?

[Upsetaboutabortionbeingacrime]

1 in 3 women in this country obtain abortions at some point in their lives.

I sincerely believe that as abortion is a criminal act in the UK and to obtain one without being open to prosecution, a woman needs two doctors to permit it. because of this many many many women emphasise and maybe even embellish, or lie, to obtain that. Will it really mean you cannot afford your rent / mortgage and you'll be homeless? Probably not, but you just DO NOT want a(nother) baby. And actually a woman should be able to just NOT WANT a(nother) pregnancy or a(nother) child. Yet the woman is forced to say what needs to be said procure an abortion.

Therefore thousands of women every year would be jailed just like this woman has been.

The jailing was NOT because of the late term of the pregnancy, it was because she lied to obtain it and therefore she's in jail.

Lots and lots women have done that. Lots.

This really. The OP is not making a good argument and using a bad example to support it.

The reality of the situation is that current laws are a fudge and should be updated. I would personally prefer it if the law accepted that ending a pregnancy should be a choice up to a certain point. As in NI it would unconditionally legal. Thereafter it should be seen as a medical decision.

But I don’t think society as a whole has a clear grip on this issue. Therefore any political debate could end in something worse than the current fudge. The legislation in NI is better for the simple reason it was brought about by executive action.

Despite being very pro choice, I do think there needs to be a cut-off point as aborting a viable baby is very different to aborting an early term pregnancy. Subject to certain exceptions, therefore, I do think it is acceptable for access to abortion to be restricted beyond a certain time limit.

That said, I agree with you OP in that I can't see that criminalising and jailing women in these very rare cases is the right way of dealing with them. I'm surprised first of all that it was thought to be in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution and secondly that a prison term was considered the appropriate punishment. These cases occur so rarely and in such difficult circumstances that I don't see the need to deter by prosecuting or harsh punishment. I also think jailing women with caring responsibilities is in general a terrible idea where they don't pose a risk to society and aren't likely to reoffend... who gains from it compared to the harm and trauma caused to vulnerable children through the loss of a parent?

I don't think it's reading between the lines to see that criteria A clearly covers 'I don't want a baby.' If you don't want a baby and you're pregnant, continuing the pregnancy to term quite clearly poses a greater risk to your physical and mental health than having a termination- so criteria A would always be satisfied.

I don't think that criteria is saying that continuing the pregnancy has to be proven to pose a grave risk to mental/physical health or even that the woman has to be experiencing physical/mental health symptoms at the time of seeking a termination- just that continuing the pregnancy increases her risk compared with having a termination.

Having an unwanted child CAN lead to 'grave harm' psychologically.

OP thinks most women are lying when they say not having an abortion would result in grave harm.

There is an enormous difference between someone lying before 24 weeks to get an abortion because of restrictive laws and someone lying when they are almost to term. The difference is that between a fetus and a baby, and between abortion and infanticide.
I believe abortion should be available on demand in the early months and agree that it is an awful and difficult case, but I do agree with the prison sentence in this one.
The court found that she'd done a pregnancy test in December. She aborted in May. She had time to make a choice, even if it was a hard one.
If she is let off, it also sets a dangerous precedent.

Oh yeah coz that's really easy for everyone

Voted incorrectly as I read the post too quickly, I agree that abortion should be wholly a woman's choice that she does not have to explain to others nor to justify so that she can obtain the treatment. Carrying a pregancy, giving birth and then being responsible for another human being for the next 18 years are huge life changing undertakings and it should be up to the individual woman to decide whether or not she wants to go ahead. I think in the past women seeking a termination may have had to emphasise the negative consequences of continuing with a pregnancy but really it should just be accepted that she knows what is best for her and her life situation.

I don’t understand your point. What ever reason is given for requesting an abortion would fall into part ‘A’ of a the law “effecting the mental health of the mother”. So no laws are broken. The issue with this lady was she lied about her gestation.

I think euthanasia is the more humane option in many cases. I had an absolutely horrendous life. I cry and suffer every single day. I've attempted suicide before and I didn't succeed. The physical pain of that suicide attempt was horrendous. Knowing how much a suicide attempt can physically hurt, stops me from doing it again. I remember the pain, it was awful.

If there was a choice of euthanasia where I could have a safe, painless, medically assisted death, I would definitely choose it.

As we say we should be able to choose abortion by just saying "I don't want to have a baby".

We should also be able to choose euthanasia by just saying " I don't want to live"

I agree. And from reading the law OP quoted, it seems like saying 'I'm more likely to experience mental health problems if I continue the pregnancy than if I have a termination' should satisfy criteria a.

Yep. I had an abortion in May and when I said I would struggle mentally if I continued with the pregnancy I absolutely wasn't lying. Just because I wouldn't necessarily have killed myself, doesn't mean I would have coped.

Going through pregnancy and labour is on average more damaging to your physical and mental health than having a TOP. So we effectively have TOP on demand up to the legal limits, which is of course a good thing, with no need to embellish.

I firmly believe in as early as possible, as late as necessary.

I don't think forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy at any stage is moral.

I also don't think I know enough about this particular woman's circumstances - she was pregnant, and didn't want to be, right at the start of lockdown, with 3 children, including one with special needs already.

Even with just one child and pre-covid, I ended up having to take him to dentist appointments and smears, because I had no-one to look after him.

During lockdown, I can easily see that this woman could have no options for childcare, for termination healthcare, and finally grasped the one option that finally became available - pills by mail.

I've read accounts by other women who were unable to procure a termination, of other women who had babies in lockdown and how their physical and mental health was damaged by it.

I can't condemn her. I cannot support jailing her for it. Punishing her, and her children. She's not a danger to society, she's not going to be rehabilitated in prison regarding this.

She murdered a full-time baby for her convenience, she deserves to have the book thrown at her!

The word “or” (instead of “and”) at the end of each ground means that you can have an abortion under the other 3 grounds after 24 weeks.

• (a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or
• (b) that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or
• (c) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or
• (d) that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

I’m sure at some point the puritans will regain control and all abortions will become illegal. Then you will be happy I assume.

This this this. The OP is for some reason ignoring this.

There is no need to lie or talk about stress or finances or mental health. Medically before 24 weeks continuing with being pregnant to term is more medically risky than having a termination so ALL terminations before this point are permitted legally. No other reason needed.

after about 24 weeks or so the foetus has to be birthed- surgically or vaginally. The only questions about this procedure being:

1.are steps being taken to end the pregnancy sooner than a spontaneous labour and

1. Is aim for is the foetus to to be a live baby at the end

consider a women with pre eclampsia for whom ending the pregnancy needs to take place for her health early labour is induced with medications. It’s possible legally both to induce this labour with or without foeticide first (with being an abortion and without being a live birth). The labour and induction are the same. Should the baby once born show signs of life it must be resuscitated even if the aim was abortion (unless it is deemed that it would be more harmful to the baby’s health to try). Professionals performing late stage abortions are therefore very keen to ensure that a live birth does not occur. For me this womens real error was her risking this - if the pills she had taken had not successfully caused foeticide (in no way a certainty at 32 weeks) but had induced labour and a live birth had resulted, and then the baby died she would be I assume looking at charges of infanticide via neglect I assume

my final point is that medical professionals are also humans, I have strived to save 24 week babies and assisted with legal late term terminations (23weeks). The clear black and white distinctions some posters make between a baby and a foetus - one with rights and one without is not easy to maintain when faced with the reality that when delivered both look and feel very similar when you hold them. I do support the right to pre viability abortions essentially on demand and late term in specific circumstances but it’s not just “my body my choice” as your choice means that medical professionals are required to act out your choice - I do not think I could ever myself carry out the physical actions to terminate at 24+ week healthy live foetus if it’s or it’s mothers health was not significantly endangered.

You are right.

She did not “murder” a full term baby - full term is 37 weeks and this baby was 31-32 weeks. If you think a woman should be imprisoned for illegally obtaining a late term abortion then just say that, making up facts devalues your argument.

No

She aborted a near term baby, she got taken to hospital to have this child which is traumatising for staff, how the hell did she think she would get away with this , was she going to try and hide a dead baby if she had it at home? Women probably embellish why the want an abortion, but two doctors have to make the decision and it isn’t easy for them either. That’s why women are scanned

31 or 32 weeks is a viable baby, there’s no changing that fact!

I presume everyone has explored the philosophical side to abortion and read Judith Thomson's A Defence of Abortion https://danielwharris.com/teaching/101/readings/Thomson.pdf

I agree with you op, the links you posted up thread state the dr has to sign off on one of those conditions. What happens if they don't agree? Do we know how often women are denied access to early abortion because the dr didn't agree?
I worried this case could open the floodgates for this kind of thing to become routine, dr saying no based on whatever they decided, it then makes the abortion illegal.

I assume in practice that women are not refused based on the drs say so, but the law clearly states they could, which is why the law needs changing.

I believe fully in a woman's choice, as early as possible as late as necessary, and if you are one of those that claim to be pro choice but only up until a specific date that YOU deem acceptable, well then your not pro choice at all.

This would not defend the women in this case. Her “unplug the violist” argument would support inducing pre term labour at the Mother’s request (not a thing legally in the uk as far as I know and seeing if the baby survives) not inducing foeticide and then pre term labour.