Lucy Letby v Carla Foster

[Thowaway]

I’m using a NC for this because I think it’s a horrible topic and I feel a bit sick for thinking like this.

One of LL’s victims was a baby born at 30 weeks. Carla Foster induced an abortion at 34 weeks by acquiring abortion pills illegally.

I completely accept that there’s a difference between killing a living and wanted baby and having a late term abortion. But I’m finding the difference in attitudes astounding. For LL, the common view is she should burn in hell for killing a tiny vulnerable baby. For KF, a lot of people were defensive of her right to end a potential life at basically the same gestational stage.

I would like to make it clear that I consider myself pro choice and I think what Letby did was evil and abhorrent. But I’m finding it hard to reconcile the two cases. Can someone help me make peace with this?

Do you really need an answer to this?

What!! There is no comparison. Lucy Letby murdered babies whilst in a position of trust with some sort of god complex!

Do you really not see a difference??

That’s why I’m asking. Honestly, it’s making me reevaluate my position on being pro choice and I’m finding it hard to get my head around. I want to understand.

They're both monstrous.

Gosh, this.

I completely understand the motive is entirely different but the babies were comparable in age and gestation. I hate the fact it’s in my head, I just want to understand how others can reconcile the two cases because my head and my heart feel so differently about the situations.

Genuinely I’m not trying to be a twat, I just want to reconcile the situations. I was super supportive of Foster not being imprisoned at the time. But all I see now is two tiny babies on the cusp of life who have had their lives ended and it’s hard to understand why public opinion is so different.

I would say that in the Carla Foster case, a distressed woman who was pregnant and made a terrible decision while under acute mental distress procuring an illegal abortion and putting herself in danger should not be in prison. A baby born at 30 weeks cannot survive without medical intervention. The person charged with keeping someone else's much wanted baby alive killed it.

I’m pro choice and interested to read an answer to this as have also been dwelling.

Thank you, I appreciate your view. But surely a mother is also responsible for keeping her baby alive? Like I say I’m pro choice, I’ve had an abortion myself (admittedly pre 12 weeks) but it’s so weird to reconcile.

It’s an interesting ethical question.

To be honest - in terms of the victim - no, there isn’t a lot of difference is there?

Agree with @Angrycat2768 Plus for Carla Foster it all happened during lockdown when it was very difficult to access medical advice/appointments etc.

I agree

Thanks, have been thinking about this for a few days and really weighed up posting as I didn’t want to be accused of being inflammatory but it’s really made me think about when life begins - especially with the two cases being so close

You can't compare the two very different cases.

You have found 2 common denominators (women and babies) and are trying to force a comparison.

The reason you can't reconcile the 2 cases, is because it's impossible. You are essentially comparing apples and oranges, both are fruit but they are very different.

If you're 34 weeks pregnant, no doctor would remove the foetus. So... Who cares about viability at 34 weeks? The damage and horror inflicted on a woman's body fromlate pregnancy... Take your sentimentalism and shove it.

I don’t think you’re being inflammatory, just because this is a website frequented by women it doesn’t mean our chat should be restricted to baking and housekeeping. It’s interesting discussing tough ethical questions and nobody is forced to join the discussion.

Carla Foster did something to her own body that killed the baby inside it. At that point, the baby had no life outside its mother.

Lucy Letby killed babies that were already separate from their mothers.

I don’t actually think either were right. But surely you can see the difference?

Really tricky.

I'm not sure that the two issues can really compare but on the face of it... hmmm

It isn't tricky at all. Abortion is healthcare.

But as a PP said, surely the outcome for the victims is the same? Unless you’re assessing the damage for secondary victims (parents, etc).

For the record (I hope I don’t need to say this!) no one should kill a baby. But when is a baby a baby? The public opinion has been so so different in the two cases. My heart says LL is a monster and CF is a victim. I just want to make these make sense.

The victims were the parents and siblings.

Its not okay to abort a healthy baby at 30 weeks. It’s illegal and immoral. There are likely mitigating factors in this case, that the judge and jury will consider but it’s not at all okay.

Sometimes on mumsnet you get people trying to argue that pro choice means believing in abortion up to birth for healthy babies. That’s rubbish. I’m pro choice but I think there is a balance of rights and as the baby’s becomes more and more likely to survive the balance of rights switches to being in favour of the baby (except in exceptional circumstances).

But CF’s baby would have had a better chance of survival than some of the babies Letby was looking after. Where’s the line?