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 Women should not have to battle outdated Victorian legislation for control over their reproductive rights.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:
LassWiTheDelicateAir · 16/02/2016 18:54

Sorry should say "will be helpful" at the end of the first paragraph.

christinarossetti · 16/02/2016 20:29

fakename that situation is covered by the Infant Preservation Act. It's unlawful.

christinarossetti · 16/02/2016 20:53

lass You're misrepresenting what I've said, which isn't helping the debate.

(a) I favour decriminalising abortion not 'calling for full term abortion to be legal*

(b) I haven't made any distinction between wanted and unwanted babies in utero. They have the same legal status.

(c) I support the criminalisation as well as (not instead of) improved education, contraception, MAP access, abortion counselling, information and support to women about their options on later pregnancy. I've repeatedly said that one of the problems with a cut off is that is forces women who discover that they're pregnant in their second trimester to make decisions under pressure. Removing a time limit would enable women to make more considered decisions. Adoption could obviously be one of these. It would also mean that women didn't self induce late term abortions, which is an appalling situation for anyone to be in.

I can't explain the difference between an unborn and a born baby any more simply. The difference between a 39 week foetus (in utero) and a baby born at 39 week is their legal status. Once a baby is born, it has the legal rights and requirements that any child in the UK has ie to medical attention, the right to have child benefit claimed in its name, the need to have a passport to travel abroad, it's birth must be entered on public records. A foetus at any gestation does not have the same legal status.

It's not apples and oranges. It's an illustration of how public opinion can change (think of how smoking is viewed now compared to even 20 years ago). It's not set in stone.

I'm opposed to the criminalisation of abortion full stop. I appreciate that you're not, but I maintain that it's important to debate these issues.

Just because it's an unpopular view doesn't make it not worth saying. Quite the opposite in fact when it's something so important.

NameChange30 · 16/02/2016 21:08

I admire your persistence christina. But it's all been said already. I think that claiming not to understand an argument even when it's been explained clearly several times is just a passive-aggressive way of undermining / rejecting it. So it gets to the point when you have to just stop engaging. We're not getting anywhere, are we?

christinarossetti · 16/02/2016 21:16

I'm not sure that I'm trying to 'get anywhere' tbh Emma.

This is an interesting debate, and I'm glad that it's been able to run for a few days without loads of deleted posts (have there been any?).

NameChange30 · 16/02/2016 21:18

No there haven't, I don't think.

christinarossetti · 16/02/2016 21:22

Very civilised for a debate about abortion on MN then.

NameChange30 · 16/02/2016 21:23

I haven't always felt very civilised Grin
Ah but I forget... I am pro choice and therefore don't belong in civilised society Grin

LassWiTheDelicateAir · 16/02/2016 21:53

christina I didn't mean to imply you made the distinction between wanted babies and unwanted foetuses.

My post was a general summary of attitudes which have been expressed on this thread which I personally think are counter productive to what you are aiming for. Emma did make that distinction.

Emma You have failed to grasp the point. Do you really think I am so dim I am unaware of the legall difference between a 39 week healthy feotus in utero and a born 39 week baby ? The answers supplied entirely miss the point of my question.

(Interesting that as you are so fond of passive aggressive responses you attribute your failure to understand the question to similar behaviour on my behalf)

The question you have and christina have failed to answer is that of the moral issue - simply considering the foetus and the baby as living creatures- not the legal or medical interpretation.

How do you convince the overwhelming majority of people that both are living creatures and that the foetus, if removed by birth or a caesarean, would continue to be a living creature? What is the difference? You have not answered that question.

Put it bluntly, you think one of these living creatures can be killed if its mother says so , but the other can't. That is a moral question which reiterating " but because it's different . ." does not answer.

For those of you who want abortion to be legal with no time limits that is the question you need to answer.

To that extent, Emma, you are correct , you are getting nowhere- nothing on this thread has persuaded me the upper limit should be removed.

LassWiTheDelicateAir · 16/02/2016 21:55

Missed out words

how do you convince the overwhelming majority of people who think that both are living creatures and that the foetus, if removed by birth or a caesarean, would continue to be a living creature? What is the difference? You have not answered that question

christinarossetti · 16/02/2016 22:10

They are not 'living creatures' in the same way for all the reasons outlined above.

What about social and medical moral responsibility to the mother to make her own choices about her pregnancy?

One consequence of this thread for me is to see how un-thought through many arguments which want to maintain that some abortions stay within a criminal framework are.

LassWiTheDelicateAir · 16/02/2016 23:00

We are going round in circles.

You are failing to understand the viewpoint that for those who are opposed to abortion or late abortion they are living creatures - quoting the legal definition does not address the visceral horror of the idea of terminating a child in the morning which if birthed naturally the afternoon of the same day would live. You will say - very late abortions would still be very rare- but I'm not sure that makes much difference

You ask "What about social and medical moral responsibility to the mother to make her own choices about her pregnancy?" Well in the UK she has had almost 6 months to consider whether or not to end that pregnancy.

Dawn Primarolo, the Labour Health minister said "the limit had always been linked to the "potential viability of the foetus outside of the womb".
"That was the case in 1967. It was the case in 1990 and certainly the case in 1990"

So far as un-thought through arguments - that works both ways.





christinarossetti · 16/02/2016 23:59

Some women don't:t realise that they're pregnant for a few months, or are in denial.

They may then be forced into a hasty decision or denied the right to make one.

Women who subject themselves to situations of 'visceral horror' deserve compassion and support not criminal charges.

Removing the criminality of abortions would:t increase the numbers but it would mean that they are performed more safely.

christinarossetti · 17/02/2016 06:42

And repeatedly the autonomy of individual women is ignored.

In terms of abortion being criminalised, do people think it's acceptable that women can be prosecuted for self-nducing an abortion at any point in her pregnancy?

Or for having an early abortion without the consent of 2 doctors?

Is that an acceptable situation?

itsbetterthanabox · 17/02/2016 11:11

Lass
It's not really relevant if you feel visceral horror though.
No one is asking you to have or perform late term abortions. You will never have to be horrified.
Lots of things aren't nice to look at but are necessary.

larrygrylls · 17/02/2016 13:06

'It's not really relevant if you feel visceral horror though.'

Actually, it is. How people feel about things comes first, and then the law attempts to follow this idea of morality/ethics.

larrygrylls · 17/02/2016 13:08

'Lots of things aren't nice to look at but are necessary.'

Many great evils have been committed based on unthinkingly following that dictum. If the vast majority of people recoil in horror at something, it probably means it is not right to do it.

LassWiTheDelicateAir · 17/02/2016 13:21

Lass
It's not really relevant if you feel visceral horror though.
No one is asking you to have or perform late term abortions. You will never have to be horrified.
Lots of things aren't nice to look at but are necessary

I wasn't referring to me personally but actually it is relevant. It is as relevant as the fact it doesn't bother you.

Public and legislative opinion does not at the moment support full term abortion Unless you can change public opinion the horror the majority of the public would seem to have is very relevant.

christinarossetti · 17/02/2016 16:47

What are peoples' views on the fact that a womam can be prosecuted for self-aborting a pregnancy at any gestation?

If people think self- abortion should be criminalised from 24w, what about before this gestation?

Related, should women need the consent of two doctors before a termination of their pregnancy can be performed?

Viviennemary · 17/02/2016 17:02

I recoil in horror to abortion of a full term or almost full term baby/fetus capable of survival outside the womb. It's a living human being. Most people would be horrified.

christinarossetti · 17/02/2016 17:07

That doesn't really address the current location of some abortions in the criminal justice system, Vivienne.

CultureSucksDownWords · 17/02/2016 17:17

If the current 24 week limit is kept, then I would like to see the need for 2 doctors consent to be removed. I would also not want self-abortion before 24 weeks to be criminalised, although this might be the implication of removing the 2 doctor consent rule anyway.

itsbetterthanabox · 17/02/2016 17:17

Larry
What great evils have been committed due to some things being necessary but gross?
I was thinking open heart surgery or brain surgery would be pretty horrible to watch but we should still do it.

itsbetterthanabox · 17/02/2016 17:21

How many times?
Public opinion isn't what creates laws.
Many laws are disagreed with by public opinion.
The majority of people used to feel horror about abortion full stop, even first trimester. Doesn't make it wrong. Emotions don't make morality.

larrygrylls · 17/02/2016 17:27

It's better,

How about the holocaust? Nazis believed that exterminating the Jews was viscerally horrifying but necessary. It is when we turn off our humanity and follow (very dodgy) logic that humans make their biggest mistakes.

Heart surgery is not viscerally horrifying. Seeing a sick heart repaired, with all the concomitant gains to the person, is actually rather beautiful.