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

I'm sorry...you've repeatedly ignored any suggestion that there's a balance of rights when it comes to, you know, actual babies

Because there isn't a balance. You can lexically prioritise the unborn baby or you can lexically proritise the woman. Attempts to "balance" invariably infringe upon the woman's right to treat her body as her own, aka bodily integrity, aka bodily sovereignty.

Lexical prioritisation of the baby has some really unpleasant consequences, like forcing rape victims to give birth and making doctors have to decide whether a woman is sick enough for them to avoid prosecution for ending a pregnancy that is killing her. Claims to balance the woman and unborn baby, as Ireland's Eight Amendment claimed to, invariably prioritise the unborn baby in practice, as Savita found out.

Lexical prioritisation of the woman avoids all of those unpleasant consequences.

Having a time limit where you switch lexical prioritisation part-way through pregnancy doesn't make sense because the key fact remains the same: A is using B's body for life support.

Am I talking a foreign language here? Because it feels like it.

mentioned that 'self-abortion' would be difficult at 36 weeks because the baby might breathe

It's an unpleasant reality.

used really dehumanising and weird language about pregnancy ("it uses the woman for life support")

How else do you describe it? Are you going to slam Judith Thomson for using similar language?

bus fares

As an example of the consequences of not being legally a person yet.

imaginary police robots

Clearly, you've never heard of "thought experiments^. The "trolley problem, also by Judith Thomson, is a well-known example.

Actually if she'd given birth and then killed the baby, she'd most likely not have been imprisoned. Whatever your views on the abortion laws in this country, a legal system which punishes a late term illegal abortion more severely than the murder of a new born baby isn't right.

The baby stands to lose its life.

That differs from a six week baby how?

"It's more valuable because it's older" does not make sense.

I’m not sure about that. If it had been as carefully considered, planned and executed over a matter of weeks as this was, she could well be facing prison.

Because it becomes a viable life of its own. After a six week gestation it is not a viable life on its own.

@Brokendaughter I'm very glad that your child, who you clearly wanted and still want, survived and is thriving.

Sadly, not everyone feels that same joy.

So basically, "your baby could survive a delivery now, but we aren't going to give you one in case it doesn't survive or it causes disability, so you'll just have to stay pregnant for the next fourteen weeks even though you might not want to". Is that it? Have I got it right?

FFS. I work less notice than that if I want to leave my job.

AND I don't get jailed if I walk out of my job tomorrow and refuse to go back.

"It's more valuable because it's older" does not make sense.*

Because it experiences more pain, is more responsive to the world, is aware of her mother's voice, could now be born and live, is harder to kill and suffers more.

It makes sense to most people.

Why am I not surprised you previously had equally absolutist fervent views in the other direction...

14 weeks notice vs the death of a child.

Your arguments about working notice and cats in catteries type inconveniences are the type of shocking comparisons people have referred to.

I don't know, what she did seems more like panic than careful planning to me.

What we know is she'd split up with her partner and got pregnant with someone else. Maybe she thought the father would be raising the child with her, then that fell apart, too late for a legal abortion? And then it was the first lockdown, maybe she'd thought she could cope with another child before that happened but once shut in the house 24/7 with her kids, one with special needs, with school, childcare, SN provision all shut she realise she wouldn't cope but it was too late and she panicked?

Plus with covid regulations she would have had little chance of accessing any support, medical appointments etc and if she could only her exP would have been allowed to look after the kids while she went and how would she explain where she was going to him at a time when even cancer care was getting cancelled?

We don't know what went on or why she didn't do something else but her behaviour looks more like burying her head in the sand and then panicking, than a carefully considered plan. For a woman who had previously carried and birthed 3 children to think she could get out of this situation by taking abortion pills at 30+ weeks wasn't thinking clearly.

I hope the current abortion laws aren't changed as a result of this. The stats demonstrate that the majority of abortions happen before 10 weeks, with a tiny amount up to birth for highly valid medical reasons, I think I recall in one year the amount was 247 so a tiny percentage. So the evidence is that women in the last 60 years are making good decisions about their pregnancies.

All the available evidence in the public domain suggest this woman did break the law. However, I hope this case was considered with the nuance it required.

1. That she was under no pressure to do and make the decisions she did.

1. Her mental state.

1. Her other children.

4 what we're the barriers to her accessing a timely abortion on demand.

1. Someone uptrend noted that she would have passed the 24 week cut off at the start of lockdown. However I think if there were considerations around the impact and restrictions of lockdown term that also should be considered.

I did see that there was a call for the abortion laws to be looked at. Which gives me concern given the involvement of the (well funded american) pro-life lobby a chance to wedge their foot in the door an influence public debate.not that debate shouldn't be had, but

Meant to add that agree with public debate, but feel uncomfortable that the pro life lobby is extremely well funded, which could impact the debate by their influence and platform to drive their agenda.

You've not mentioned being trapped in a hospital for 12 weeks, in a foreign country, with the risk to the woman's body posed by preeclampsia so severe that it was monitored twelve times per day and the risk to her of infection caused by ruptured membranes. Which is far worse than the cat being in the cattery. Although the cost to her was considerable for that. Not every woman is rich enough to take that kind of hit.

Abortion is often as much about having no money as it is about other factors.

She was over 75% of the way through the pregnancy. She could have put the child up for adoption

Amazes me that people still trot out adoption as the easy peasy solution. It isn't a solution. As though a childhood in care, with all the trauma that goes with it, is better.

I pity this woman and her existing 3 children. She must have been utterly desperate.

A baby up for adoption gets adopted. They don't generally stay in care being traumatised.

Being adopted does NOT prevent trauma, the potential impact of separation from the birth mother even at new born is a well researched and known topic. I'm an adopter.

Why am I not surprised you previously had equally absolutist fervent views in the other direction...

I went from lexically prioritising the baby's life to lexically prioritising the woman's bodily sovereignty, shortly after realising that the "even if she was raped" stance meant allowing the State to continue to deny her the bodily sovereignty that the rapist had denied her. At the same time, I was becoming aware of Irish women who were traveling whilst seriously ill because they weren't ill enough to qualify for a "life of the mother" termination. I made the rape carve-out, then a few weeks later two things hit me (and it felt like a physical blow, I was going up the stairs and stumbled from it): 1) that the right to end a pregnancy shouldn't be limited to rape victims and 2) no doctor should fear prosecution because he carried out an abortion to improve a woman's health. The law is a blunt instrument and it's not good for dealing with complex medical decisions.

I waited a few weeks to be sure that I was sure, then set up a standing order to Abortion Support Network.

And I am adopted and agree completely.

Because life is more complex than you allow.

To the contrary. Life is incredibly complicated and neither I nor the State know what a woman is facing. So it should not be for me or the State to tell her if her circumstances justify an abortion. We should remove legal obstacles so that she can make that judgement for herself.

I imagine your 'not even in the case of rape' phase was only possible because you wouldn't or couldn't look with empathy at the reality of a person in that situation. Now you either can't or won't acknowledge the humanity of a full-term child.

It's not about empathy or feelings. At that time, I was lexically prioritising the baby's life over the woman's bodily sovereignty. If you allow a rape carve-out, you have to ask how the baby somehow magically matters less if the woman was raped than if she wasn't. At that time in my life, I was waking up to having been in an abusive relationship in which the only reason why I wasn't pregnant through rape was a Mirena. I was waking up to the idea of women having rights, like the right to say no to sex and to unwanted things in general. Realising that women have the right to say "I don't want to be pregnant any more" kind of followed on from that.

The 'lost future' comment is not an argument per se.

It came across as the "you could have aborted the next Mozart" that, even when I was on the anti-choice side, I rolled my eyes at.

Gosh.
I believe you.

Hear hear.

It's one thing to call me stupid, extremist, or even the devil.

It's quite another to insinuate that I'm a liar.

I detected that written sarcasm.

Absolutely this!

Additionally we do not need US style polarisation on this issue, we have a system which works for most women most of the time and to which only a minority object currently. I don’t want to see either extreme gaining power here and as you say twinkly the well funded US “pro-life” lobby have already started trying to rock the boat here. Thankfully they have not yet gained much momentum.

And yes, I am ashamed that it took me having the "that was rape" realisation and seeing sick women coming from Ireland and realising that I could have needed that rape carve-out if he'd pulled my Mirena out or it had failed for me to realise that all women need safe legal abortion.

The ASN standing order is, in part, penance for my earlier ignorance.