Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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 Women should not have to battle outdated Victorian legislation for control over their reproductive rights.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:
harrasseddotcom · 11/02/2016 14:52

And what I meant to say that by giving that right, even with conditions as you have pointed out, the law recognises the unborn child as some kind of being. Whether as an individual or part of the mother the law does not say but instead leaves that to personal opinion.

NameChange30 · 11/02/2016 15:04

jw35
"Your body is your own only when there's not another human being growing inside it."
Hmm
God help us.

My body is and always will be my own. Whether I'm pregnant or not. How dare you tell me otherwise.

harrasseddotcom · 11/02/2016 15:09

But your body is not 100% your own. That is a complete fallacy. For the most part it is but not completely. Otherwise why do we try and save suicides where possible?

crumblybiscuits · 11/02/2016 15:20

Otherwise why do we try and save suicides where possible?
I believe people do this to prevent their relatives suffering their death. But that is a human being anyway, not as fetus and completely incomparable.

crumblybiscuits · 11/02/2016 15:23

I also think a foetus feels pain from much earlier than people think. They can suck their thumb from around 10 weeks.
The thumb sucking is false. They don't even have defined thumbs at that point, they're more like stumps. It is 20 weeks it can suck it's thumb.

Also the fact that you think it can feel pain doesn't mean it can Hmm

IShouldBeSoLurky · 11/02/2016 15:24

Those of you who don't support termination post 24 weeks unless it's for medical reasons, I'd be interested to know how you justify that position in cases where the foetus has a condition that's life-limiting but not so severe that the baby is expected to die shortly after birth. Where the prognosis is, say, severe disability and a life expectancy of 10 or 15 years? Would you expect a woman in that position to go through with the pregnancy and give the baby up for adoption? Or do you accept her right to choose in a case like that? Because if you do, then I can see why campaigners for disabled people's rights have such a problem with this issue. You ARE directly saying that a "normal" foetus has more rights than a disabled one.

duckyneedsaclean · 11/02/2016 15:30

No, lurky, I don't think a disability should mean abortion to term.

IShouldBeSoLurky · 11/02/2016 15:33

Then my post wasn't directed at you, ducky Smile

harrasseddotcom · 11/02/2016 15:35

Crumbly, these are the principals being forwarded to defend abortion, specifically full term abortion. If these principals crumble at the first hurdle, or can change given different circumstances, then i dont consider it a very strong defence. Full bodily autonomy (100% free will to do as we want) doesnt exist and i wish this myth would stop being peddled.

crumblybiscuits · 11/02/2016 15:37

No, lurky, I don't think a disability should mean abortion to term.
So in the case of t18 lots of other disabilities you think that the woman should have to carry them to 40 weeks, birth them, say goodbye and bury them? When my DD2 was diagnosed and I knew she was going to die I wanted her out there and then. I was very lucky and her anomalies were picked up at the 12 week scan but most women aren't that lucky and it isn't even noticed until the 20-22 week scan. Add in the time for testing for certain (anywhere up to six weeks, in my case it was four) and you are over the 24 week limit already. I think I would have committed suicide if someone forced me to carry my DD2 to 40 weeks knowing she was going to suffer and die shortly after. I can't imagine how much you have to hate women to force them through that.

NameChange30 · 11/02/2016 15:39

"I can't imagine how much you have to hate women to force them through that."

This. And Flowers to you crumbly.

harrasseddotcom · 11/02/2016 15:40

i dont think disability should mean abortion to term neither. Especially given that having a cleft lip can be enough to count as a disability. I totally agree that it could be viewed as disablist. I think incompatible with life where either the mother or the baby will die immediately should be considered for late term abortion. Such as the recent case in Ireland. Again it eugenics, aimed at the disabled.

crumblybiscuits · 11/02/2016 15:44

I think incompatible with life where either the mother or the baby will die immediately should be considered for late term abortion
Why is the cut off for you "immediately"? Why is it different if they will survive a month? They'll live a year but they will never leave a hospital bed or even be concious? Suffering through countless operations but it's fine because you're alive. Surely death immediately after birth is actually kinder than these scenarios that you'd like to force women and babies into.

duckyneedsaclean · 11/02/2016 15:50

crumbly I feel for you, really I do. And I don't hate women.

But if it were me, yes I would carry to term, say hello and goodbye, and bury them.

I do understand the feelings involved, in my second pregnancy I was advised that if I didn't miscarry, the baby would likely die shortly after birth or have severe disabilities. I was entitled to an abortion to term. It was a very difficult time. He's 3 now, and a medical mystery. But I understand there's not always a happy ending.

My SIL carried her baby with anancephaly to term, and she lived 11 days. I think she would give anything to have had those 11 days.

KittyandTeal · 11/02/2016 15:53

Crumbly once again you have spoken my mind.

I am one of those who's dd2s T18 wasn't picked up until 21 weeks. I was lucky that the raps results came back quickly and that she had a full trisomy (rather than having to wait another 6 weeks for a full karyotype)

The issue of a lethal diagnosis and when the baby will die is virtually an impossible one to argue. Even at 22 weeks the docs had absolutely no idea if my dd2 would survive pregnancy or birth, they couldn't tell me exactly what would be wrong with her. All they could tell me is that she would die, probably for numerous heart attacks or she would forget to breath and suffocate. They, however, couldn't tell me when that would happen.

We made the decision to have a tfmr. As my dh said at the time if she'd been born alive we were only delaying the point at which we decided to withdraw care and she died.

Us women who have had late terminations for medical reasons are a tricky lot really. People don't like to consider too much what an 'incompatible with life' (btw lethal diagnosis is generally preferred by the community who decide to carry babies with these diagnoses to term) actually means for the baby.

KittyandTeal · 11/02/2016 15:55

Ducky you might say that but you a,so might want to hold off and think about what the diagnosis would mean for your child.

Each and every lethal diagnosis is different. Blithely saying 'I would carry to term and say hello and goodbye' is very easy when you're not faced with the horrific things your child may have to endure.

I really, honestly hope you are never in the situation where you have to make the decision.

duckyneedsaclean · 11/02/2016 15:58

Not getting to be rude, but did you read my post kitty?

duckyneedsaclean · 11/02/2016 16:11

*trying, not getting

KittyandTeal · 11/02/2016 16:20

No ducky, I didn't and I apologise. I am so used to hearing glib 'this is what I would have done in your situation' that I jumped own your throat unnecessarily.

I am sorry for not reading it properly. I'm glad your ds is well. 💐

duckyneedsaclean · 11/02/2016 16:25

Thank you, kitty. Flowers For you too.

sparechange · 11/02/2016 16:26

Harassed
I need to correct what you've said. A cleft lip alone is not something that would be sufficient for a full-term termination. This is a ridiculous myth that was started by an anti-abortion campaigner and vicar, who herself had a cleft lip. A cleft palette is very often a soft marker for bigger problems which are incompatible with life. Therefore there will be consent forms for TfMR which will list a cleft palette, but as an indicator that there are bigger problems and not in isolation.

ducky
Your naivety is both touching and worrying. Your post just smacks of utter selfishness to the point of barbarity. There is no mention at any point of what is best for the baby, just what you would want to do. With many fatal diagnosis, there will be abnormalities that mean the baby is in chronic and serious pain.

To insist on carrying a baby to term while it was potentially in constant pain and then for it to die in agony so you can fulfill a wish to buying it yourself is just too awful for words. How can you inflict that suffering just to tick the box of wanting to see it out to the natural end?

Science and medicine have given us compassionate means to avoid us having to inflict the cruelty that nature can sometimes bring. I'm pleased that I chose this option for my baby, even if it meant I missed out on a few precious minutes (and it would have been minutes) after birth, and I would do the same again if I was ever faced with the hideous news I had with my first pregnancy.

fakenamefornow · 11/02/2016 16:31

sparechange

Have you read Ducky's post? If you have that yours is one of the worst most insensitive posts I have ever read on mn.

sparechange · 11/02/2016 16:39

ducky
Apologies, I skimmed your post after reading the replies to it, and didn't see the point about your own pregnancy. But my point still stands that carrying to term in order to 'say goodbye' would be a horrific option for many people and one that shouldn't be forced on everyone by a change in law, just because it would be the preference for some people.
I apologise unreservedly for my insensitivity to your situation

sparechange · 11/02/2016 16:40

fake
X-posted

crumblybiscuits · 11/02/2016 16:49

But my point still stands that carrying to term in order to 'say goodbye' would be a horrific option for many people and one that shouldn't be forced on everyone by a change in law, just because it would be the preference for some people.
This. With all due respect ducky, I can't understand how you can have seen those situations first hand and not see how important it is that a mother has the choice to end her baby's suffering before it has begun if she thinks it is the option. There was no uncertainty that my DD would be in pain for the entirety of her short life before she died on the list waiting for a transplant that wouldn't come. She would not see the outside of a hospital until I took her home to die and I can't comprehend forcing a woman to experience that just because she had reached the 24 week point. Your SIL made a very brave and noble choice that I completely respect but that does not in any way mean that every woman should or would want to have that experience.