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

But pregnant women can and do bond with their unborn child, they don't generally see themselves as mere vessels, they have an important job to do.

Psst, they don't always feel that. And that you feel like that shouldn't mean criminalising someone else who didn't feel like that. You understand that some other women don't feel the same way about motherhood as you do, right?

Perhaps you should have a baby and see what happens.

I do not think we should alter the laws we currently have in UK around abortion. They work well for most women most of the time.

I agree with this.

And the point about not forcing someone to remain pregnant is why I am pro-choice, but we must also realise that nobody (except in cases of rape) 'forces' a woman to be or remain pregnant. Nature does that. Where we can intervene to prevent suffering and allow women a sense of autonomy in providing abortion as an option, I believe that's the right thing for us to do as a society. But ultimately, as we're often reminded on these boards, we are a sexually dimorphic species, and that means accepting that nature is what it is. We can and should do all sorts of interventions medically that can improve quality of life, give people choices etc but the absence of that is not 'forcing' anything on anyone. It's just harsh reality. And it's also reality that a full term, or very near full term foetus is a viable human life and should be treated as such.

There is a balance between rights and at the later stages of pregnancy this is rightfully weighted more towards what is essentially a baby no different from the ones in the NICU. I disagree as much with late-term advocates and their principle of bodily autonomy as the only ethical consideration as I do with the 'Christian' fundamentalists who take the principle of right to life as the only salient one, on the other extreme. Both result in very ugly and dehumanising arguments, policies and practices IMO and neither are of any benefit to women who are often in an incredibly tough situation and need proper support rather than a pill in the post or a slogan about foetal rights.

The urge to reproduce is innate for many people (not me, and not some of the other regulars on the new childfree and childless board) and at the same time the State exploits women's reproductive labour to generate new citizens.

Romania's Decree 770 and its consequences show what happens when the State thinks women aren't having enough children. China's one child policy and its consequences show what happens when the State thinks women are having too many children.

I am having to explain this materialist feminism 101 stuff on a women's rights board in 2023. World-ending asteroid now please.

Which part of "I don't want one" did you fail to understand upthread?

The "you'll change your mind when it's yours" bullshit is the most patronising bollocks.

Every part!

Good job we have state- funded contraception , isn't it?

Also @TeaAndStrumpets are you seriously suggesting that I have a baby as an experiment to see what might happen? Because that's really not valuing the child as a human being whose rights are paramount from birth. It's a person, not an unwilling experimental test subject to see if I change my mind!

I mean of course I understand that you DON'T want one. You have been clear.

And if my contraception fails, I should not be criminalised for taking matters into my own hands.

No actually as an onlooker it could have some comedy value, but I would not seriously suggest you do it ;-)

Shock horror. Not only feminists inhabit the women's rights board.

Not all feminists agree on every tenet of feminism.

Feminism isn't the only lens to which one looks at what are moral and ethical issues in society.

It's strange one has to explain this anywhere.

I'm autistic. I struggle with written humour so don't be surprised if I don't detect a joke.

You’re also citing a writer who wrote ‘The Origins of the Family…’ in 1884 and the actions of two mid-twentieth century totalitarian governments - on a feminist board in 2023.

Have you considered that materialist feminism 101 might need updating?

Well I have plenty of autistic people in my family.

How is it different to if she'd given birth and murdered the child - then it would almost certainly have been prison. I can't see a difference really.

You wouldn't be "criminalised" if you arranged an abortion during the legally permitted period.

If the baby was that close to term why didn't she have it and then give it up for adoption? Did she thinks the pills were some sort of magic that would mean the pregnancy hadn't happened? She planned it knowing it was illegal and deliberately killed a near term baby, if someone else had caused the baby to die by some violent act, we would want them severely punished, just because it was her baby (and the father's of course) it doesn't make it somehow acceptable.

Neither biology nor the ability of the State to coerce its citizens have changed in the last 150 years, so no it doesn't need updating. The Tory attack on child benefit for third and subsequent children is a more subtle example of the State trying to control who has children and how many, in this case deterring the poor from having children.

Surely, on a women's rights board, we'd tend to look at issues in terms of how they affect women and girls?

State benefit is an intervention too by the state.

I can see you feel strongly but many women are ok with the term for abortion as is

Did she thinks the pills were some sort of magic that would mean the pregnancy hadn't happened?

She might have thought that the pills would cause something like an early miscarriage, lots of blood and clots and not much identifiably baby-like. We can't know unless she publishes a statement.

I know it doesn't look like it from my other posts, but I do think that what she did was morally awful. I just don't think it should be criminal.

We don't criminalise all the immoral deeds. If we did, people would be jailed for adultery.

The thing is that abortion being available as late as necessary doesn't stop women from saying "I'm at 26 weeks, I think it's too late to back out now". No one here is suggesting that women be forced to have abortions, only not to be forced not to have one.

Human Rights are rarely absolute - it is often a careful balancing act because very often there is a reverse right as well.
For example person A likes silence in their garden, person B likes listening to music. Those two opposing rights need to be balanced - here by allowing B to play music at a reasonable volume and at reasonable times.

it is IMO the biggest issue with trans rights that they are often pushed as overruling others rights. Yes there rights should be respected but in a balanced way.

Abortion is no different. The right to access one easily within a prescribed timeframe is exactly right. It shouldn’t be right until the end.

I am a similar age and if I were to accidentally fall pregnant I would expect to be able to access without judgment an early term abortion not one at 34 weeks

I find that sickening and utterly devoid of compassion for the woman involved.

Yes, biological science has changed in the last 150 years - contraception and safe abortive have both become available. This massively affected, for example, the very one-child policy you cite.

Likewise, the information revolution post dates both the examples you mention, also affecting the ability of the state to coerce. Ceauscescu’s Romania, in case you haven’t noticed, no longer exists.

I think you’ve confused child benefit and the child allowance for universal credit. It’s universal credit that currently has a limit on extra child allowances. I say currently because a bill to lift the limit is on its second reading.

Or, to provide a tongue-in-cheek essay question: “Does the introduction of an act to lift the ‘two child limit’ for UC in England and Wales suggest that the state in the 21st Century is not, in fact, able to control who has children and how many? Discuss.”