Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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 Women should not have to battle outdated Victorian legislation for control over their reproductive rights.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:
FrameyMcFrame · 10/02/2016 16:22

I support you 100 percent.

NameChange30 · 10/02/2016 16:33

I agree with juggling:
"I think it's possible to see shades of grey about where life begins and still feel it's the woman herself who is best placed to make those judgements and decisions fakename"

OvariesBeforeBrovaries · 10/02/2016 16:48

Also the pro choice lobby you are not demanding that women have a right to choose to do as they wish with their own body (maybe you would have a point with the op case) you are demanding that other people do what you want them to do to your body.

Hmm Say what now? Are you talking about forcing people to perform abortions? If medical professionals can't put their personal feelings aside to do their job, they shouldn't be in the profession.

PenguinsAreAce · 10/02/2016 17:19

I think this is a fucking horrible debate and an extremely nasty thing to bring to a parenting website which is "there to make parents lives easier".

Abortion after 24 weeks is wrong and should be illegal. Killing a baby in utero at 30 weeks does not alter the fact that the woman has to birth the baby. It is now just a dead one instead of an alive one. Absolutely indefensible and rightly illegal.

msrisotto · 10/02/2016 17:36

Why don't the anti-choicers care about actual living children? That's my question. Unwanted children, filling up children's services, that's what you're advocating. Fucking weird IMO.

msrisotto · 10/02/2016 17:39

And there is no such thing as a pro-abortionist. Honestly, women know that women don't want abortions, but pro-choicers understand that they sometimes need them.

NameChange30 · 10/02/2016 17:42

msrisotto Exactly. I don't see the anti-choicers queuing up to adopt children or pay extra taxes to fund social services so they can enable adoption and/or support mothers with children from unplanned pregnancies.

christinarossetti · 10/02/2016 17:42

Abortion after 24 weeks isn't illegal in certain circumstances in the UK, penguins.

Gorm, your questions have been answered fully a couple of times up thread.

In utero, it is a foetus which does not have the same legal status and rights as a newborn baby.

A newborn baby is a person, hence murdering them would be unlawful.

You may not agree with this, but this is the current legal situation in the UK.

When I was pregnant, I definitely thought about my 'baby' rather than my 'foetus'. but at that point it didn't have the same legal rights that a live baby has.

msrisotto · 10/02/2016 17:56

The reasons why those women were seeking post 22 week abortions were absolutely heart breaking. Does anyone want a methadone addicted baby being brought into the world? Being brought into homelessness and poverty?
Stop with the feckless student propaganda. It's not helping you.

fakenamefornow · 10/02/2016 17:58

sparechange

Yes I agree it is very badly worded, I was rushing out of the door to swimming lessons. Grin

harrasseddotcom · 10/02/2016 18:00

mrsrisotto/anotheremma how do you know who is and isnt trying to help children in care? Thats such a shitty weak argument it almost isnt worth answering. But just to get this straight are you saying that if you are anti abortion (and how anti abortion, from zero tolerance to anti full term abortion) you dont care about unwanted children? By that logic am i to understand that every pro abortionist volunteers 80 hours a week for local childrens services?

sparechange · 10/02/2016 18:04

Abortion after 24 weeks is wrong and should be illegal

What, under any circumstances, ever?

msrisotto · 10/02/2016 18:09

So talking about the consequences on actual living children is a shitty weak argument? Hah, ok.

I didn't say that individual anti-abortionists are/are not helping children in care (although if my mother is anything to go by, the answer would be that they're not)

I would say that if you are anti abortion, you are both anti women and uncaring about actual born children.
The only conclusion to the anti-abortionist stance is dead/injured/destitute women, and unwanted children who will either live with the parent who didn't want them (nice...think about the kind of lives they might have) or will live in children's services.
Your last sentence makes no sense. Again, there's no such thing as pro-abortionist.

Making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortion. It just harms women.

harrasseddotcom · 10/02/2016 18:22

There's no such thing as pro-abortionist. - the oxford dictionary begs to differ.

christinarossetti · 10/02/2016 18:27

The dictionary defines a 'pro-abortionist' as 'someone in favour of the medical provision of abortion', or 'someone favouring the legal provision of abortion'.

If it makes you feel better to call me and people who are in favour of women choosing if they have an abortion, then go ahead and use the term.

I'm not pro any woman who doesn't want an abortion being forced to have one though.

duckyneedsaclean · 10/02/2016 18:38

The saddest thing about "pro-choice" people on mumsnet is that they offer no support to mothers who are thinking about adoption.

I've seen so many threads where pregnant women are asking for help, thinking about giving their child up for adoption at birth, only to be told they will regret the decision. Or that it is too hard, etc etc.

There are many many couples & single people who want nothing more than to adopt a newborn.

harrasseddotcom · 10/02/2016 18:46

ive already said that pro abortion and pro choice are the same terms in my opinion. They both mean the same thing. That abortion be available to women. I dont particularly see the term as loaded. It just is what it is.

OvariesBeforeBrovaries · 10/02/2016 18:47

ducky I was one of those women told that I'd regret the decision to relinquish my child for adoption. Who told me that? People on the adoption forum. Well-known names on there. People who have adopted and fostered children for years and years and years and know the system inside out, and know how birth parents are treated.

I've read a lot of stories outside of MN since that have proved they were exactly right. I would have regretted giving my child up for adoption.

Yes, there are plenty of couples and single people wanting to adopt newborns. But the nature of the system is that many of the newborns will be anything up to a year old by the time the paperwork is complete and they're "officially" adopted. And very few of those couples and singles will get through the process, because their measures are so stringent.

You can point the finger of blame in a number of directions, for all these couples and singles wanting to adopt but not getting their newborn - but women having abortions are not the culprit you're looking for.

KittyandTeal · 10/02/2016 18:49

Ducky I think many people on mn feel they are not knowledgeable enough to advise on adoption.

I am pro choice and certainly wouldn't think of telling someone who wanted to put their newborn up for adoption they'd regret it. I wouldn't, however, give any advice as I know the adoption system is complex and I wouldn't even know where to start with advice apart from 'try the adoption boards as they know much more'

OvariesBeforeBrovaries · 10/02/2016 18:49

I'm pro-abortion. I'm pro the provision of safe, legal abortion.

Pro-lifers aren't anti-abortion. You're anti-safe abortion, because when abortion is made illegal like you want, we'll be back to unsafe backstreet and home abortions. Forget pro-life, anti-choice, anti-abortion - you're pro-women being punished for having sex with unsafe, unsanitary backstreet jobs.

fakenamefornow · 10/02/2016 19:12

I always picture pro-lifers being hysterical and dogmatic about their views. On this thread it seems the pro (completely unrestricted) choice lot are.

I think the law as it stands is about right, imo the viability of the fetus is a cut off point. It does surprise me a little that some see the fact that a 32 weeker can survive perfectly well outside of the womb and is really no different to a 32 weeker who is already born, as completely irrelevant.

fakenamefornow · 10/02/2016 19:14

No different physically I mean.

teddyroll · 10/02/2016 19:19

As has been said already, the consequence of banning legal abortion is not no abortion it's just unsafe, unsanitary illegal abortion and the birth of unwanted children.

Do those people against later term abortion think that forced pregnancy and birth leads to positive outcomes? That there's no negative consequences on the birth mother or child and their quality of life.

Rape and disability are usually cited as exceptions by the pro-life lobby, but why? Do disabled babies not deserve a chance at life? Is a foetus who is a product of violent crime less human or less "alive" than a foetus conceived by consensual sex? And if so, why?

teddyroll · 10/02/2016 19:26

The physical difference between a 32 week old foetus and a 32 week old baby is independence tho, surely? The foetus may look like the baby but it's attached to its mother's placenta, it doesn't eat or breathe independently, it shares its blood supply with another human being. That human on whom the foetus is dependent in utero should be able to decide if she wants to go through the pain and risk of labour and bring that child into the world with all the responsibility and struggle that involves

fakenamefornow · 10/02/2016 19:30

The mother is going to have to go through the pain and risk of labour either way. How did you think the baby/foetus gets out?