Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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 Women should not have to battle outdated Victorian legislation for control over their reproductive rights.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:
duckyneedsaclean · 12/02/2016 23:43

I have a very dim view of people who believe abortion to term is reasonable and not horrific, tbh.

NameChange30 · 12/02/2016 23:44

Well yes you are rather judgemental, it seems.

CultureSucksDownWords · 12/02/2016 23:52

What you seem to be ignoring is that no one wants late term abortions to happen and no one thinks they're anything other than horrific. But perhaps, in a very very few cases, it might be the right choice for women in the circumstances they find themselves in, compared to other outcomes. Let the women themselves be the judge of that.

duckyneedsaclean · 12/02/2016 23:54

Emma That is the law in this country, and nearly every country.

It is not me who has the unpopular views here.

NameChange30 · 12/02/2016 23:57

Marital rape was legal once.
Slavery was legal once.

Laws change, thankfully. I don't think this la will change, not in the way I'd like it to. But the fact that it's law doesn't make it automatically right. It also doesn't make it automatically the most "popular" position. It's just the position of the lawmakers/politicians with the most power and influence at the time the law was made.

fakenamefornow · 12/02/2016 23:58

Perhaps more realistic. A very distressed women shows up in A&E in agony. She's informed she's in labour and the baby is about to be born. Women become even more distressed and pleads with the medics that she can't have a baby and begs them to abort it and stop it being born alive.

Another possibility. A women in late stage pregnancy tries to self abort, baby is born alive, what then? We could even imagine it was born in the bath and mum who have had to act to bring baby to the surface but didn't, baby then died.

No questions asked abortion to term doesn't solve all moral dilemmas and problems, just as a 24 week limit doesn't. No set of rules (or not) around abortion are perfect with no losers.

NameChange30 · 13/02/2016 00:00

No one is arguing for "no questions asked" abortion to term FFS. How many times do we have to say it?!

fakenamefornow · 13/02/2016 00:03

OK, poster who want abortion available to term, what are you asking for? What questions are you saying the mother would have to answer?

duckyneedsaclean · 13/02/2016 00:13

Erm, quite a few were, AnotherEmma.

CultureSucksDownWords · 13/02/2016 00:18

You're being deliberately obtuse. At the very least any medical professional would have to check for informed consent and a full understanding of what was being asked for. It's not hard to work out what kinds of questions might need to be asked. I don't anyone was suggesting otherwise.

harrasseddotcom · 13/02/2016 01:19

But if you think a women should have full control of her autonomy and full term abortions why theoretically then the need to question to her? Is is just box ticking and paper pushing? She doesnt need a reason, or should have to justify a reason to two doctors to have an abortion? Isnt that what you have been just proposing? Quite frankly every reason you have put forward has been picked apart, and the reason for that is because they are weak. The bottom line of your argument seems to be no more than "because i want to" and "I should have the right". Thankfully the majority in this democracy find full term abortion of viable children horrific and Ill sleep better at night knowing that its not ever likely to happen in my lifetime.

differentnameforthis · 13/02/2016 06:57

How about leaving the caps lock button alone differentname? How about you stop trying to control what I do?

AnotherEmma Thank you for the flowers Smile

Apparently the abortion police are also the caps lock police Grin

A woman has an elective c-section. The surgeon makes the incision. Prepares to remove the foetus/baby. She says "Actually doc, I've finally made my mind up now. I want an abortion" Surgeon kills foetus before removing it. Wow, you really do think so very little of women, don't you?

duckyneedsaclean · 13/02/2016 09:14

Again, it was a hypothetical designed to try and make you see that there is not a great moral difference between the killing of a newborn and the killing of a full term foetus.

Clearly it touched a nerve.

differentnameforthis · 13/02/2016 09:29

duckyneedsaclean No it didn't "clearly touch a nerve"...all it did was make some of us think you have a very low opinion of women.

So you gained nothing!

BeyondBootcampsAgain · 13/02/2016 09:31

So, a woman is already in labour/mid cs and randomly decides she wants to kill the baby? Why on earth would she (if of sound mind) suddenly want that? Its utterly ridiculous, and just a tad woman-hating. Women who want abortions want the pregnancy to end, they arent gleeful baby-killers Hmm pregnancy would already be at an end if she were in labour, what is left for her to want?

I wonder, in a world that had abortion on demand and induction on demand, how many women would choose to have a late abortion rather than induce. Just for the shits and giggles, obv.

BeyondBootcampsAgain · 13/02/2016 09:38

The woman mentioned in the op, do you think she would have aborted if given a choice between late medical abortion and early induction/cs and adoption? I would support her decision either way, i was just wondering which would be easier for her to deal with after

fakenamefornow · 13/02/2016 10:01

Actually I wouldn't support very early inducted considering it may well result in (completely unnecessary) life long disability for the baby. Your moral compass really seem a long way off.

You talked about the evolution of laws up thread, such as making rape in marriage illegal. Infanticide was very very common in the past and was seen as a way to just dispose of unwanted babies, women had no access to contraception or abortion back then, they didn't exist, so if she didn't want a baby this was her only solution. Thankfully this is now also illegal.

BeyondBootcampsAgain · 13/02/2016 10:05

In what world is it more likely that a birthing woman would randomly decide to abort their crowning foetus, than a woman could attempt suicide and only kill the baby?

ispymincepie · 13/02/2016 10:14

Women who want abortions want the pregnancy to end, they arent gleeful baby-killers hmm pregnancy would already be at an end if she were in labour, what is left for her to want?
Presumably that baby not to be living in order to absolve her of 18years of responsibility raising it.

christinarossetti · 13/02/2016 10:45

The key difference is that abortion is an intervention in pregnancy and that murdering a newborn very obviously isn't.

ispymincepie · 13/02/2016 11:23

But she is still pregnant while labouring. The baby is not a separate entity yet. Obviously this is a highly unlikely hypothetical situation but illustrates clearly the majority of people's discomfort/disgust of full term abortion. Nobody knows at what point that woman would go into labour and the fact you are suggesting that a procedure could be carried out to end the life of that feotus just hours before they were about to be born is abhorrent to many.

BeyondBootcampsAgain · 13/02/2016 11:44

But an ill foetus who is being aborted later than 24 weeks could well have actually been born the next day. Who knows. There has to be a cut off though.

christinarossetti · 13/02/2016 12:28

Highly unlikely hypothetical scenarios aren't the best basis for any sensible discussion.

Yes, and guidelines from the RCOG are very clear that should any abortion result in a live baby, that baby has the same rights to medical intervention as any other baby.

duckyneedsaclean · 13/02/2016 13:12

So if we took the hypothetical scenario back a day. The woman goes to her doctor the day before a planned cs. In tears, cannot cope with a baby. Her husband lost his job, she thinks they will not be able to provide for the child. She wants an abortion. The doctor convinces her to go through with it. So the imaginary woman's decision on the operating table wasn't out of the blue or on a whim.

Would it be acceptable to stop the heart of the foetus before removing it, at that point?

LassWiTheDelicateAir · 13/02/2016 13:38

I'm not against abortion-just abortion on demand for healthy foetuses right up to term. And thankfully this seems to be the mindset of the majority. I think that BPA should think very carefully about any campaigns for full term abortions for viable babies. I think the public is generally happy with abortion laws at present but i think pushing for something that the majority does not wish could end up in backlash against them. If there was a serious campaign towards free for all full term abortions, I possibly would join a campaign to not only oppose it but reduce the time limit.

I would not want to reduce the time limit but otherwise I whole heartedly agree with you.

I think most people make a mental moral equivocation to allow themselves to be comfortable with the current law. Faced with the right to demand a termination up to any point before birth I would certainly find it difficult to sustain the equivocation I make.