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 Women should not have to battle outdated Victorian legislation for control over their reproductive rights.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

^^ Id agree to full term abortion on those terms - that being that decriminalising abortion would give the right to terminate pregnancy but not the right to decide on life or death of the baby. I'd also add that id expect that the baby was not be killed in utero and given all medical assistance possible once it was separated from the mother's body and that the mother waived all rights to said child. In those terms, then yes Id support full term abortion.

Fakename
3rd time now.
You don't have to give birth even in third trimester abortion. There are methods that avoid this. Intact dilation and extraction.

Fakename
Re the birth and death cert thing.
I'd expect them to do the same thing as is done now in post 24 week abortions that are for severe medical issues.

Intact dilation and extraction. Didnt know what this was so I googled it. Turns out to be the most inhumane thing I have ever came across. Sounds quite clinical and almost like an everyday procedure. But what I have just learnt (which i wish I could unlearn) is horrific. Correct me if I am wrong but the jist I got from my 30 sec perusal seems to be a dr. pulls the baby out by its feet until it is almost born bars the head. Then an insertion is made into the skull and its brains are sucked out. Thats horrific. There are no other words for it. People actually advocate this? And then actually wonder why there are so many anti abortionists. Fancy words disguising what most civilised people would consider barbaric. And I do think these things should be discussed, regardless of the nature of them. If such acts are to be proposed, then they should be under the upmost scrutiny.

So you'd be in favour of a pregnancy being terminated at say 24 weeks, and then medical intervention to preserve the life of the baby?

If you're going to argue a point harassed at least do it consistently. If you're starting from a point of the foetus having the 'right to life' then surely it has the right to the beat possible life ie not to be inducedbso early.

I agree thatl all the horror around the reasons that girls and women may need abortions should be discussed.

So let's talk about rape ( including of children, by a family member and gang rape). Let's also talk about domestic violence and sexual exploitation. Also, poverty, over- crowding and omelessness,. And let us not forget bullying, abuse, criticism, and contempt poured on girls/women who have an unwanted pregnancy in difficult circumstances.

Harassed.
RTFT.
It's not inhumane. What is inhumane is forcing women to carry pregnancies and risk their lives giving birth when they don't want that.
All abortion method descriptions sound horrible described. Early ones too. But no one has an issue with those.

It would be extremely inhumane to force women who want abortions to labour and birth 24 weeks pregnancies. Then to try and force the foetus to live. Is that honestly better iyo? To try and force it live and have a short very likely health impaired life just to fit your anti choice stance?

Mince your words all you want, what I have just read is inhumane. It is otherwise know as the partial birth abortion. So, the reality is that you have to somewhat give birth, just not the final push of the head. Maybe it is inhumane to force women who want abortions to labour and birth 24 week pregnancies, but in comparison to 'partial birth abortions' that seems a much more civilised and humane choice. Otherwise your not arguing that you want the pregnancy to end, but the life to end of the unborn child. And like you said, once born, its no longer a foetus, but a legally recognised child, so you wouldn't be 'forcing the foetus to live' but doing all we could to save the live of a premature baby.

harrassed.....since I read about the alternative to labouring post 24 weeks (partial birth abortion) earlier in the thread I have been feeling actually sick every time I consider it. That there are women on this planet who could contemplate that being an acceptable method of ending the life of a baby. It actually makes me despair.That a woman would be so pro her bodily autonomy that she would find that preferable to labour. I can only assume that in places where that is legal, they do not tell the woman what they are actually having to do. I really really wish I had never read about it. Hideous.

harrassed that's a completely incoherent argument. If you're going to argue that a foetus has a 'right to life' it's incoherent to argue that it's also okay to force this life to begin dangerously early, incurring very significant risks of disability and death.

It's absolutely fine for you both to feel so strongly about abortion/late abortion, honestly.

You don't have to have one. Absolutely no-one on this thread is telling women who are against abortion that they should have one.

I would absolutely defend your right to make the pregnancy choices that are right for you and your circumstances.

its not incoherent at all. I believe all foetus have a right to life, and that right in law is extended to all viable foetus over 24 weeks. Any foetus born after the 24 week period is given all medical assistance where possible, this is how it works in practice at the moment. What you are arguing is not the womens right to end the pregnancy up to term, but to end the life of the unborn foetus. I would argue against that. Id even concede that id support ending the pregnancy after 24 weeks if the foetus was not killed in utero, but just given the chance to be born alive, in effect ending the pregnancy albeit earlier than preferred. But once born, then that foetus is a human being, fully recognised by law and therefore entitled to as much medical assistance as possible. Being disabled or terminally ill does not reduce this right.

VDB, i googled the term and was absolutely appalled. Its truely heinous. But its not convenient for pro abortionist to talk about the nitty gritty of it all, but rather to gloss over the gruesome details. Christina, you need to lay off the my choices and your choices. I wouldnt want any foetus/child enduring what has been suggested, be it my own or anyone elses. But like I have already said, if women dont want to continue their pregnancy, then Id support that at any stage as long as the unborn child is not killed in utero and given all medical assistance available (as is already the current practice of most premature babies).

All this debate and it goes in the same circle and boils down to one simple point.

Who do people think has more right to a quality of life - the woman, or the unborn child?

thurlow,

That is a trite phrasing of the question. It is not the Mother's right to life vs the foetus's. It is the Mother's right to a a maximum of 3 months pregnancy free vs the foetus's right to life.

And most (including me) would agree with harassed in allowing the mother to give birth early if she wanted to.

I just do not believe a late gestation foetus is disposable on the decision of the mother. Nor do most others.

I still cannot get my head around the idea that snipping a tiny bit of penile foreskin on a baby that happens to have been born, yet injecting potassium chloride into the heart of an identical gestation foetus is absolutely fine.

Happens to have been born, is child abuse (missing from above post).

Three months of pregnancy. And birth. And then deciding whether the baby is adopted or goes into care. Yep, an absolute walk in the park. And again, only someone who will never have to contemplate having to be pregnant themselves could be so straightforward and blase about what is involved in continuing a pregnancy when you have decided for whatever reason that you don't want to continue with it.

And of course, we are discussing all of this from the perspective of a country where adoption, sadly (and this should definitely be part of the wider conversation here) is not straightforward and the parents are not, for example, in the position of being able to assist choosing adoptive parents before their baby is born.

Never said walk in the park. Your words. I merely phrased the trade off accurately, and did not use weasel words such as 'quality of life' when what is meant is killing.

itsbetterthanabox

How can that not be described as birth? The mother would have to birth the body and the (collapsed) head.

Three months of pregnancy. And birth. And then deciding whether the baby is adopted or goes into care. If abortion (under circumstances I have already mentioned) then there would be no extra three months, although the extra time would be beneficial to the unborn child. But essentially women could abort any time after 24 weeks. Birth, from what I have read (the partial birth abortion), after 24 weeks all woman have to give birth it seems, the only difference being whether it is a live baby or not. The only way around vaginal birth would be a caesarian, which i suspect would not be opposed. As for the welfare of the baby, this is not the concern of the mother, as she has given up all rights to said child when she opted to end her pregnancy early. She could live her life as if in the knowledge she had terminated the child in utero, as there would as much consequence for her regarding such. To argue this, is not to argue for womans bodily autonomy (which has already been ceded to in this theory) but for the right to end an unborn child's life.

Thanks for the advice, but I won't lay off asserting individual women's rights to make their own reproductive choices.

It's really important to me, and central to this discussion (for me).

It isincoherent to say that a foetus has a 'right to life' but you support a decision to make that life start dangerously early in accordance with the women's right to end her pregnancy when she wants to.

Women who have abortions don't want to be pregnant at that time. They are not choosing an early delivery, they are choosing to end the pregnancy in a way that doesn't result on a live baby.

So in your latest scenario, woman wants to terminate a pregnancy after 24 weeks, is offered an induction/CS at say 25w and knows that the baby may be born either dead or alive. Also, that her decision about when to be induced (with a baby she doesn't want to be pregnant with) will impact significantly, even fatally, on the baby's life chances, health status etc.

And then she walks out of hospital leaving (maybe, but not sure whether the baby is dwad pr alive) a very premature baby who, what, has no-one to look after it at this point?

And forgets all about it for the rest of her life? Is that what you were thinking?

Meanwhile, premature baby has no primary carer, no-one to register its birth etc. Or were you thinking that attempts could be made to trace the father at this point?

And if the baby reaches 18 it will have the right to trace its mother and they can have a discussion about how theorher wanted to terminate the pregnancy but it was thought better that the baby ( health problems and all) lived.

There are quite a few problems with this suggestion, I would say.

'It is incoherent to say that a foetus has a 'right to life' but you support a decision to make that life start dangerously early in accordance with the women's right to end her pregnancy when she wants to.'

Accepting compromises is how most of legislation is made. It is not incoherence.

'And then she walks out of hospital leaving (maybe, but not sure whether the baby is dwad pr alive) a very premature baby who, what, has no-one to look after it at this point?

And forgets all about it for the rest of her life? Is that what you were thinking?'

That is correct. She did not want it. That was her decision.

'Meanwhile, premature baby has no primary carer, no-one to register its birth etc. Or were you thinking that attempts could be made to trace the father at this point?'

It would be treated exactly the same as an abandoned baby is now. There are protocols to deal with this.

I think these scenarios would happen so infrequently and for really extreme reasons. Most people would never be able to do this but there are situations where this course of action could be better for the woman and the baby.

For instance women who are addicted to crack/heroin and are living in terrible circumstances and have become pregnant and failed to obtain an abortion.
You cannot stop an addict from continuing taking drugs/earning money from prostitution. Babies are severely damaged for life, born addicted to drugs with extreme learning difficulties and physical and mental disabilities.

You haven't contemplated the rights of the child when they turn 18 Larry, or those of the father.

Nor the emotional impact of a pregnancy/ birth on a woman.

This logic is absolutely insane.

The really bizarre thing about all the above arguments is that it seems you are claiming the mother in all these scenarios would be happier apparently knowing her child IS dead. Why? A mother who does not feel able for all sorts of reasons to bring up a child must surely feel better thinking she gave that child a chance to live than that she killed it, and if in 20 years time that child came looking for her, maybe she would have escaped the abusive relationship, kicked the drugs, grown up,found housing, become financially secure (basically resolved the reason she could not be a good mum at the time) and actually have a positive reunion with the child. It has been known!

Christina.......as we have repeated several times, after 24 weeks, a woman has to 'birth' the child and even with that horrendous procedure you claim avoids birth, you have to birth all but the head and then wait whilst a doctor sucks your babies brains out before you complete the process. There is no way of avoiding birth after 24 weeks.