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 Women should not have to battle outdated Victorian legislation for control over their reproductive rights.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

To be honest it doesn't seem to me that legalising abortion for women at any stage of pregnancy would have done anything to make that a less horrific situation. The girl would still have been in denial, not very bright, possibly mentally ill, and might well still have done something horrific at home rather than seeing a doctor.

Only on page one and I expect conversation has moved on by page 11, but legalizing abortion would definitely have made it less horrific. An already traumatized woman would not have been arrested and imprisoned.

I'm not thrilled that she aborted a 32 week old foetus, I have a sibling who was born before that date. She could have spoken to her GP about her distress, got social services involved, and asked for an early caesarian and then for it to be adopted. But it does seem from what I've read, that she perhaps just wasn't capable of doing that.

Desperation also makes people act in non-logical ways. I was pregnant with a very much wanted baby, but 6 months of pregnancy complications ended up making me want to physically rip it out of my belly, it was maddening. It's upsetting to me that so many women are happy to put the boot in - indeed want to be the first to stick the boot in - when other women are at their most vulnerable.

I haven't said before but I don't think a custodial sentence was appropriate in the case that kicked off this thread.

Nope, still wrong lass. Keep reading.

And custodial sentences are what you're going to get if you criminalise abortion. So if you disagree with the sentence you have to actually reconsider the law.

Here you go lass since you seem to have some trouble reading

10/02/2016 22:10 AnotherEmma

larry

"I don't believe you make this strong foetus/baby distinction outside abortion discussions, when it suits your beliefs."
In discussions of abortion it's important and useful to make the distinction between foetus (unborn) and baby (born). So yes I am specific about foetus v baby when discussing abortion. But not when discussing pregnancy and babies in other contexts, especially not when discussing wanted pregnancies, which brings me onto this...

"Do you really correct heavily pregnant friends when they talk of their unborn babies?"
Of course not. Don't be ridiculous.

"Or even really believe that a 30 something week foetus is anything other than an unborn baby?"
Well, it's a foetus, which has the potential to be a baby, but it depends how the pregnant woman sees it. If she wants the baby, it's a baby. If she doesn't want it, and she would prefer to think of it as a foetus, it's a foetus.

Emma the post I quoted was one of yours explaining in your words the difference you saw between a foetus and a baby. It may flatter your ego to think what you have written on such a long post was so astonishgly wise it should immediately jump from the page.

No it does not follow that because I think that sentence was harsh that I should support full term abortion.

Sorry such a long thread - and clearly you do think your pearls of wisdom shine from the page.

I find your distinction illogical and essentially no more than "if it's wanted it's a baby; if it's not , it's a feotus" Which is wrong legally and medically. Ethically, that's up to you.

I thought it made it clear in my previous posts, but here it is one last time:

• The correct medical and legal term is a foetus. This is the term I use when discussing abortion.
• In other contexts and especially when discussing wanted pregnancies I respect the mother's wish to refer to her foetus as a baby even though that's not the correct medical and legal term. I understand that the foetus has a potential to become a baby and that the mother already thinks of it as a baby. However, I don't think that it is medically or legally a baby.

That clear enough for you?

Natalie Towers will serve a year. I hope Ann Furedi and the BPAS are supporting her in prison and will support her on release.

A while back on this thread some one suggested that as Natalie was 32-34 weeks it would not have been the worst thing in the world for her to have gone to term and considered adoption. That was declared unthinkable, I can't recall by whom.

In this particular case I'm not sure why that should be unthinkable but a termination of a foetus or baby , call it what you will, which would have been viable if born at that age, is not. If you wish consideration of a procedure which , I suspect many would find unacceptable perhaps being willing to consider other options is a prerequisite.

Adoption seems to me to be the one option now which has become unthinkable and to which a stigma attaches.

Few people now consider a child born to a single mother is shameful; a few more are utterly opposed to abortion in any circumstances. I see little reason to take their opinions seriously. On the other hand discussing this with a friend who at one point was worried about her teenage daughter it was odd she would have supported her daughter through a termination or if her daughter had wanted to keep the baby, but adoption was never considered (turned out was a false alarm).

Considering adoption does not mean I think women are just incubators but it does seem to me to be the option which is now viewed as the least acceptable, whereas here it was potentially the least bad of those available.

Mary,

Of course it is a fudge. Most laws have grey areas. Wouldn't it be lovely if human life were merely Boolean algebra, where we could logic our way to a perfect solution?

Absent of that we legislate messy compromises and, if in doubt, rely on our court system to produce the optimal outcome. Again it sometimes goes awry. However, it is the best we can come up with.

It"s impossible to know to how many woman have ever willingly given up their babies for adoption.

Women continue to have their babies forcibly taken away from them, but it"s unclear how many go through a whole pregnancy having already decided to have the baby adopted.

Exceptions being private arrangements and surrogacy ( to which a common reaction is 'oh, I couldn't have a baby and then give it to someone else to raise.')

And that"s why iit"s so important to have these discussions Larry.

There will likely be another attempt to reduce the 24w cut off soon. It's absolutely vital that opposing views are aired now.

www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/charged-with-murder-for-killing-babies-30-seconds-too-late-the-absurdity-of

Christina,

I believe in free speech and, of course, discussion of all debatable issues is important.

However, ultimately, women are far more for protecting the rights of the unborn foetus/baby than men, a statistical fact that should be recognised by those putting the other side of the proposition.

You can by all means believe that the 96% are wrong and the 4% are right, but you cannot assume that the 96% have an ulterior motive and do not genuinely believe that the unborn baby/foetus is a human being and acquires some rights while still in utero.

I wonder if the fact that we have a higher limit than other countries has something to do with the lack of abortion rights in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The fact is that until the laws change there, there will always be Irish women travelling to England for abortions - and it takes them time to get the money together and make the arrangements. If we reduced the limit further I would have a lot of concerns but Irish women would be pretty high on the list.

I'm very glad that in England we have a higher limit than other countries. If I lived elsewhere I would be campaigning for a higher time limit there.

Mary,

What do you like about the Canadian system given, as shown by me and one other poster, with helpful links, that they, in practice, have an earlier limit than we do?

Sorry larry - what 96% and what 4%?

50 years ago in 'civilised' countries like the UK and USA it was a 'statistical fact' that most white people (and some black people) though that black people shouldn't have the same rights and opportunities as white people.

We don't now regard racial discrimination as the mark of a 'civilised' country. I don't know what the 'statistical facts' on the matter are at the moment, but it's fair to say that they've changed since the 1960s. Ditto attitudes to women's equality, views about disability etc etc.

Apartheid and overt discrimination wasn't the 'best that we could come up with' although people thought it was at the time.

If say abortion was decriminalised in the UK for a year, what do you think would happen to the abortion statistics?

I can't see how any civilised society could make self induced abortion to term legal. There will be the chance a child is born alive but perhaps severely damaged by the process. The very thought is horrific. The law is absolutely right to make this a criminal offence.

Vivienne
It was only self induced because she was denied an abortion by a doctor due to it being illegal after 24 weeks.
If doctors could perform abortions legally to term we would avoid these at home self induced situations.

No-one is suggesting making self-induced abortion legal Viviennemary.

If abortion was decriminalised, these situations wouldn't happen.

Criminalising abortion doesn't mean that women don't abort pregnancies - they do it in more dangerous ways.

If abortion was decriminalised, as some wish, how would you suggest the law deals with a violent partner who deliberately beats his pregnant partner in the stomach to induce an abortion? Let's say the baby was 35+ weeks gestation and much wanted by the women. Posters are also adamant that the foetus has no rights, is not a baby, and should be given no consideration in law.

I think violence in pregnancy is much more of an issue for women than the 24 week abortion limit. Decriminalising abortion would be a huge disservice to women.

Clearly it's the woman who has rights here and is the victim. The man in this hypothetical scenario has ended her pregnancy against her wishes. Of course that's a crime.

Can you explain how decriminalising abortion would be a huge disservice to women?

There will likely be another attempt to reduce the 24w cut off soon. It's absolutely vital that opposing views are aired now

It's up to you but in opposing a cut from 24 weeks I don't think (a )calls for full term abortion to be legal (b) making distinctions about unwanted foetuses in utero and wanted babies in utero or (c) that in the case of a woman who is already 34 weeks pregnant that , absent health reasons, another 6 weeks with a view to adoption is utterly unthinkable.

I have not seen any convincing answer to what exactly is the difference between a healthy 39 week foetus in utero and a healthy 39 week baby ex utero. If you can't convince me (who would support 25 weeks) then how do you propose convincing the small but not insignificant %age who oppose abortion completely or the much larger %age who support it but either at 24 weeks or less?

I think in banging that drum you risk setting up the responses you have on here and from that pro-life web-site linked. I would hate for calls for such an extreme position to result in a backlash against 24 weeks.

An aside but from the news reports Natalie Towers was not denied an abortion by a doctor - she did not go near a doctor at any time during the pregnancy.

50 years ago in 'civilised' countries like the UK and USA it was a 'statistical fact' that most white people (and some black people) though that black people shouldn't have the same rights and opportunities as white people

That is comparing apples and oranges. Public opinion since 1967 has veered towards supporting legal abortion - however as the viability of premature babies has increased support for late abortion has decreased.

My recollection of the last time this was considered it was a fight to retain 24 weeks. I will throw my weight behind 24 weeks and I think that is where fire power should be concentrated.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7412118.stm

pennyred.blogspot.it/2008/05/24-reasons-for-24-weeks-pro-choice-call.html?m=1