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 Women should not have to battle outdated Victorian legislation for control over their reproductive rights.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

Christina,

Although you will deny it, all your points would also apply to infanticide. As a poster above pointed out a few feminists, in an even more extreme position than you, have extended the argument to justify killing newborns.

if a newborn is given up, its birth mother loses the right to know what has happened to it. They also may be contacted when the child is 18, asking for difficult explanations.

The 'inside the body/outside the body' argument does not seem compelling to me. It could be just a matter of luck at 9 months whether a foetus has been born or not. What you are asking people to accept is a baby's fate being decided purely by lottery of whether it has been delivered or not.

The only problem seems to be the mothers (imo selfish) view that a viable baby should die so that she isn't inconvenienced with the difficulties of walking away. You cant argue bodily autonomy as this is granted with the ending of the pregnancy. Now your arguing about a womans right to what amounts to no more than 'peace of mind' (and im not convinced terminating a viable baby could possibly guarantee this anyway) vs the right to live for unborn babies (viable after 24 weeks). What happens to that child after birth is for the state to worry about (and certainly more time/money needs to be put into this area).

In brief,

vdb, when a woman decides to have an abortion, she doesn't want to be pregnant. It's nothing to do with her 'being happier knowing that her child is dead'.

I haven't claimed any procedure 'avoids birth'. My first baby was stillborn late in pregnancy, so I think it's fair to say that I know more than I ever want to (more than you, possibly) about the realities of giving birth to a dead baby.

larry, so a 14 year old pregnant as she was raped by her father/step-father/uncle or whoever should then have to live the rest of her life wondering whether someone is going to contact her to ask 'difficult explanations'?

And she should be prosecuted for terminating a pregnancy after 24w as well?

That's a well thought through line of argument. Not.

harrassed read the '32 reasons not to lower the abortion time limit' link and then say that those girls/women are 'selfish'.

I continue to argue a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices. Those girls and women are not enjoying 'peace of mind'.

I'm also arguing for the right of children born to have full and frank information about the facts of their life ('I wanted to abort you, but the State said that you had to be born alive, so sorry about the learning disability, sensory and health problems and all).

I'm going to step back from this thread until/if the discussion resumes some sort of coherence and sense.

christina.... I am truly sorry you have had to go through that.
What I am genuinely confused about though is that you keep arguing that when a woman wants an abortion it is because she does not want to be pregnant.There are obviously many and varied complex reasons for that. No one here has argued that they should not have that choice(not to be pregnant) but I am not clear why you go on to argue that they should have the choice to end the life of that child. It does not make any sense. The child is by then able to live without its mothers womb. She is no longer pregnant and no longer has responsibility for a child she felt unable to provide for.
You mention how disabled that child is likely to be but if you take for example 27weeks gestation, out of a 100 babies, 12 will not survive but of the babies that do, 80% will have mild to no disability. Bearing in mind these are general statistics and that the reason some babies are born prem is because of their disabilities, if you were looking at healthy babies the odds might be even higher.
You are looking for coherence and sense but maybe that will never happen in this sort of debate as I see your arguments as utterly incoherant and you see mine similarly.
I believe as a woman I have autonomy over my body as much as any man does but I do not believe I have autonomy over a baby which is a separate entity carried within me. I fully believe that baby should be entitled to the same rights as myself and should be more protected because of its vulnerability. I don't think my rights should trump that of a child or baby whether in or out of my womb.
I also believe that it is not enough to say 'well that is absolutely fine because you maintain the right to protect the child in your womb whilst others maintain the right to kill theirs.' That makes no moral sense to me. That is the same as saying that I have the right to protect my own children but am not entitled to say whether other people should look after their children.

It makes no moral sense to me to say that supporting the decriminalisation of abortion is the same as supporting infanticide, which at least two posters on this thread have likened my views to.

It makes no moral or legal sense to me to argue for the 'right to life' of a foetus and then say that it's okay for that foetus to be forcibly born extremely early with no primary care giver/legal guardian and live with the (likely) health problems and knowledge that its mother aborted it for the rest of its hypothetical life.

It makes no moral sense to me for you to make judgements about another woman's pregnancy choices, but I guess that's why there are such strongly divided views about this topic.

Vdb
Dilation and extraction does avoid birth. You don't have contractions, you don't feel the pain, it's all done by the doctor.

Late to the discussion. I support wholeheartedly the idea of medicalising rather than criminalising abortion to 24 weeks, and obviously TFMR beyond that time. But I have seldom read anything as horrific as the details of dilation and extraction. To present D&E as a get-out clause for mothers who don't wish to have to give birth during abortion, is to put it bluntly, absolutely sick.

I truly get that some women who are pregnant beyond 24 weeks may find themselves In circumstances where abortion would be ideal. And it could be devastating for the mother. However, I will protest to the end against the idea of supporting abortions to term. The foetus is a being that is alive and sentient beyond 24 weeks. If it was not alive no one's baby would die in the womb beyond this point, as it would never have been alive in the first place. It isn't alive independently of the mother, but that does not seem to prevent its heart beating and its arms and legs moving.

So to plan to kill a living human beyond 24 weeks gestation apart from TFMR seems to me to display an enormous lack of humanity. And whilst there are women who are pregnant past this point and would ideally like an abortion, surely there has to come a point where compassion for a woman's circumstances does not extend to killing her survivable baby, in order to lessen her distress.

Yes, the adoption process in this country is dire, but perhaps we should look to countries which practice open adoption (just had a relation in the states become a Mom through this process), and make it a more realistic alternative to late term abortion.

Yes the mother will still have to give birth, but she will anyway if she aborts at a late stage. And surely there comes a point at which a woman's right not to go through birth should be weighed against the gestating baby's right to be born at a survivable point.

There is something very wrong when a woman would rather her baby was partially born and its brains sucked out, than give birth to a live baby and have it adopted.

And as previous posters have stated, if push came to shove, despite believing wholeheartedly in the need for pre 24 week abortions, if I was asked to choose between supporting abortion to term or scrapping all abortion, I would choose the latter.

Annette I don't understand how it is so horrific to you that a ' baby's brains be sucked out' or that a pregnancy could be ended when a foetus might be viable that you'd prefer to force all women to continue with an unwanted pregnany rather than allow the few hundred girls/women who want a late abortion to have this done safely, but it's 'obviously' okay to TFMR beyond 24 weeks.

You said that twice in your post.

Are you saying that a baby with Down's syndrome for example has fewer "rights' than a baby without?

That"s a interesting take on 'humanity' and not one that I share.

Not saying any baby with a disability has fewer rights. However, I do think that medical circumstances where a pregnancy is terminated because a child has a condition that is incompatible with life/terminal are vastly different post 24 weeks, than terminating a child who is simply not wanted. To TFMR is an awful decision to have to have to make, and is often an act of mercy for the child.

I see nothing merciful about terminating a perfectly healthy baby at this stage, given that adoption is a possibility. If the adoption process is difficult, surely that is easier to reform than trying to get 96% on the public on side with abortion to term?

And yes, I absolutely would prioritise, at this late stage, the right for a baby which could survive outside of the womb to have a chance, over the feelings of the woman. A woman's feelings may be colossal distress, of course, and that is awful and the lady would need as much support as possible, but I don't believe feelings trump life.

Declaring abortion to term for any reason to be ok would, if implemented, bring about an equally horrific dystopia as the idea of women as Handmaidens. I think the current 6 months that a woman gets to make this decision is pretty fair. It is not only about each individual woman who would like a late term abortion. It is about who we are as a society. I wouldn't feel sorry if Levi Bellfield or Ian Huntley fell into a knife tomorrow, but regardless of what I feel about individuals, I wouldn't want the death penalty because these morals represent who we are as humans.

It is also naive at best to think that all women will make the choice best for them for the right reasons. I'm an ex-mental health nurse, and when you have had to help restrain a 36 week pregnant woman from throwing herself at a wall to try an harm her baby, it really opens your eyes to what some people are capable of. The woman's diagnosis.....psychopathy. She had wanted the baby then decided she wanted to abort, to put it simply, for shits and giggles, purely Because she knew it would be an awful thing to hurt the baby. The baby was going to be removed at birth anyway, but she was acting to kill her child for no other reason than she enjoyed killing. Late term abortions would be a dream come true for women like that. The awful thing is, we knew the protocol on how to restrain pregnant women safely without harming the baby, because it had happened before, there are a lot more psychopaths than you might think!

You then also have the situation of someone with a fluctuating mental health problem who decides she wants a late term abortion. The woman's capacity to make that decision would have to be assessed by two psychiatrists and all procedures followed. But capacity within many mental illnesses fluctuates, from hour to hour quite often. So how would you provide for that? It is hard enough supporting a mentally unwell lady to make a choice regarding abortion at an early stage in her pregnancy when she is not detained under the mental health act. I'd be interested in how late term abortions would work in these cases as, as from professional experience, wanting a late term abortion and mental illness do co-exist certainly more frequently than many would think.

You are saying that, before birth, a baby with a disability has fewer rights. That's exactly what you're saying when you say that all late abortion should be criminalised because of the 'rights of the child', but it's okay if the baby has a disability.

TTFMR is a broad church - it includes conditions like Downs which aren't necessarily incompatible with life but are a significant disability. Many people, myself included, would say that if you're going to say that an unborn baby has 'rights' autonomously to its mother, those 'rights' should be extended to all unborn babies whatever their disability status.

RTFT please including the '32 reasons ...not to lower the abortion limit' - some girls/women don't realise they are pregnant until late in their pregnancy.

There is no such 'diagnosis' as 'psychopathy' and I don't feel able to engage with any of your other opinions about mental health if calling people 'psychopaths' is your starting point tbh.

I'm so surprised people would rather ban abortion all together than allow the few women a year who need late term abortions to have them. Although I imagine you are all actually anti choicers anyway tbf.
Someone wanting an abortion .whatever the method, rather than giving birth and adopting is not sick. It's no different to an early one, just a different process. No one is asking you to have or give a late term abortion. Why don't you leave other women's bodies alone?
I don't see a problem with allowing a mentally ill person an abortion if that's what they want and have been properly assessed by their mental healthcare team.

Annette
Can you explain your women as handmaidens comment please?

Anette, your example is horrific, but no one has ever been arguing for abortion at any stage of a pregnancy without the correct mental health safeguards in place to ensure that any woman requesting an abortion is in sound mind and understands the reality of her decision. If several mental health professionals agree that it would be in the best interests of the woman then it could continue.

I'm so surprised people would rather ban abortion all together than allow the few women a year who need late term abortions to have them.

I'm saddened, but not surprised. Silly woman got pregnant in the first place, didn't get herself sorted early enough, didn't control her life well enough, so... you know. Her own fault really, isn't it?

Whoops, wrote a huge entry and iPad ate it!

First of all, I don't think that TFMR in the case of babies with Downs is right, unless there are co-existing medical problems which mean that the child will be in grave pain. I refused an amino on this basis - because to abort for Downs would be saying that the baby was second best, and I couldn't do it. People that TFMR when the child is in pain and will die imminently, are acting out of love for the child.,it is in no way about the child being second best, it's about loving that child as a living sentient baby, and wanting to ease its suffering.

Secondly, psychopathic personality disorder is very, very real. I worked in a psychiatric inpatient intensive care unit for two years and met five or six women who were diagnosed with this. The law classes this as a mental disorder rather than a mental illness.

When women are mentally ill, with such illnesses as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or depression, their medication is very often tapered down or changed in the third trimester, in order to avoid side effects in the baby at birth. As such, women often become mentally unwell in the third trimester. Given that their capacity to make decisions can fluctuate rapidly, I feel scared on behalf of these women that they could be convinced that an abortion is the right thing to do when they may not make the same decision as when they are well.

It's better - no way am I an anti-choicer! I've had to spend a lot of time with pregnant patients and support them in abortion situations, and so many times I have thought they were right to do it.

However, we will have to beg to differ on the morality of a late term pregnancy being ended by the baby's brains being hoovered. Fortunately, most of the population and the law agrees with me. And it's not about leaving other women's bodies alone, it's about protecting the viable infant in there..........kind of how we already have laws which also do that.

And assessing a mentally unwell lady to have an abortion is an absolute legal minefield and rightly so. You need two psychiatrists to assess capacity. And capacity can fluctuate by the hour. There is slim to nil chance that any psychiatrist would be willing to say the lady had capacity. Indeed, the fact of wanting to end a pregnancy so close to birth could be deemed as the woman posing a risk to others, and she could therefore be detained under the mental health act. It is really, really not straightforwards.

And my handmaidens comment was that just as some women think that unless women can have an abortion to term on demand, they lose bodily autonomy and therefore become a handmaiden in a patriarchal society, others may equally feel that the idea of being able to abort a perfectly healthy, near full-term foetus is also some kind of terrible outcome. Women matter massively - I am one! But I also think other things matter too, and the ease with which D&E is described as a convenient method to avoid birthing the baby is actually chilling.

Thurlow - I know, it was chilling, and it's also really dodgy ground as I explained. I honestly don't think it's about seeing women as silly who shouldn't have got pregnant. I know life isn't cut and dried like that. But it makes my blood run cold that a viable life can be ended because the woman doesn't want it. Two minutes after the baby is born and it would be infanticide. It is possible to feel real sympathy for people, and totally understand why they want and need an abortion, whilst still saying, no, not at this time, there is more than one person to think about here.

because to abort for Downs would be saying that the baby was second best

Well, that's a lovely way to judge anyone who has decided to terminate because of Down's because they felt that would be the best thing for everyone in the long term...

I was explaining how I personally felt. Offending people who may have chosen to abort is obviously awful and I would in no way want to do that - hence me taking about my pregnancy to ensure it was clear I was referring to my beliefs. Anyone wants to take a different view, that's fine, it's perfectly legal to abort for Downs, so up to the people involved.

However, I find it a bit weird that I'm pulled up for possibly offending someone I that situation, but a breezy description of how to kill a viable foetus by drilling it's skull and hoovering it's brain is fine? Very few things make me want to throw up. That did.

It seems perverse that there is so much emphasis on the women and what they want, respecting their feelings and wants and so on. Yet I am a woman, and I disagree with killing a child because it's unwanted, when it could be adopted. We are all socialised to protect the vulnerable, especially children hence safeguarding etc. Yet my feelings about this as a woman, and those of 96% of the population, are to be discounted by the 4%.

I agree Thurlow, I actually gasped when I read Annette's last post.

It's interesting what different people find 'chilling' and 'horrific' isn't it?

Advocating that abortion should be removed from the criminal justice system and that good medical and psychological care be provided to all women considering an abortion, including information about the possibility of continuing with a pregnancy and adoption.

Chilling, horrific, inhumane to the anti-choicers.

But casually comparing abortion to infanticide, using terms like 'psychopathic personality disorder' to speak about another human being (there's no such thing. Look it up.), calling babies with disabilities 'second best', advocating 'choice' but not wanting other women to have it.

I find those things more 'chilling' than wanting to support women with an unwanted pregnancy in a difficult situation.

I was asked to describe that procedure. Why are people so focused on the idea that I didn't feel emotional or sick enough writing it?
Your feelings are discounted because yes you are a woman but you are not the pregnant woman desiring the termination. It's actually irrelevant that you are a woman unless you require a late term abortion. The only persons opinion that matters is the pregnant woman herself. Outsiders have nothing to do with it.

"I was explaining how I personally felt."

What's the problem with accepting that other women have their own views, feelings, experiences and values (which they're not wanting to impinge on your) and extending your generous offer of 'choice' to other women.

As one of the 4%, I'm not trying to persuade you or anyone else. Simply stating a minority voice.

Yes these dramatic yet meaningless words aren't really helping.

Not at all and it's very typical of the anti-choice brigade imvhe.

They don't have a rational argument, so they resort to trying to play on peoples' feelings instead.

How worrying annette that you worked with mentally unwell patients, your opinion of those women is disgusting. Do you really think a heavily pregnant woman with a mental illness would try to kill her unborn baby for "shits and giggles" You clearly have no clue about mental illness. Do you think someone with, what did you call it?psychopathy? Isn't mentally unwell?

Right, this is now a pile on. Back off.

Look up the differences between antisocial personality disorder and psychopathic.

Lucy - my patients loved me and I got them well and helped their families. If you understood the terms, you would not slate me.

Anyway, off to wash my dog. Busy, busy. Knock yourselves out changing the world.

Annette
Do you live in the UK?
I believe the terms you are using are possibly used in other countries.