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 Women should not have to battle outdated Victorian legislation for control over their reproductive rights.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

Larry, I can't explain the difference between a foetus and a baby again. I know that you don't agree ( which is fine) but I honestly can't explain it anymore clearly that I and other posters already have repeatedly on this thread.

Do I think a foetus (at any gestation as a matter of fact) is a living, sensate human being? No, I don't for all the reasons which have already been explained it death.

If its status changed ie it was born at that gestation them,yes, it would become a human being.

How about you answer my question about whether you think it's acceptable than women can be prosecuted for sending or attempting to end their pregnancy at any point during it. The woman in the article linked to in the OP said that she didn't realise that her pregnancy was so advanced. There is no indication that she wouldn't have not been prosecuted if her pregnancy was less than 24w along.

Is this acceptable?

What about, larry, if someone answered the question is an 8 month old foetus a living separate human being with the very simple answer "no".

Thing is, it is not a simple 'yes or no' question though, can you really not see that? Is a conjoined twin a living separate human being? Answer with only a 'yes or no'.

And the question about whether a women should be prosecuted for ending her pregnancy at any point along, I would say, yes she should, the law should not change.

In practice it I think would be extremely unlikely a women would be prosecuted for ending a early pregnancy, in fact I would bet it has never happened, please correct me if I'm wrong though. IMO this is the right outcome means the law is working well.

'Thing is, it is not a simple 'yes or no' question though, can you really not see that? Is a conjoined twin a living separate human being? Answer with only a 'yes or no'.'

My question did not include the word separate. Your question would have a simple answer: 'no'. If you had not included the word separate, it would have has a simple answer: 'yes'.

'Do I think a foetus (at any gestation as a matter of fact) is a living, sensate human being? No, I don't for all the reasons which have already been explained it death.

If its status changed ie it was born at that gestation them,yes, it would become a human being.'

I guess this is where we will never agree. You refuse to look at this from the prospective of the baby/foetus. Because, if you did, you would see that nothing magical changed when it passed through the birth canal and had its umbilical cord cut. You are deliberately being blind here as you can only see things from the perspective of the mother.

'How about you answer my question about whether you think it's acceptable than women can be prosecuted for sending or attempting to end their pregnancy at any point during it. The woman in the article linked to in the OP said that she didn't realise that her pregnancy was so advanced. There is no indication that she wouldn't have not been prosecuted if her pregnancy was less than 24w along.'

Of course it is acceptable to prosecute a mother who has killed a 32 week gestation baby. There is also no indication that she would have been prosecuted if her pregnancy was less than 24w along. I doubt she would have been. Of course she may have been desperate and deserving of sympathy, but so is many a new mother of a living baby. I assume that you still would want to see infanticide prosecuted?

larry, can you really not see that you are doing exactly what you accuse christina of?

I guess this is where we will never agree. This is a very sensitive and emotive subject and many of us have a baseline for or against which we are unlikely to move far from.

You refuse to look at this from the prospective of the baby/foetus and You are deliberately being blind here as you can only see things from the perspective of the mother.

Can you not see that this sentence can be complete rewritten to cover your views?

You refuse to look at this from the prospective of the mother. You are being deliberately blind here as you can only see things from the perspective of the mother.

No one has to agree. The two sides both have genuine and strongly held viewpoints. But please, stop accusing people who disagree with you of being "blind" and "refusing" to think about something, when you yourself are very clearly doing that too.

'No one has to agree. The two sides both have genuine and strongly held viewpoints. But please, stop accusing people who disagree with you of being "blind" and "refusing" to think about something, when you yourself are very clearly doing that too.'

There are two clear viewpoints on the rights or wrongs of aborting viable foeti. I can completely understand and accept that.

The concept of a baby being a living human being if the mother wants it to be and a non living foetus if she does not, however, is illogical and inconsistent. Or the idea that it suddenly acquires life the moment it draws its first breath; again illogical based on what we now know about the brain.

The concept of a baby being a living human being if the mother wants it to be and a non living foetus if she does not, however, is illogical and inconsistent. Or the idea that it suddenly acquires life the moment it draws its first breath; again illogical based on what we now know about the brain.

No, that's your view.

There is not one poster arguing that the foetus acquires life when it draws breath, there are several.

It's not "illogical" just because it is different from your view.

Larry have a look at the various guidelines for abortion from the Royal College of Obs and Gyne re the complex debates around when a baby is deemed to be "alive".

I" m not asking you to agree with them,, but it's trivialising the thought and consideration that has gone into these discussions to call them "illogical'.

The idea that a baby only becomes a human being when it's born is just plain illogical. Of course it's a human being. What else can it possibly be.

The restriction on her rights has the consequence of conferring the right (whether you use that word in a layman's or a legal sense) that the feotus can no longer be aborted. English law focuses on her inducing a miscarriage. I think (although I may be wrong) other jurisdictions do focus on the feotus.

You think there should be no restrictions on her rights because it is her own body.

There are restrictions on what you can do with your own body-extreme sado masochistic sex, under -age sex, under age tattooing, illegal drugs. There's nothing intrinsically unusual in restrictions on what one can do with one's own body. And none of them actually harm anyone other than the individual concerned unlike a 24+ week abortion.

I understand you won't change your mind on this - but at what point do you think a woman should not be entitled to abort?

When her waters break? Contractions? Crowning? Before the cord is cut?

These are not hypothetical - referring back to Canada despite there being no upper limit Canadian doctors were sending third trimester cases to the US- presumably because this is an ethical issue Canadian doctors won't face.

'There is not one poster arguing that the foetus acquires life when it draws breath, there are several.'

There are indeed 'several' or, in the general population, 4%, or one in every 25. I posted a link to this upthread. This is a very low proportion.

I still think it is illogical as it is inconsistent on so many levels with how we view life. For instance:

Is an adult on a ventilator a living human being? (not capable of independent life).

Is a baby who is lying on its mothers tummy but still receiving blood through the umbilical cord a living human being, or is it still OK to abort at this point as it has not breathed yet?

lass I had this discussion with ducky further up the thread.

Ditto, Larry in regard to your second question, I discussed this with ducky a couple of days ago on this thread.

In regard to your first, of course as adult on a ventilator is alive. Once you are deemed to be live, you are so until you"re dead.

'Deemed' to be live?

By whom?

OK christina this is a long thread but your debates with ducky seemed to be that what she proposed and the scenario I set out are so hypothetical they couldn't happen.

Ducky was focusing on someone changing her mind in the labour ward. You said it was hypothetical as the patient could not have had the necessary pre-counselling for approval of an abortion. Fair point.

What about a patient who has had counselling and has been approved for a late abortion (for a non medical reason) - what is to happen in her case if she goes into labour? At what point, if any, must the abortion cease? Or does it carry on?

You said "Removing time limits on abortion would also enable doctors to do their jobs without fear of prosecution" - in that case you will have to define precisely the point an abortion turns into a birth and becomes illegal.

Yes, these things have been discussed quite thoroughly earlier in the thread.

Yes, it is a low proportion. No one is claiming otherwise. Does the fact that we number only 4% of the general population somehow complete invalidate our views, or mean we cannot possibly hold them?

You can keep coming with hypotheticals and I imagine, for those of us who agree with full term abortion, the answers are going to continue to be the same.

A baby INSIDE a women is not an independent life. A baby OUTSIDE of a woman is an independent life.

Considering you continue to ask questions like this, how about answering some others yourself. Like, what is your opinion on the fact that an arbitrary time limit means that a scared 14 year old girl who hadn't realised what has happened to her for months, and then is too scared to say anything until it is so obvious that other people notice, is denied an abortion because she arrives at the doctor's surgery a day too late?

Trust me, that situation, and all of those mentioned on the earlier link to reasons for late termination, are a hell of a lot more common than a 38w pregnant woman changing her mind.

Does the fact that we number only 4% of the general population somehow complete invalidate our views, or mean we cannot possibly hold them?

No one said that. The difficulty you face is , if you can't convince say me or Larry who are pro-choice under current law (I certainly am, possibly Larry might favour an earlier cut off) you are going to face a pretty impossible task.

I've said before I think pushing this agenda risks opening up a can of worms which could lead to a more restrictive regime. I would save my fire-power for the next attack on 24 weeks.

The doctors and physicians attending.

Please do have a look at those Royal College guidelines. I can't link as I'm ony phone, but the questions of 'life' and 'rights' are explored and explained thoroughly there.

In that case, the woman would probably go to the delivery suite and the baby by delivered.

An abortion would be a pre- planned procedure. To my knowledge, doctors don't perform abortions on women in labour.

Considering you continue to ask questions like this, how about answering some others yourself. Like, what is your opinion on the fact that an arbitrary time limit means that a scared 14 year old girl who hadn't realised what has happened to her for months, and then is too scared to say anything until it is so obvious that other people notice, is denied an abortion because she arrives at the doctor's surgery a day too late?

A 14 year old may well still be provided for in the exceptional case circumstances. If it were only 1 day I would be surprised if a clinic would not make some leeway.

I have already said several times 24 weeks is a pragmatic fudge.

Have you actually read the link that was posted near the top of the thread ' 32 reasons .....' ?

This is exactly the sort of situation where girls weren't able to have a teination as past 24 weeks.

The law absolutely does mind about 1 day. No clinic would break the law by performing a teinatiin at 24+ 1.

Sounds like you think the girl in this situation should be entitled to decide not to continue her pregmanxy.?

That's the reason for removing abortion from the criminal justice system.

No clinic would make leeway for 1 day. It is against the law and they would, as you repeatedly remind everyone, be charged with a criminal offence. Ditto if there was no medical reason for the abortion.

It is a pragmatic fudge - but is it remotely fair? Doesn't it leave women and girls in desperate circumstances?

I imagine there are far more women and girls who will be negatively affected by this arbitrary cut off than there are women who are just going to change their mind at 36 weeks...

"A 14 year old may well still be provided for in the exceptional case circumstances. If it were only 1 day I would be surprised if a clinic would not make some leeway."

Oh the irony! You've been arguing AGAINST decriminalisation of abortion for this whole thread, and now 26 pages in, you naively suggest that clinics could allow a day's leeway?! How ridiculous. But this is the issue at the heart of the debate. If there is a law setting the limit at 24 weeks, that's it. No leeway, no exceptions. That's exactly why I and others support the decriminalisation of abortion. It's also why I would support extending the limit and oppose reducing it.

"I imagine there are far more women and girls who will be negatively affected by this arbitrary cut off than there are women who are just going to change their mind at 36 weeks."

Totally agree.

There was one woman, on that list of late termination requests, who had left her abusive partner. It's so easy to imagine the situation. A woman, with young children already, finally leaves an abusive partner at 26, 28w pregnant. She has young children already and is housed in a refuge. Having made the decision to leave, she now knows that she cannot have another child - in fact, she feels she cannot continue with the pregnancy.

Another easy situation to imagine, seeing how we are down to discussion hypotheticals.

Should this woman be forced to continue with her pregnancy? No one is saying that an abortion at this stage will be an easy process, and certainly not on par with an 8w surgical termination which might be relatively straightforward. But surely she should be allowed to choose that in this terrible situation, she thinks she can cope better with a late termination than with several more months of pregnancy, then birth, then adoption.

YouSaff Sadly lots of people care less about the woman in that hypothetical but very possible situation and more about the rights of the foetus