Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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 Women should not have to battle outdated Victorian legislation for control over their reproductive rights.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:
MaudGonneMad · 09/02/2016 21:28

<a class="break-all" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:EfB9iDYfNUAJ:www.bpas.org/media/1181/32-reasons-not-to-lower-the-abortion-time-limit-briefing.doc+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Here are some of the reasons women seek abortions after 20 weeks, from a BPAS survey in 2007 that was posted on a recent thread.

Dragongirl10 · 09/02/2016 21:28

Thurlow.....do compassion and empathy not apply to the baby too...as we are talking about an actual baby here not an unformed foetus.

MaudGonneMad · 09/02/2016 21:29

Sorry, after 22 weeks.

MaudGonneMad · 09/02/2016 21:29

No, you're talking about a foetus.

Or are you that poster from the other day who said it was cruel to call a foetus a foetus?

itsbetterthanabox · 09/02/2016 21:31

Dragongirl it is a foetus

Dragongirl10 · 09/02/2016 21:34

my daughter was born at 31 weeks with no complications and home in 4 days, so l find it impossible to not think of this as a baby.

Thurlow · 09/02/2016 21:36

It's a foetus.

It may sound harsh, but I consider the mother, in the midst of her life, perhaps with her own family to support already, to be more important.

Dragongirl10 · 09/02/2016 21:43

I hear what you are saying but cannot begin to fathom why a woman would not want to at least give her ..foetus if you prefer, l am sure you are correct in the term.. a chance of life through adoption.

it must be utterly heartbreaking to decide to kill the foetus at such a late stage...assuming there was no extreme circumstances.....how does anyone live with that for the rest of their life?

OvariesBeforeBrovaries · 09/02/2016 21:49

Dragon on the last thread I posted a pretty long post about my own experiences considering adoption for an unwanted pregnancy. I posted on the Adoption boards and was told unanimously not to, because of the way birth parents are treated for relinquishing their baby.

JugglingFromHereToThere · 09/02/2016 21:53

I think as the post and others have said there is a good fundamental principle of trusting women to make their own decisions.

All women will have their own individual ethical guidelines which can inform their choices. They arguably don't need someone else to take on that ethical decision making on their behalf. Though some may feel the law has some part to play.

Personally I do think it becomes a bit more difficult at later stages - but still you wouldn't have floods of women opting for late abortions just because they theoretically could.

Havalina1 · 09/02/2016 22:07

It's murder.

I see it as at 32 weeks she had no option other than deliver that baby out of her body whether she wanted to or not, grim
as that may be, irrespective of how she got to being pregnant or got to 32 weeks. No coulda shoulda woulda. Too late at 32 weeks for options. It's a baby.

NameChange30 · 09/02/2016 22:16

And this is why the campaign's been pitched wrong. Because the debate on this thread (and presumably elsewhere) is now focused on the woman who aborted at 32 weeks and the possibility of extending/ removing the time limit. Whereas we could just be focusing on changing the law so that a woman could access a safe and legal abortion before the existing time limit because SHE WANTS ONE, not because two doctors say that continuing the pregnancy will be dangerous to her health. I'm sure most people would agree on that. It would be a small change in practice but I'd see it as a significant win for women's choice and bodily autonomy. Win that battle first, THEN fight the time limit battle.

fakenamefornow · 09/02/2016 22:27

there is plenty of support for those who want to give a baby up for adoption

Sadly I don't think this is true. I think every barrier is put in place to try to get women to keep there baby.

It's hypocritical to put arbitrary limits on abortion.

It's not an arbitrary (time) limit though is it, it's based on the viability of the baby.

christinarossetti · 09/02/2016 22:37

I agree with Thurlow. Women should have the right to do as they wish with their own pregnancy while they are pregnant.

If a baby is born alive, it is legally a person with all the legal rights that this carries.

If a foetus does not have the same legal rights, regardless of what stage of pregnancy the mother is.

Given the anti-abortion rhetoric that is becoming more prevalent (hence the need for campaigning for buffer zones around family planning clinics), I think it's really important that these arguments are being articulated.

itsbetterthanabox · 09/02/2016 22:43

It is an arbitrary time limit because it is dependent on access to medical care. The amount of babies that live at 24 weeks is very low.
Many babies die at 38 weeks too.

christinarossetti · 09/02/2016 22:47

Havalina, I see it as it's absolutely none of your business what another women decides to do with her pregnancy.

ispymincepie · 09/02/2016 22:49

Anyone know where to access figures for how many abortion requests are actually denied? I can only assume that doctors fall into one of two categories; for or against termination and that there must be thousands in the former category who sign these requests without so much as glancing at the circumstances.

NameChange30 · 09/02/2016 22:56

"It's not an arbitrary (time) limit though is it, it's based on the viability of the baby."

Viability isn't as black and white as you imply. In reality, it depends on the available medical care - which will change based on medical advances (science) and healthcare provision (social policy). It also depends on the individual circumstances of each baby; for example at 24 weeks (the current time limit) some babies might survive, others might have disabilities or serious long term health conditions, and others may die. There will be babies born before 24 weeks who live and babies born much later who die. When making the law, a decision has to be made based on various factors, and there isn't a simple medical answer.

This might be an unpopular opinion, but I think there is a difference between a premature baby that is born early and very much wanted v a foetus that is still in utero and is unwanted. Medically, legally and ethically we're talking about two different things. And just because I support a woman's right to make decisions about her own body and the foetus she's carrying does not change the obvious fact that a premature baby deserves the best possible care and the human rights we're all entitled to, as soon as it is born.

christinarossetti · 09/02/2016 22:58

Doctors and other HCP have the option of not being involved in terminations if they are opposed to them.

Try looking at the research about the outcomes for children born after their mother is denied an abortion. It's certainly doesn't support the 'why not just have the baby adopted?' line of argument.

harrasseddotcom · 09/02/2016 22:59

Will never support free for all late term abortion. Thankfully I think those that do are very much in the minority despite what mn spouts. Law is fine as it it, if anything id be reducing the time limit to nearer 16 weeks imo.

christinarossetti · 09/02/2016 23:01

The problem with using an cut-off period for abortion based on 'viability' is that on a particular dates the 'rights of the foetus' usurp the 'rights of the mother'.

That's a very slippery slope imvho.

itsbetterthanabox · 09/02/2016 23:01

In Canada there are no restrictions on abortion. We are backwards here in the uk. Yet we look down on Ireland. Glass houses.

ispymincepie · 09/02/2016 23:06

That's frightening reading Maud, I would not consider many of those to be valid reasons for destroying a 22+ week foetus. Eviction notice?! They'll end up living somewhere or do you think they were planning on destroying themselves too? Hmm

NameChange30 · 09/02/2016 23:15

All you anti-choicers. Why should you get to dictate what is and isn't a valid reason for a woman to want to abort her own pregnancy? Why should you dictate that from a certain point she has to either get an unsafe, illegal abortion or continue with an unwanted pregnancy and give birth (with a small risk of death and bigger risk of injury) against her will? Then be faced with the choice of raising a child she doesn't want or giving it up for adoption?

Genuine question. What gives you the moral right to put a woman in that position?

christinarossetti · 09/02/2016 23:17

Fortunately ispymincepie you're not the one who gets to decide what other women do with their bodies.