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?

But CF was still doing something to herself. Not to a completely separate individual.

I agree they are victims of a monstrous crime, but LL wasn’t imprisoned for the crimes committed against the families. She was rightly imprisoned for the crimes against the babies.

I would like to add this is why I posted in Ethical Dilemmas as opposed to anywhere else.

From a legal perspective, Carla Foster's child wasn't a person yet. I can't personally understand how she could do what she did but I do accept there were mitigating circumstances and she doesn't pose a risk to the public in the future.

LL committed many crimes and is a danger to the public.

I’m not a troll, and I agree with you entirely that women shouldn’t be forced to have children. As I’ve said, I’ve had an abortion, and my heart says I don’t think Foster should have been imprisoned. And Letby is unquestionably a monster. I just can’t reconcile the impact on the two comparable humans who had their lives ended.

The state cannot force women to carry unwanted babies because the state cannot get women pregnant. The woman is already pregnant, the state just doesn’t intervene to end the pregnant past a certain point. All this talk of ‘forcing women to carry babies’ is a nonsense.

It's not a foetus at 34 weeks though. My friend had two babies around 30 weeks, they're both healthy, NT, and it affected my view of the abortion case. I don't think she should have been imprisoned - but I do think she did the wrong thing.

I can make my peace with the legal personhood situation - I think this is why I’m finding it hard, I have a law degree, I should get the line. But I can’t get my head around how - ethically- causing a viable baby’s heart to stop in utero is different to causing a baby’s heart to stop through her horrible modus operandi.

Well one has show love and care to other children, has shown remorse for her actions, and surely gained no pleasure from her crime, and the other has shown no remorse and must have gained some twisted pleasure from her many crimes.

You hold a view which is outside of English law on this. You are entitled to have this view but it’s a minority position. Most people support abortion AND oppose late term abortion (except for sad situations where the baby is not viable or the mother’s life is at risk).

I agree that that should be counted as mitigation - for sure. LL is a danger to the public, certainly as long as she was a practicing nurse. And CF probably would never do this again. But surely that’s mitigation that impacts a sentence? The net effect was the same. A life prevented.

You can't reconcile the 2 cases, because they are not reconcilable really. Babies born at 34 weeks gestation have every chance of surviving and growing into perfectly healthy human beings. In fact babies born much earlier than that can also survive and have few or no problems too.

The difference in these cases is WHY they were and are treated differently. And that comes down to the whole circumstances of each. Most people look at the circumstances and consider whether what they each did was something that is understandable from what your average person would do.

No question that Lucy Letby was an evil, manipulating individual with no remorse and she deserves everything she will now be getting, and more.

Carla Foster's situation was different, because it was more understandable. I am also pro women making a choice - I was very, very sorry for Carla Foster - but she did actually bring about the death of what almost certainly would have been a perfectly viable baby.

BUT Carla Foster's situation highlights why the latest date for a termination is a subject of much discussion, and that isn't going to get any easier. But that is a whole different discussion to be had

Thank you. Honestly, this is the most helpful perspective. I’ve been focusing so much on the outcome for each child and not enough on the societal perspective. I’m still not sure I love the idea of differing outcomes for the same net result, but it makes more sense looking at it like this.

Abortion doctors kill every single day. Babies. But the name given to them is never 'babies' as that would prove they are human, innocent, vulnerable, and in need of protection. They are often dismembered, as in surgical abortions. At a certain number of weeks they will certainly feel extreme pain. They are human babies even if they are not wanted by their mothers. The horror of being unwanted, and being offered up for death, because their presence will cause someone grave inconvenience! Uproar about comparisons just reflects the rank hypocrisy.

I'm not sure what the differing outcome is though. Both women committed crimes. One pleaded guilty to procuring an ilegal abortion and was sentenced to imprisonment, one was found guilty of multiple pre meditated murders, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. They committed different crimes and were convicted accordingly. One showed remorse and one didn't, so they offered mitigating circumstances.
Are you arguing that women should be convicted of murder if they procure an abortion after 24 weeks. Because if a child not yet born is a person in being then you cannot argue that any abortion is acceptable. How can a child magically be a human at 24 weeks when the day before they were not? You either believe a baby is a baby at conception, in which case you are anti abortion or a person at birth.

Yes, most people are irrational.

Well they’re not, but causing the death of a viable baby in utero is child destruction if caused by somebody other than the mother. So the law does recognise them in certain circumstances. It all seems to depend on who is killing them and how, rather than the fact they’ve been killed. This isn’t unusual in law - for example 2 people can cause a death and one can be charged with murder and one manslaughter, depending on the circumstances and intention.

Thankfully the vast majority of the public acknowledge terminating a perfectly viable baby in full knowledge you could’ve done it much earlier is heinous.