Guest post: "Abortion must be decriminalised"

[MumsnetGuestPosts]

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 Women should not have to battle outdated Victorian legislation for control over their reproductive rights.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.

I don't think anyone is really in a position to say "give it up for adoption" unless they have actually given up a child for adoption and know the emotional/social impact upon the birth mother.

I'm not suggesting that adoption is in any way an easy option. At 32 weeks pregnant, if you want to abort a healthy baby I very much doubt that comes with no psychological after effects at all.

Why is it so impossible to consider that individual women might be best placed to choose whether they could cope with an abortion compared to an adoption?

Murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

I do believe we are talking about murder here. And before you say foetuses are not human, what are they then?

the 24week rule is there to protect the rights of the unborn child. That is its main objective. All laws seek to control everyone to some degree. The fact that only women can become pregnant and that therefore this law only applies to them is not the fault of the law. If men could get pregnant tomorrow then id want this law to apply to them also. When that law was introduced, no one sat around a table and thought, ooooh lets exert control women's bodies by denying them fta. The objective was the perceived right of the unborn child which the law decided took primary consideration over the womens right to terminate.

Exactly, Culture. If it is a woman's right to choose between options within the first 24 weeks, why can it not be their right to choose between options in the last 16 week?

A baby/foetus is not considered a separate living being until it has been born. So currently a baby/foetus in utero is not considered a separate being from the mother. Of course it's a human baby/foetus/embryo. No one is saying otherwise.

Do you consider the legal abortion of a baby/foetus under 24 weeks to be murder as well? Say a 19 week old foetus? At what point is it not murder - 12 weeks? 8 weeks?

Why is it so impossible to consider that individual women might be best placed to choose whether they could cope with an abortion compared to an adoption?

thats not what the law is there for though. It is there to protect the right of the unborn child. And imo termination is not in the interest of that unborn child's right to live. So the law is right to say that the woman does not have the power to terminate viable unborn babies at 24 weeks as it is not in the interest of the child,but of the woman.

A baby/foetus is not considered a separate living being until it has been born. So currently a baby/foetus in utero is not considered a separate being from the mother. But after 24 weeks it is given the right to life if it is healthy. Being a separate identity from its mother doesnt make any difference imo (and that of the law).

Yes, I understand that's your position. I disagree and think the balance of rights between mother and unborn baby/foetus us wrong at the moment, which is why I'd like the law to change. I think that women should be given control over these decisions, and be trusted to make the right decision for them. No one is saying that they would want more late term abortions, or more abortions altogether.

At the same time, I would also want to see efforts to increase sex education, access to effective contraception, family planning, DV support and refuges, etc etc. These would actually help reduce the numbers of women who need an abortion in the first place.

Anyone who thinks that abortion at term is not about anybody's rights but the woman's has put their head firmly in the sand.

There is a baby involved, who is killed. Their heart is stopped.

When asked what the difference is between a foetus and baby, born at that gestation, the only answer given is "that's the law". But all of those saying it are in another breath saying the law should be changed. So, logically, you do not believe the law to be infallible.

You must have some other way of explaining what is so different between killing a newborn and killing a foetus?

duckyneedsaclean, if the law were changed to allow full term abortion on demand, do you think there would be a huge rush of women demanding abortions at 40 weeks? Do you think there would be more than 1 or 2 extremely unusual cases if any at all? Do you think the number of abortions past 24 weeks would increase as well?

I really don't know culture. Nobody thought when abortion was legalised that so many would be carried out did they?

But one would be a tragedy.

"I dont think we do have full and complete autonomy over our bodies neither. Otherwise people could commit suicide without intervention. To be clear i am not saying suicide is illegal. But society will always try to prevent it where possible by way of hospitalisation, detainment or other medical treatment."

There is of course a difference between criminalising suicide and preventing it. The same could apply to abortion. You could work to prevent it without criminalising it. And the difference is that a suicidal person is mentally unwell, whereas a woman who wants an abortion is not necessarily mentally unwell.

At 32 weeks this woman killed her baby. I find that very hard to empathise with, there were other options and it jolly well should be illegal otherwise who's protecting the rights of the unborn child?

Personally I don't agree with abortion anyway and when the op said 'acceptable as a back up when contraception fails' I felt sick. I might empathise with a woman who has been raped or if the baby had some awful condition but I think abortion should just be for desperate circumstances tbh.

24 weeks is far too late imo as it is. 32 weeks is murder plain and simple. Your body is your own only when there's not another human being growing inside it. I think a baby should also have rights. I also think a foetus feels pain from much earlier than people think. They can suck their thumb from around 10 weeks. Why would they if they can't feel the sensations?

As my username suggests, I'm not a parent or ever been pregnant but I do agree, abortion should be decriminalised. The amount of abuse I've seen of women admitting they've had an abortion in the past, isn't very nice. I have also been subjected to some abuse for admitting my beliefs are pro-choice rather than pro-life

Choosing to have an abortion is down to the woman, her partner (if she has one) and medical professionals (if they've been advised to terminate). But other than that, nobody else can make their decision for them, as it's a woman's right so therefore her choice.

However, I do think that abortions at 20-24 weeks (I said 20-24 weeks purely as a baby can survive being born that early) need to have limitations on them. The exceptions are: a risk to health/life for mother and/or baby, rape and incest.

what is so different between killing a newborn and killing a foetus - none imo. But I can see why there is a need to have some restricted allowance of abortion, even if I dont agree with it and would like more restrictions. But to have a free for all up to full term abortion is something id fight tooth and nail against (and thankfully we live in a democracy where the majority agree with me and its not likely to ever happen, no matter how hard it is pressed).

"Murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

I do believe we are talking about murder here. And before you say foetuses are not human, what are they then?"

They are not reasonable creatures in being.

"But after 24 weeks it is given the right to life if it is healthy. Being a separate identity from its mother doesnt make any difference imo (and that of the law)."

It makes quite a big difference. That's why the offence would not be murder or manslaughter. Pre-natal injuries which cause the child's death can only amount to manslaughter if there is live birth.

It's a a shame BPAS have used quite an emotive 32 week foetus story in support of this campaign. Though I personally agree with them and would fully decriminalise abortion, they would probably have found more support if they had concentrated on removing the requirement for two doctors to consent up to the current time limit.

Notamummy, abortion is decriminalised. Up to 24 weeks in the UK it is not against the law to get an abortion. I think there are very very very few women refused abortions before that date. People disagreeing with abortion and abusing other POV has nothing to do with decriminalisation. The original OP is very misleading and what it should say is that she wants full term abortion for any reason to be decriminalised. Is that what you think is acceptable. I cant tell from your post. And choosing to have an abortion is solely down to the mother. The father has no say in the matter (something im not sure where i sit on the matter).

It makes quite a big difference MrsFHG this is a matter of opinion. Whilst the law does not provide for them being murdered it does give viable babies a right to life(so does recognise them as some sort of entity), so its not such a clear cut case.

I do wish that the campaign was solely to remove the requirement to justify your choice to 2 doctors and gain permission, under the 24 week limit. I would much rather that women were in the position to decide for themselves. I think that it would be much more likely to be successful than campaigning for late term abortions to be legal. I would rather achieve a small change than no change at all.

I am saddened that so many women are against giving women in general full control over their bodies, and that abortion up to full term will remain illegal. Women should be treated as competent adults, capable of making the right decision for themselves. I don't think there would be a huge rise in late abortions. The current data shows that in fact abortion rates are falling generally, and more of those abortions are taking place earlier rather than later.

It makes quite a big difference MrsFHG this is a matter of opinion

No, it isn't. It is a matter of law. Your post said there was no difference in your opinion and that of the law. I have simply pointed out that is incorrect. Yes there are restrictions on abortion - obviously, that is the point of the discussion - but there is a huge legal difference between a child in the womb and a child born alive.

No I said that in protecting the unborn child's right to live after 24 weeks the law makes no distinction whether it it is a part of the mothers body or if it is a separate living being, only that after the 24 week limit it has a right to live. Whether an individual considers it one or the other comes down to personal opinion.

Can I ask where everyone saying this woman should have been given a choice stands with drink/drugs/smoking during pregnancy and the effects on a newborn?

The reason I agree with early abortion is because pregnancy and labor (never mind giving away your baby) can be very emotional and traumatic. Surely there has to be a cut off point? And for those saying don't have one what about when the baby is born?

It's not actually an absolute right to life though is it? If the baby is severely disabled, or if it's necessary to save the woman's life, or to prevent a severe mental or physical injury to the woman. So even the law as it currently stands recognises the rights of the woman as superseding the rights of the 24 week+ unborn baby/foetus, in some circumstances.

No its not an absolute right to life. I never said it was. But it's still a right nonetheless. And the circumstances have to be very grave.