Jailing a mother of three - WTF

[Capitalismwantsyou]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/12/woman-in-uk-jailed-for-28-months-over-taking-abortion-pills-after-legal-time-limit

VitoCorleoneOfMNMafia

That was to ^

I notice that you didn't bother to address the much thornier case that I posed, where a woman could be trapped in a foreign hospital for months.

The problem is that laws intended to stop abortions in the "urgh, how callous" cases end up stopping abortions in the harder cases as well.

I agree. Just vile.

I think it is a criminal matter. She unlawfully killed a fully formed baby and denied it the chance of life. Desperation doesn't excuse a criminal act. In any case it has been decided it was a criminal act.

Lol listen to yourself! It's literally how life on earth starts. Nature bestows the right. Just like gravity bestows the rule that if you step off a tall building or cliff without a safety net you'll die. Do you argue with that too? Can a mother refuse to feed her child because it depends in her in order to eat? Keep warm? At what point can a woman say 'well I'm tired and not particularly feeling like using my physical energy and resources into keeping this child alive. It has no right to rely on me to live. I'm henceforth refusing to feed, clean or provide' I think social services and the law would have something to say about that.

I wonder. Are you pro artificial wombs? I can see an argument being made that since 'no one has the right' to use a person's body as 'life support' artificial wombs should be utilised.

Of course at the moment science hasn't managed this but in the future it could well do. Perhaps it actually would be a good move judging by it seems, the complete lack of moral or ethical care for the unborn by those with the very (amazing) power to give life.

I personally disagree with abortion but accept that society does. And imo the very least a society that does allow for it should do, is apply a layer of ethical safeguards to ensure it is not abused as in this case and serve serve appropriate sentence where it is abused.

@VitoCorleoneOfMNMafia you said :

No one should have the right to use someone else's body as life support. Abortion is a matter of eviction.

Of course you're free to say how you think life should be organised for the better in a ideal world.

But you're profoundly out of touch with reality: that you yourself owe your existence to your use of your mother's body as your life support both before and after birth.

I think the truth of our utter dependence is often too much for people to bear.

If she is pregnant and stuck in a foreign hospital for months then that’s tough luck I’m afraid. Worse things happen to better people all the time.

The fact that you are advocating for a system where a full term baby can be aborted as an inconvenience is heinous and plays into the hands of pro-lifers who seek to portray abortion as something done by selfish, stupid women. Aborting in the circumstances you suggest would be the act of a selfish stupid woman. Fin.

That is a legitimate argument and easily the best challenge to late abortion. The only sticking point is that premature delivery can cause life-long harm to the baby and this harm has to be taken into consideration. With an abortion, because the baby won't survive, that's not a concern.

I remember asking my cousin if she could be induced early to reduce the risks that a preeclamptic pregnancy with broken membranes and the "waters" gone posed to her, and she said that the doctors weren't prepared to do that unless her blood pressure went above a certain level because it would harm her baby. I think I mentioned twelve weeks stuck in hospital in a foreign (to her) country, having her blood pressure taken every two hours? Her health was being balanced against the baby's, instead of her being put first. The law requires this post 24 weeks. She was basically legally a vessel for the baby and her health not put first. I think that that's not OK.

Why are you on a feminist board if you think it's OK to treat a woman as a breeding vessel at any point in her pregnancy?

At a certain point that balance changes. Presumably you would agree with this and not condone a mother murdering a newborn baby because she didn’t want it.

Yes, because once the child is breathing independently outside the womb, any competent adult can care for him. Prior to that point, he's using her body for life support and that's a privilege, not a right.

I think we should enable women who do not want this baby to have c sections and give up for adoption.

A c-section is much much harder on a woman's body than an intact dilation and extraction. Again, you are treating the woman as a vessel that exists for the baby's use.

But you're profoundly out of touch with reality: that you yourself owe your existence to your use of your mother's body as your life support both before and after birth.

The idea that there was a point in my mother's pregnancy after which she was compelled by the State to birth me makes me feel sick. Motherhood should be a gift freely given, not a State-mandated obligation. I would've thought that Mumsnet, of all places, would understand this.

Which part of not being allowed to use someone else's body for life support do you find chilling?

You realise that you can opt out of post-mortem organ donation and refuse to let your organs that you don't even need any more after you're dead be used to save someone else's life? That's how highly we value bodily autonomy in this country... unless, apparently, the person saying "no" to use of an organ is a woman saying "no" to the use of her uterus.

I think you may have issues not shared by the majority here.

Post-mortem organ donation to a stranger is nothing like pregnancy and birth of your baby. Have you ever been pregnant, given birth? Are you a mother?

Why the interrogation about the previous poster's status as a mother? It's perfectly possible to hold a different view to another woman without having to be childless and never to have experienced pregnancy.

In fact, being pregnant and giving birth (twice) served to absolutely crystallize for me that no woman or girl should be legally required to continue a pregnancy that she doesn't consent to.

Oh the privilege of feeling sick about something you literally wouldn't be able to feel sick about if you were not nurtured by your mother's womb, given birth to, then supported with considerable expense and resources when you had no conception of the self to make an argument for that support.

It's up there with mothers who have a tough time telling women who can't have children because of infertility, that motherhood is no big deal.

But before that point there was the opportunity to end the pregnancy. Abortion should be easily accessible and a basic right for all women to be able to do easily and freely (and I think the laws do need overhauling to make it even more so) before a certain cut off point. The fact that some countries and women don’t have access to this is abhorrent.

24 weeks barring medical issues is I think acceptable for this cut off point. Beyond this the baby is viable and their right to life has to be balanced as well as the effect it could have on the medical profession.

the right easy to access abortion laws with sensible cut offs and precautions in place should allow motherhood to be given freely. that shouldnt be 34 werks

First, see the attached pic.

Second, no I don't have kids. I don't want any, I'm autistic and wouldn't be able to care for them, and I have primary tokophobia. I joined Mumsnet for FWR and stayed for Relationships. And all that's irrelevant because decriminalising abortion doesn't force you to have one.

Oh look, it's the anti-choice "you had a right to be born" argument. No I didn't, and shouldn't.

It's up there with mothers who have a tough time telling women who can't have children because of infertility, that motherhood is no big deal.

Not even remotely the same. It's because motherhood is a big deal that it should be a gift to the child given freely, not coerced by the State at any stage.

Seeing what Dcousin(S) went through for nearly three months in hospital is what crystallised the "no time limits" view for me. She was utterly miserable, bored out of her mind, paying out hand over fist for continuation of kennels for her Dcat back home, and this was for a baby that she wanted!

The Haguing of Dcousin(A) made me realise just how vulnerable children make women.

Not having kids doesn't mean not paying attention to the lives of those who do.

Motherhood should be a gift freely given, not a State-mandated obligation.

Seriously? I'll ask again - when did feminism become about absolving women of taking any responsibility for their action (and complete lack of!).

The world doesn't work like this in any other situation. I can't just refuse to feed my children from this day forward because "motherhood is a gift and not a state-mandated obligation". I think the courts would have something to say about it since I chose to have children and now I have responsibilities as a mother. She chose not to have an abortion and now she has a responsibility not to murder her very viable baby. That's not a state-mandated obligation fgs it's the natural consequences of her inaction.

And even if it was a "state-mandated obligation". How is that any different to the state mandating we don't kill each other in the streets? To the state mandating certain drugs are illegal? To the state mandating I'll be sectioned if I tried to slit my own throat? That I don't smother my children in their sleep? It's my body, right....? My offspring who depend on me to keep them alive, right....? I can do whatever I want because I'm a woman and that means my choices are automatically right!

Meanwhile back in the real world....

We're debating this case as a right to choose, and yet it appears the poor woman involved regretted what she did in a moment of desperation (to cover up an affair/keep her relationship) it appears. So maybe the right to choose had been made too easy for her? Maybe abortion isn't something to be taken so lightly that we post out pills to women after an online consultation? In this case it was her own recklessness that did the harm, but what if she'd done it under pressure from a partner who didn't want the baby, sat just out of sight on the online consultation making sure she did as she'd been told and lied about her dates? I think these are the real issues we should be talking about.

@awimbawaaay And even if it was a "state-mandated obligation". How is that any different to the state mandating we don't kill each other in the streets? To the state mandating certain drugs are illegal? To the state mandating I'll be sectioned if I tried to slit my own throat? That I don't smother my children in their sleep? It's my body, right....?

That's not even comparable.
Nobody should be forced to give birth.

Or forced to continue a pregnancy

@BodgerLovesMashedPotato - How is an 8, month pregnancy going to end except via the mother giving birth? Nobody is forcing this to happen, it's unavoidable biology. The only choice is over whether the baby is killed first or not. (And then a very real choice about whether she wants to be a parent or give the baby up)

Seeing what Dcousin(S) went through for nearly three months in hospital is what crystallised the "no time limits" view for me. She was utterly miserable, bored out of her mind, paying out hand over fist for continuation of kennels for her Dcat back home, and this was for a baby that she wanted!

I sympathise as I was also in hospital for an extended period going through all the same things after the birth of my youngest. Because she was so young, she was classed as a patient too so I had to do all of the care essentially on my own including BF'ing for just over two months, whilst trying to recover myself, on a postnatal ward with a high turnover of newborn babies and families and balloons and being woken up constantly etc. I was severely depressed and not coping at all. But I don't think anyone would argue that would give me the right to terminate her life and absolve myself of all maternal responsibility. And I just can't logically comprehend how the difference of a few weeks justifies one but not the other?

I am pro-choice when the baby is not viable. So as early as possible really. But when it becomes so, it's a fine balance between the rights of the mother and the rights of the child that she chose to carry. There's no point raging against nature when you had ample opportunity to modify it beforehand.