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 Women should not have to battle outdated Victorian legislation for control over their reproductive rights.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 am personally strangely slightly happy there are vocal "term abortion should be allowed" people.

Because as Lass says, it may make people think about abortion again, in terms of the foetus's rights, and decide to come down on the pro life side.

Mostly I am disturbed though.

Ducky do you think all abortion should be illegal?

Larry
Women supporting reduction of reproductive rights doesn't mean it isn't patriarchy causing this. That's how ingrained it is that women are just incubators and should all want children as its 'natural' for us.

Ducky I genuinely believe the views expounded by christina and emma are damaging to women's rights.

I cannot imagine a situation where abortion to term will ever be allowed.

As the law stands in the UK, despite the need for 2 doctors to approve a termination up to 24 weeks, the UK (excluding N. Ireland) actually has, from the countries I checked, the most liberal policy.

It is true France, the Netherlands and other European countries have "on demand" provision in the early weeks but France, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands have a lower cut off point than 24 weeks. I didn't check other countries on the basis these were likely to be the most liberal.

From my own experience of friends who have had abortions and in my own case once discussing it with my gp (false alarm) the 2 doctors rule effectively operates as if on demand.

Whilst I might support the suggestion there should be on demand provision, if the pay off, when comparing other European countries is a reduction from 24 weeks, then I'd leave matters well alone . Cameron has said there is no intention to reduce thiis and it worries me that Holyrood was clamouring to , and will, be allowed to legislate on this issue.

Women supporting reduction of reproductive rights doesn't mean it isn't patriarchy causing this. That's how ingrained it is that women are just incubators and should all want children as its 'natural' for us

That comment is quite breathtakingly misogynistic. How lovely all us incubators have enlightened women like you to tell us where we are going wrong.

Lass you don't understand what misogyny is then.

Supporting women's reproductive freedom is categorically not damaging to women's rights. It is exactly what women's rights is for. To give us bodily autonomy and equality.

No, I suppose not , being an incubator conditioned by the patriarchy.

The term "mansplaining" gets trotted out a lot on the feminist forum. Its sister "feministplaining" is just as patronising, condescending and irritating and you have just provided 2 splendid examples of it.

Do you seriously think the objection to full term abortion is just because women are buying into the idea they are merely incubators? No doubt of course your response will be I can't truly know what I think here because, hey, I'm blinded by patriarchical conditioning !

Sorry I was replying to your "I don't understand what misogyny is " comment.

In reply to your most recent. I stand by my comments that the extreme views set out by christina, Emma and you will only lead to polarisations and hardening of attitudes.

If you push the all or nothing line those who adopt a pragmatic approach will have to reassess where they stand. I doubt very much they will shift to the full term position.

I'm absolutely not pushing the 'all or nothing line', and I can't see that anyone else is either.

Is anyone saying ' abortion should be decriminalised for all pregnant women or criminalised for all pregnant women?'

Or either we allow all pregnant women to have abortions or none at all.

MaryRobinson has made some valid points and asked some pertinent questions that no-one has responded to.

"I genuinely believe the views expounded by christina and emma are damaging to women's rights."

Damaging to women's rights! That's a new one! Apparently by defending women's rights we're damaging them

We're not pushing the "all or nothing" line. We're just sharing our views. Most of us said earlier in the thread that we thought the BPAS campaign should be focusing on decriminalising abortion up to the current limit, so as to remove the 2 doctors rule. Despite evidence to the contrary some of you are STILL insisting that no women have ever been refused or delayed their rights to an abortion as a result of that rule - well, you're wrong.

The idea of defending women's rights entirely depends on not believing a female viable foetus is a woman. If you do believe that your views are trampling all over vulnerable women' rights.

Most women, as demonstrated by the survey I linked to, believe life starts at some point in the womb.

Omfg. The pregnant woman is more of a woman than a female foetus. If you can't see that there is no reasoning with you.

As for your argument about views on when life begins - I've already responded to that. But it's so much more convenient to ignore my response and repeat yourself, isn't it?!

What seems like an obvious solution to me does not seem to get suggested. One of the main objections to not allowing late term abortion is because it is inhumane to insist a woman continue a pregnancy against her wishes. I can see the argument for that but what I fail to see is why the unborn child has to be killed prior to delivery. Post 24 weeks a woman will have to labour (unless heaven forbid we go down the road of that barbaric other method that has traumatised me even reading about) and if she has to labour then why not induce labour and give the baby a chance?
All these comments too about pro-lifers not being willing to help when an unwanted baby is born are a nonsense too. There are so many couples wanting to adopt newborn babies. Most have to adopt from abroad as there are so few babies to adopt in the UK. There are also many organisations who do support women who choose to continue a pregnancy in different circumstances.

And no-one has responded to the points that MaryRobobsob made recently and the interesting questions that she asked.

I can't link because I'm on my phone bit Fiona Bruce tabled a discussion about criminalising sex specific abortions. There was very vocal opposition from Royal College of Midwives, Royal College of Obs and Gyne, andany other invested parties.

Vdb, the Royal College of Obs and Gyne are very clear on this point.

A live birth is not compatible with the intention of abortions.

Are you seriously suggesting that permitting pregnancy to be induced at 24 weeks to what may or may not be a live foetus, resulting in God knows what medical intervention, a very high chance of a moderate to severe disability is an 'obvious solution'?

To what exactly?

'Omfg. The pregnant woman is more of a woman than a female foetus. If you can't see that there is no reasoning with you.'

Really? That is a v slippery slope. I imagine that you also believe that an adult woman is much more of a woman than a newborn female baby. If not, why not? A newborn +1 day is capable of exactly the same as a foetus 1 day to term. This 'othering' has always been used when people want to make arguments for the extinction of life.

I think it is tough to reason about babies to someone whom I suspect is not a parent. I can see your logic but pure logic with no feelings leads to very dangerous laws. I am still not sure why, if bodily autonomy is above all, you don't think that drugs should be available on demand to all who want them.

'As for your argument about views on when life begins - I've already responded to that. But it's so much more convenient to ignore my response and repeat yourself, isn't it?!'

You said that you did not know when life began but, as far as you were concerned, the rights of the mother should be prioritised anyway. You did not explain why, assuming you believe the foetus/baby is a human living being before birth. You may have responded but you did not answer it in any meaningful way.

Ah, so my response wasn't MEANINGFUL enough for you

I'm a parent Larry, three babies, two alive and one dead.

Just in case that makes any difference to how my views are seen.

And I have absolutely no shortage of feelings. Nor a desire for you to reason with me.

Happy to continue the discussion, bit just wanted circumvent any suggestion that those who oppose the criminalisation of abortion have views that are somehow removed from emotion.

And atill no-one has responded to MaryRobinson's points and questions on this area top of this page.

Christina....... the problem with your argument is that you are saying that death is preferable to disability which is eugenics really. This guest post was about a woman who was 32 weeks pregnant with an assumed healthy baby. There are posters on this thread saying a woman should have autonomy over her body throughout the pregnancy. If a woman for whatever reason decides to terminate at a point where the baby is viable, I personally think the baby should be given a fighting chance and not killed. This should certainly be the case post 28 weeks as complications are likely to be less.
To argue that a woman should be able to terminate her pregnancy up to full term is barbaric and has no place in civilised society

Just had to respond to this crazy stat ... "80% of women believe that life begins at conception or at some point during pregnancy"

Well, there's a surprise!

So, at some point between conception and just before birth!

The way some people use stats never ceases to amaze and amuse me.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics!

Right, back to catching up on the thread and see where we are now .....

I see there was some mention of a "pragmatic fudge" .... as I posted earlier I think pragmatism has a legitimate place in decision making alongside more philosophical arguments, especially in this area where I think many people would agree it is about getting the right balance.

I have not and am not saying that death is preferable to disability. I have no idea how you've managed to extrapolate that from my posts.

I am saying that the Royal College of Obs and Gyne are very clear why your "obvious solution' is unworkable and unethical.

And what exactly is inducing a pregnancy at 24 weeks the 'obvious solution' to?

And still MaryRobinson's interesting posts from late last night haven't been answered...

Vdb
The point is a woman still has to give birth and the risks associated. Plus must she avoid pain relief that would actually help as this could harm the foetus? The foetus she actually wants aborted. There's a host of other issues here.
You are forcing women to labour and birth because you are restricting their access to reproductive choice. That is barbaric.

So it's not about women's rights if the foetus is a male Larry?
You are being illogical. A foetus is not and independent human being. It depends on the body of another. Independent human women who are that body have the choice what happens to it.
Reproductive rights are a feminist issue.