Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Guest posts

Guest post: "Abortion must be decriminalised"

759 replies

MumsnetGuestPosts · 09/02/2016 15:07

In December, Natalie Towers, a young mother from Durham, was sentenced for ending her pregnancy at 32 weeks using pills she'd bought online.

When a woman feels she has no choice but to cause her own abortion in this way, you would hope that she would be viewed with compassion, and not treated as a criminal. Unfortunately, this is not the case: she was jailed for two-and-a-half years.

This tragic rare case highlights a broader issue that affects us all: from Belfast to Brighton, pregnant women's decisions about what to do with their own bodies are policed by the criminal law. In every nation of the UK a woman can go to prison for ending her own pregnancy without the legal authorisation of doctors – from the moment a fertilised egg implants.

The 1861 Offences Against the Person Act threatens life imprisonment to any woman who ends her own pregnancy. This is the harshest punishment for self-induced abortion of any country in Europe, bar the Republic of Ireland.

The 1967 Abortion Act is often seen as a victory of the women's rights movement, but it didn't actually overwrite the 1861 Act – rather, it opened up loopholes. Now, a woman is exempt from prosecution when two doctors certify that she meets certain criteria; most commonly that her mental or physical health would suffer if she were forced to continue her pregnancy. In other words, it is perfectly lawful for a woman to be forced to continue a pregnancy if doctors judge her able to cope with the child.

Women's agency is painted entirely out of the picture. Responsibility is turned over to doctors in a way that doesn't happen with any other routine medical procedure. While the work of committed medical professionals means that most women can get the abortion they need, this is beside the point. The criminalisation of abortion makes a mockery of the equal status that women fight for in every other area of life, represents discrimination against women, and stigmatises the one in three women who will have an abortion. Women should not have to battle outdated Victorian legislation for control over their reproductive rights.

Abortion is a medical procedure that has emancipated women, enabling them to have children at the time they think is right with the person of their choosing. It is accepted as a back-up when contraception fails, or when we fail to use it as well as we might; it is an established part of family planning, and is commissioned and funded by the NHS. It therefore makes no sense that it sits within a criminal framework. It runs entirely counter to all principles of bodily autonomy and patient-centred care to deny a woman the right to make her own decisions about whether to accept the physical imposition and risks posed by pregnancy and childbirth.

Our neighbours in France, Sweden and the Netherlands do not send women to prison for inducing their own miscarriages. Even Poland, where abortion is all but outlawed, does not prosecute women who cause their own abortions. The use of the criminal law to punish women in the UK serves no purpose. It is not a deterrent, as any woman who feels desperate enough to try to end her own pregnancy will find a way to do so, and it cannot be seen as an appropriate punishment for a heinous crime, given that legal abortions are approved every day.

Taking abortion out of the criminal law and regulating it like other healthcare services won't lead to unsafe care. Outside of the criminal law, abortion services are already tightly regulated, with regular inspections by the Care Quality Commission. Doctors, nurses and midwives work to strict guidelines and are bound by their professional bodies. Women do not currently turn to unqualified providers for any other form of NHS healthcare, and there is no reason why they would do so for termination services.

Taking abortion out of the criminal law would not lead to more women such as the young mother from Durham ending their pregnancies at home at 32 weeks, in the same way as keeping it there won't stop another woman in equally desperate straits from doing the same. But removing threats of prosecution and prison might make her more likely to seek help – and perhaps her story would have a different ending.

But above all, taking abortion out of the criminal law would be a statement of where we see women today – capable of making their own decisions in pregnancy as the ones who must carry the consequences of that pregnancy, whether it continues or ends. Changing this ancient law will be a symbol of just how far we have come since 1861.

Trust women to make the choice that is right for them. Please join the We Trust Women campaign today.

OP posts:
PalmerViolet · 10/02/2016 21:34

No, she made a decision about her body.

You don't like that, I get it, but you have as much right to judge her as she has to judge you.

So, none.

duckyneedsaclean · 10/02/2016 21:39

No, I haven't broken the law, she has.

And again I say, the only impact her decision had was on the child, not her body. She still gave birth and had already completed pregnancy.

ispymincepie · 10/02/2016 21:46

Yep, I am totally sorry I asked 😔

christinarossetti · 10/02/2016 22:08

The behaviour of the woman in that article sounds deeply disturbed. Not just the act that resulted in her being charged and sentenced, but hiding a previous pregnancy from her husband until the child was born, an extra-marital affair etc.

What she did is currently illegal in the UK, and in my view this adds weight to the OPs case that women should be able to terminate a pregnancy at any point without it being criminalised. This woman's custodial sentence is going to add further trauma to her living children and husband, and clearly not going to provide her with the emotional help that she needs.

I disagree with the judge's reasoning. His judgement should have been about what she did, not how the law would view something that she might have done in a few weeks (but didn't express any intention to do from the information given).

NameChange30 · 10/02/2016 22:10

larry

"I don't believe you make this strong foetus/baby distinction outside abortion discussions, when it suits your beliefs."
In discussions of abortion it's important and useful to make the distinction between foetus (unborn) and baby (born). So yes I am specific about foetus v baby when discussing abortion. But not when discussing pregnancy and babies in other contexts, especially not when discussing wanted pregnancies, which brings me onto this...

"Do you really correct heavily pregnant friends when they talk of their unborn babies?"
Of course not. Don't be ridiculous.

"Or even really believe that a 30 something week foetus is anything other than an unborn baby?"
Well, it's a foetus, which has the potential to be a baby, but it depends how the pregnant woman sees it. If she wants the baby, it's a baby. If she doesn't want it, and she would prefer to think of it as a foetus, it's a foetus.

"I think 'killing babies' is a disgustingly emotive way to discuss early abortion."
We agree on that Smile

"I also think 'terminating a foetus' is a disgustingly glib way of describing what the woman in the OP's post did."
I agree it's not an accurate description. A safe, legal abortion would be terminating a pregnancy or, if you insist, killing a foetus. But what this woman did was inflict harm upon herself and her foetus out of desperation. The consequences were grave for her and for the foetus. And I believe it wouldn't have been so awful for either of them if she'd had other options. If she'd had more support, and - this is where others may well disagree - if she'd had access to legal, safe abortion as a last resort.

NameChange30 · 10/02/2016 22:17

TheWanderingUterus
Great post (20:58). Important points.

CultureSucks
"I wish that women were treated as competent (as men are) and were allowed to have complete autonomy over their bodies at all times."
Hear hear.

fakenamefornow · 10/02/2016 22:39

Just looking and it seems the UK has some of the most liberal abortion laws in the world and one of the latest limits of 24 weeks on demand and term for other reasons.

lisalisa · 10/02/2016 22:46

It comes down to whose rights triumph - the mothers or the foetus. Those in favour of choice say that as the foetus is inside the mothers body then the choice is the woman's to make . Those anti abortion will day that the foetus has rights too - to remain alive and be born .

If we look at the pro choice argument - that the body is the woman's therefore she can dictate what happens to it. Is this followed through in life and civil stances generally ? My body my choice? Yes to an extent because alcoholism is not illegal ( my body my choice) as is self harm ( again my body to hurt - none of your business ) , anorexia etc. And rightly so . In a more mundane arena how we cut our hair, dress , walk and run our lives is also our free choice .

But what about use of illegal drugs , stealing , stalking etc ? An eclectic bunch but these are activities done with our bodies that are illegal .

Why ?

Because they either do or have the potential to impact on someone else .

Therefore the law has rightly considered it necessary to legislate against those things which others might otherwise want to do and could impact on someone else .

How does that fit in with abortion ?

Because in that case too the law has stepped in and said that after a certain time limit someone else's rights also come into the picture and what you will do will impact on those rights. It will end those rights forever for that "person" - the baby .

Some will argue that it's not a person , it's a foetus. I personally think that's semantics. The foetus/ baby at 32 weeks blinks , smiles , feels pain , hears and recognises voices outside the womb, swallows and tastes the amniotic fluid noticing whether it is salty sweet or even spicy according to what the mother ate. It moves , wriggles to music and has been proven to favour the voice of its mother over others. In short, it's a baby. A person .

The law therefore considers that this person has rights and that it should be unlawful to tamper with those rights and effective end them . The law is protecting the right of that baby to live just like it protects the right of a householder not to be burgled, a passer by not to be assaulted and a woman not to be raped.

christinarossetti · 10/02/2016 22:56

That's not correct, lisa.

If it was, the current law would regard the rights of a foetus with substantial risk of being born with a serious handicap as less than the rights of a foetus who didn't have those identified risks during pregnancy.

In regard to the baby/foetus distinction. Me and other posters are using them in their legal context (given that this thread is a debate about the current criminalisation of abortion). You can use whatever terms you like, but these are the ones currently recognised by law and the medical profession.

lisalisa · 10/02/2016 22:59

I don't see your point ? What's not correct ?

duckyneedsaclean · 10/02/2016 23:00

Christina the law does regard the rights of a foetus with substantial risk of being born with a serious handicap as less than the rights of a foetus who didn't have those identified risks during pregnancy.

A sad fact which many disability rights groups protest.

MaryRobinson · 10/02/2016 23:11

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LucyBabs · 11/02/2016 00:34

"I would hope if women weren't able to to get an abortion so easily there would be fewer unwanted pregnancies" FFS!
The usual abortion used as a contraceptive!

christinarossetti · 11/02/2016 06:47

What is incorrect is that the Abortion Act in the UK isn't based on principles of fetal 'right to life'.

It's based on a women's right to make decisions about her pregnancy.

Some disability campaigners view it in 'right to life' terms but the current law is clear that 'life' in a legal sense begins at birth.

christinarossetti · 11/02/2016 07:11

In other words, the women in the articles above would have been prosecuted if they have ended a pregnancy of a foetus with a disability on the same way, as they didn't keep within the terms of the Abortion Act if 2 doctors etc.

harrasseddotcom · 11/02/2016 08:44

The more I read the op case, the more I think that the headline is misleading. I think that actually they should be upfront and actutally state that what they want is full term abortion for any reason to be decriminalised. Abortion is decriminalised already, but with limits. But BPA etc. will never head a campaign stating explicitly that they are fighting for a free for all full term abortion because (in the UK anyway) I think there would be a majority of people disgusted at that. Hence the unusual case above (which imo actually doesnt do them any favours, I think this turns more people against their cause than for).

harrasseddotcom · 11/02/2016 08:57

And id also just like to add that im not 100% anti abortion myself. Personally for abortion 99.999% against, for others I can understand a need, within the legal limits (which i absolutely would not want to see extended). What I am uneasy about some of the reasons for abortion. No one has an abortion because they are super rich and any child just wouldnt be getting a 'normal' life. But not having enough money/adequate housing etc seems an accepted reason for an abortion. Thats a bit close to eugenics for me, aimed at poor people. For medical reasons, again i can see both sides.

PalmerViolet · 11/02/2016 08:57

Christina the law does regard the rights of a foetus with substantial risk of being born with a serious handicap as less than the rights of a foetus who didn't have those identified risks during pregnancy.

Try terminating that pregnancy outwith the medical establishment and then tell us all how little those rights are valued.

differentnameforthis · 11/02/2016 10:45

she murdered her own perfectly healthy baby which is frankly vile. No she didn't. She did, in fact, terminate her pregnancy.

but on what grounds could anyone kill a baby just before it is born You do know that late term terminations account for about 1% of all terminations, don't you? Women don't suddenly get to 32 (or there about) weeks & decide they can't be arsed anymore.

Karoleann
gormenghast
PenguinsAreAce
duckyneedsaclean
boopsy
How many unwanted babies would you be willing to adopt?

Anyway, I'm off to bed to cry at the state of the world. While you do that, cry about the 80 or so children that are currently being looked after by foster carers within the organisation that I work for. Cry for the child that has been moved three time in as many weeks, as carer after carer admit they cannot cope with him, or the siblings split up because carers are already at capacity. Or the emergency extension orders we have to ask for, almost weekly, to allow a carer to accept one child over their limit...

duckyneedsaclean She should have been able to access a safe termination, instead she was pushed to the edge & forced to do it herself. The medical history surrounding pregnancies sounds traumatic, and she should have been able to seek help/should have been offered help as to understand why her options regarding pregnancy/children was adoption, termination, concealing a pregnancy, and self termination.

harrasseddotcom · 11/02/2016 11:17

but on what grounds could anyone kill a baby just before it is born You do know that late term terminations account for about 1% of all terminations, don't you? Women don't suddenly get to 32 (or there about) weeks & decide they can't be arsed anymore. - but this 1% is because of the restricted time limit. If women dont get to 32 weeks & decide they dont want their child anymore then why are bpa campaigning to change the law?

harrasseddotcom · 11/02/2016 11:22

Id like to think that most women in the UK know their rights re regarding pregnancy/children are adoption, termination etc. You can go to a doctors, online etc. Unless you only find out after the 24 week cut off line (which you have my sympathies but that is time limit the law says the foetus/baby has a right to live unless there are other medical reasons), then you have plenty of options. If you genuinely didnt know, the ask, ignorance is not a defence.

CultureSucksDownWords · 11/02/2016 11:42

It would be better if women could be trusted to make decisions about their own bodies.

I would like to see a change in the law to allow women to have abortions up to 24 weeks without needing to ask permission from 2 doctors who will judge whether her reasons are considered acceptable. I do not believe that this would see an increase in the number of abortions.

I would also like to see abortions being legal at any stage of pregnancy, again without having to ask permission. There would be very very few women who would need a late term abortion and I also believe that de-criminalising abortion would mean women would seek help sooner.

Decreasing abortions is best done by better sex education, more accessible contraception and advice about family planning and so on. Not by seeking to control women, scare them with criminal sanctions and generally treat them as irresponsible idiots.

IShouldBeSoLurky · 11/02/2016 12:18

Harrassed, have you actually read the document linked to upthread about the reasons for women seeking late-term abortions? It's not about women changing their minds. A few examples:

  • Becoming homeless late in pregnancy
  • Leaving an abusive relationship and feeling unable to cope with a child
  • Being a drug user and only finding out about the pregnancy after 24 weeks
  • Having to travel from Ireland and not getting the money together in time
  • Having to wait for an appointment and being pushed past the 24-week limit
  • Using contraception so not realising she was pregnant

Basically what you're saying is, "Well, tough." There's also an implication that a woman should somehow be punished for her actions by having a baby, which seems to me to fly in the face of everything that being "pro-life" is meant to be about.

harrasseddotcom · 11/02/2016 12:24

The law states tho the 24 week limit is set because that is when the foetus becomes viable. I interpret that as meaning that at that stage there is a good chance for the baby to be born alive and so the law gives them (the baby/foetus) that right (with the medical caveats). So are full term abortionists in fact campaigning for the law to take that right away from unborn babies 24 weeks onwards. I think, taking the reason into account for the law, it is a losing debate trying to pit woman's autonomy against 24+ unborn baby right to live as I dont think (within the UK) there is a majority for it. As for the personal choice thing, well we all have to make sure our personal choices comply within the law. Just go ask those two christian bakers.

Thurlow · 11/02/2016 12:27

I asked last night, and I'll ask again - do people really just think "tough, suck it up" for women (and particularly young girls) who don't realise until 20+ weeks that they are pregnant?

These conversation always seem to work on several assumptions, both of which are prevalent on this thread, and which are very much wrong assumptions.

1 - Contraceptive is 100% effective and anyone who manages to fall accidentally pregnant is some for of feckless idiot

2 - All women suffer early pregnancy symptoms and anyone who doesn't realise until 20+ weeks is, again, some sort of idiot

3 - That we are talking about women. We're often not. We're talking about very scared young girls who don't realise what is happening, who won't admit what is happening, and then suddenly it is all too late.

What I suspect (though other posters can correct me) is that many people who advocate removing the time limit on abortion and thus making a situation where, technically, a 38 week abortion is possible, are advocating it to assist in those cases where someone misses the deadline by a matter of says.