Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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 Women should not have to battle outdated Victorian legislation for control over their reproductive rights.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:
christinarossetti · 14/02/2016 19:46

"You need to separate abortion, which is sensibly legal, and aborting viable babies, which is sensibly illegal."

I don't agree. Abortion is a medical intervention whatever stage at the pregnancy it is carried out.

Also, we can't separate these things. No-one can. Nothing magical happens when the clock strikes midnight at 23 +6 weeks pregnant that means that the baby will definitely be viable the next day. Some babies born at 24 weeks survive with medical intervention, but by no means all. Of those that survive, about 50% will have a severe/moderate disability. Some babies born later in a pregnancy including at term don't survive for various reasons.

'Viability' is an estimation and suposition. Any prediction of health is ultimately, I suppose.

Removing time limits on abortion would also enable doctors to do their jobs without fear of prosecution. If people remember, Joanna Jepson won the right to launch a legal challenge of 'unlawful killing' against the doctors who had performed a Ground E late abortion. Thankfully, the CPS didn't uphold her view and no charges were brought.

christinarossetti · 14/02/2016 19:51

The debate is being had, larry. It's not over, it's ongoing.

Was there a national referendum about decriminalising abortion that I missed? You seem very certain that 'the majority of the population' are against it. What's that based on?

I's not really true to say that there's zero desire to change the law given that we're all posting on a thread with a opening thread which has outlines exactly that case.

NameChange30 · 14/02/2016 19:54

Well said christina.

larrygrylls · 14/02/2016 19:58

Killing a newborn could also be considered a medical intervention.

It is really simple. You either believe there is this magical moment at birth whereupon a foetus with zero rights becomes a human with full rights, or you don't. I don't, and nor do the lawmakers and the majority of the population.

If you believe the foetus acquires rights somewhat earlier, the law tries to find the best compromise between the two sets of rights, which is where we are now.

I agree viablility is a somewhat arbitrary criterion as, in theory, it is a movable feast. But sensation, response etc are all increasing rapidly at around 24 weeks and the foetus has many human attributes. The date of cut off is always going to be random but most would rather lower than raise it as we see all the things foetuses can do, see and feel at 24 weeks gestation.

I am not a pro lifer and Am very pro easily available early abortion. Get rid of the doctors' consent, make sure it is easily and quickly available but, to me and most others, there has to be a cut off point.

itsbetterthanabox · 14/02/2016 19:59

Larry
You don't get to decide if that debate has been finished..
Neither are You the whole population. Laws aren't based on what the majority of the population want anyway. There was no original referendum on this.
What is that compels you to want to control other women? I can't get my head around it.
There are other countries where abortion is legal. We are lagging.
Women will never be equal without complete free unrestricted access to reproductive healthcare.

larrygrylls · 14/02/2016 20:00

Christina and Emma,

Look at the forum this is in, count the numbers pro and against extending the deadline. It would be far higher among the general population.

But, if you really believe there is the demand, start the campaign.

itsbetterthanabox · 14/02/2016 20:03

You are pro 'life' anti abortion Larry.
Allowing some women reproductive freedom doesn't redeem you from the fact you are trying to control other women.
It is completely illogical to be pro choice but only up to an arbitrary point. Either it's 'person' or its not. At least the proper crazy pro lifers are morally consistent.

itsbetterthanabox · 14/02/2016 20:07

The reason public opinion may be on the anti choice side (we don't know that it is) is because we live in a patriarchy. Sexism and control aren't ok just because a lot of the public agree with it. The public used to be against abortion altogether remember. Should we never have challenged that? The public used to be against contraception. Things progress.

NameChange30 · 14/02/2016 20:23

"most would rather lower than raise it"

Please do share the evidence for this. You sound so convinced that there must have been a large recent survey on the topic.

No?!

larrygrylls · 14/02/2016 20:29

d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/64gbx6amxp/Abortion%20Results%20121009.

See the above survey from Yougov:

47% want to keep current limit.
33% want to reduce it.
4% (!) want to extend it.

NameChange30 · 14/02/2016 20:40

So the crucial stat (which you failed to mention initially) is that 47% want to keep the current limit. Not reduce it as you implied.

larrygrylls · 14/02/2016 20:57

Emma,

I said rather lower than raise it. Read it. In addition, if you read the detail, the women in the survey are the ones more in favour of lowering it than the men.

So, definitely not the 'patriarchy'.

Shall we just agree that there is no desire among the general populace to lower the limit? 4% is not a big number.

larrygrylls · 14/02/2016 20:58

Raise the limit, I mean, obviously.

christinarossetti · 14/02/2016 21:17

There have been a myriad of rights that women have won that there was 'no desire amongst the general populace' to change because women not having them maintains the status quo:-

Right to own property
Right to vote
Right to equal pay
Right not to be sexually assaulted
Right not to be discriminated against because you're a woman
Right to family planning
etc etc etc

As I've said many times on this thread, I'm aware that the wish to decriminalise abortion is a minority view. That's why it's important that it is aired.

It isn't simple. Medical, ethical, legal committes spend hours and hours debating, considering, weighing up arguments, cases, possible scenarios.

And in what context could 'killing a newborn be considered to be a medical intervention'?

Genuine question. I really can't see one.

larrygrylls · 14/02/2016 21:26

Christina,

Define 'medical intervention'. It can mean anything.

Most of the rights of women (above) were desired by other women. This one is not. 80% of women believe human life starts at conception or at some point in pregnancy.

Only one in 7 women believe life begins at birth. Only one in 25 women wants a later abortion limit. You readily admit that your view is minority but I think you assume it is somehow progressive and that others will fall into line.

Well, of course you are entitled to air your view but maybe you could seriously consider why so many other women disagree with you.

NameChange30 · 14/02/2016 21:29

"80% of women believe human life starts at conception or at some point in pregnancy."

I don't know when human life starts, but I don't think it's relevant. I believe the woman's right to bodily autonomy takes precedent until labour begins.

NameChange30 · 14/02/2016 21:29

Oh and I know why people disagree. I'm just not persuaded by the arguments.

christinarossetti · 14/02/2016 21:38

Medical intervention doesn't mean 'anything'. It certainly doesn't mean killing a live person under any circumstances as far as I can see.

Umm, I don't think it's true to say that 'most women' wanted 'all women' to have the rights that have been legally fought and won. There were plenty of women campaigning against the right to vote for example, plenty campaigned and still oppose abortion, contraception, etc.

I do think that a pro-choice view is progressive. Unfortunately, I don't think it will become more popular in the curretn social context of the growth of far right ideology, predicated on notions of some people and their struggles being less worthwhile than others.

LassWiTheDelicateAir · 14/02/2016 22:11

Oh and I know why people disagree. I'm just not persuaded by the arguments

And as someone who would be happy to raise the limit to 26 weeks I am not in the least bit persuaded by the arguments presented by Emma and christina

Given the Northern Ireland assembly has yet again voted against legalising abortion I reiterate that calling for abortion to be permitted to full term is dangerous and misguided and plays right in to the hands of the pro-life camp.

It is completely illogical to be pro choice but only up to an arbitrary point. Either it's 'person' or its not. At least the proper crazy pro lifers are morally consistent

A point I have already made. 24/26 weeks / whatever is a pragmatic fudge. Carry on pushing the line it has to be one or the other and I wonder how many people who are currently pro-choice would change their minds?

LassWiTheDelicateAir · 14/02/2016 22:12

Well, of course you are entitled to air your view but maybe you could seriously consider why so many other women disagree with you

And try answering that question without saying "it's the patriarchy innit."

christinarossetti · 15/02/2016 00:00

I haven't used that phrase lass and suffixing it with 'innit' reads as an embarrassing attempt to deny the social and political realities that other posters were outlining.

I think there are lots of different reasons that other people, including women, disagree with my view that abortion should be decriminalised. Being habitualised to societal control over women's bodies is one of them.

I've actually thought about it all pretty long and hard in order to arrive at my current view.

The issue of time limits for abortion wasn't the point of discussion in Ireland recently - it was that High Court ruling that parts of the current legislation contradicts the Human Rights Act.

Unfortunately, this ruling won't benefit the vast majority of Irish women who don't wish to continue a particular pregnancy, so they'll carry on taking tablets sourced off the internet and their families will carry on going cold and hungry so that they can save up to travel to England. Or they'll borrow the money from loan sharks, so incur a lifetime of debt and harassment.

Incidently, the proportion of Northern Irish women who have a post 20 week termination is far higher than in the rest of the UK as saving up, organising travel/accommodation takes time.

Decriminalising abortion would help thousands of women living in Northern Ireland but, no I don't expect any change there soon.

MaryRobinson · 15/02/2016 00:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MaryRobinson · 15/02/2016 00:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MaryRobinson · 15/02/2016 00:35

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LassWiTheDelicateAir · 15/02/2016 00:38

I haven't used that phrase lass and suffixing it with 'innit' reads as an embarrassing attempt to deny the social and political realities that other posters were outlining

I didn't say you referred to the patriarchy. I can't recall who did. To be clear I don't particularly care whether you think my comment was embarrassing.

Personally I cringe when "the patriarchy" is trotted out as the supposedly trump card, as it certainly was on this thread.

My point about Northern Ireland seems to have sailed spectacularly over your head.