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

Well said.

Infanticide is a child under one, can you really not think of any cases recently where a women has been imprisoned for killing a child under a year old?

They may not be charged with infanticide but there certainly are many cases of women imprisoned for the death of their baby

Oh well, if she killed a baby for a house that's all right. Can every homeless person murder to get a house without fear of prosecution?

Abortion in this case was killing the baby and then inducing it. It would have been better if the first step had been missed and she'd simply had the baby induced and refused to take possession.

The poor thing didn't even need her womb any more all she needed to do was not harm it.

I'd really like the people advocating extreme late abortions to explain where they think the baby is a human life? What about the moment its head is crowning? 15 minutes before that? The start of Labour? When both feet are out? When the cord is cut? When?

An example:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12120767/Teenage-mother-killed-baby-son-paracetamol-overdose-jailed-five-years.html

Women are actively encouraged to abort at a late stage if the baby has down syndrome. Why are those lives less valid?

That's akin to euthanasia and justified because the quality of life of the child would be impaired by medical conditions of unknown severity. It's done in the child's interest. It's a decision that the parents take extremely seriously and is very difficult.

In no way is killing a 34 week fetus because you want to hide your sexual history in the child's interest. By ordering inappropriate medication and lying about it. Not to mention the intentional delay, which could have been avoided.

I can't believe you'd even compare the two.

The issue about women not going to prison for killing a child after the baby is born is a massive sidetrack, untrue and actually potentially quite harmful
The reason why mother's (sometimes) avoid a murder charge is if they were suffering from post parfum psychosis/severe mental illness that puts them below criminal responsibility. This happens fortunately very rarely but it does happen, and has been known about for 100s of years. In is NOT the same as "felt angry/depressed". This applies to all crimes- if a man in the middle of a severe schizophrenic episode kills someone because he genuinely believed God told him they were the antichrist then that's a defense for them to. The only difference is post-partum psychosis usually has an obvious time limit unlike other psychosis

There isn't any evidence this woman was suffering mental ill health to this degree. So it's not relevant.

Decriminalisation of self-administered abortion, as already is the case in Northern Ireland, would prevent women like this from being jailed, named, etc. It would not mean doctors performing late abortions on demand because the regulations don't permit that.

111 was overwhelmed with calls from people who thought they had covid, and often had serious concerns, eg not being able to breathe properly.

Do not rewrite history please.

Health services were largely not accessible. That is a fact. There may have been regional/area/surgery level differences.

I do think there's a disconnect here.

But I do not think it is in the public interest to jail her. She isn't a danger to society and she certainly isn't a danger to her other children as some posters have claimed with no evidence.

I just googled and there were two in court for murder on the first page.

If you have post partum psychosis or similar you don't got to prison, if you murder your baby just to conceal it's existence you're rational and will likely end up in jail.

I'd really like the people advocating extreme late abortions to explain where they think the baby is a human life?

Zygote. A single cell. Abortion isn't about when life begins, it's about women's right to decide what happens to their own bodies, including the right to refuse to have their bodies used to provide life support to a fellow human.

I've been called "monster" and "the devil" on this thread and had my words called "chilling" and "disturbing" by people who think that a baby is not a human life until 23 weeks and six days 23:59:59, then one second later at 24 weeks zero days 00:00:00 it somehow magically is a human life with more rights than any other human being because it has the right to use someone else's body as life support.

I don't think I'm the unreasonable one here.

111 had wait times of over an hour when I called during lockdown.

Also, 111 wait times don't really matter in this particular case.

What of the baby is female? What about that woman's rights?

And you dodged my question. During labour? When the heads crowning?

Reading comprehension amongst several posters on this thread, including you, is poor. I didn't dodge your question.

You asked: explain where they think the baby is a human life?

I answered: Zygote. A single cell.

I say again: Abortion isn't about when life begins, it's about women's right to decide what happens to their own bodies

Female babies have no more rights than male babies to use someone else's body as life support.

I meant at what point is it no longer ok to kill a baby?

And as for life support system, this baby didn't need life support. It was going to be born whatever happened, and it was born. The only thing in question was would someone kill it before it was born or not. So by your own logic this was murder because it had no need of life support.

I just checked, the baby was a girl. Called Lily.

In this case, if I understand correctly, the woman became pregnant in October/November 2019, lockdown in the UK didn’t begin until March 2020. I hadn’t heard of covid until February 2020, I don’t think it was widely reported in the news until then. So she would have had normal access to healthcare for the first 4-5 months of her pregnancy.

No you're right, woman do get prison for murdering their baby, I was just thinking about infanticide but you're right, some are charged with murder/manslaughter. That story about the 16 year old living in a caravan whose mum had just died ODing her baby is so sad.

I've been called "monster" and "the devil" on this thread and had my words called "chilling" and "disturbing" by people who think that a baby is not a human life until 23 weeks and six days 23:59:59, then one second later at 24 weeks zero days 00:00:00 it somehow magically is a human life with more rights than any other human being because it has the right to use someone else's body as life support.

If multiple people are describing your views as chilling and disturbing, don't you think it's worth considering why? Especially given you admit you have gone from one extreme to another in your views. I imagine you would now agree it's disturbing and chilling to argue that a rape victim should not be allowed an abortion. But you could, and in the past have, made that argument based on what you saw as an inalienable moral principle.

What I and others on this thread have tried repeatedly to explain is that there is more than one principle at stake here. You seem totally unable to give head space to the idea of a balance of rights, but I think you have enough self-awareness to recognise that you're a very black-and-white thinker.

What I would like to really caution you about is where that can lead, especially if it's not tempered by empathy, because we can both agree it's a good thing you weren't in charge of abortion law back then, can't we? Your empathy for the rape victim then was nil; now your empathy for a 32 week old foetus, the equivalent of a slightly undersized newborn, a little girl, is nil.

Arguably your views now are less harmful because thankfully most women would not even contemplate an abortion at 32 weeks plus, but they're no less chilling for that because you've gone from defending the zygote to almost literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and you don't seem to realise that is objectively fucked up. You are saying really fucked up things on this thread, doggedly and repeatedly. You are indulging in thought experiments, philosophising away the simple fact that it is not, and never will be ok to kill a child.

And btw it's not about whether the zygote/embryo/foetus is human. Nobody disputes that. It's the developmental stage and how issues like having a fully functional nervous system, being viable outside the womb, a woman being frankly almost at the end of a full nine months of pregnancy including months in which abortion was available to her, mean that balance of rights has to be recalibrated. Nobody argues that the foetus magically transforms on midnight of the last day of the 23rd week (although it does go through lots of rapid changes at different stages). What the law says is another matter, but that's because you have to draw a line somewhere and there are lots of reasons we've discussed already why it's there in particular.

Agree with this.
I was born at 33 weeks. I was small, a bit under 4lb, and needed time in an incubator, but other than that I was a normal newborn baby. I don’t see how what she did is any different from her giving birth at 33 weeks and then killing the baby. The baby was completely viable with her. Why not wait a few weeks and give that baby up for adoption ?

I meant at what point is it no longer ok to kill a baby?

Don't accuse me of dodging the question when I answered the question you asked and not the question you meant to ask. Write clearly and read what is actually written, please.

When a doctor should intervene to end a pregnancy is a matter for medical regulators to decide. I've taken on board several PPs' point that doctors don't like carrying out late terminations and shouldn't be forced to. Whether foetal euthanasia is used would also be a matter of regulation. My focus here is on bodily sovereignty and criminal law.

A woman should be able to do something to her body that will, potentially lethally, affect the baby that she's pregnant with at any time without risking criminal prosecution. This doesn't give her the right to smother the baby on its way out or in any other way directly harm the child. I am talking about her body.

And as for life support system, this baby didn't need life support. It was going to be born whatever happened, and it was born. The only thing in question was would someone kill it before it was born or not. So by your own logic this was murder because it had no need of life support.

I didn't talk about needing life support. I talked about using her for life support. Again, please read what I actually wrote.

The woman took some tablets by putting them into her body. Those tablets had a lethal adverse impact on her baby. She put the tablets into her body, she should not be criminalised because it was her body.

Some women drink or smoke during pregnancy. Some smoke on purpose to keep the birth weight down in the hope of an easier labour. They know that they are risking the baby's life and health. If they miscarry, should they be prosecuted?

The Pregnancy and TTC boards are full of women worried about eating nuts, shellfish, blue cheese, and even coffee during pregnancy. Do you like the idea of women being criminalised for having a miscarriage because she drank six cups of coffee per day? Or after eating oysters and a champagne toast at her brother's wedding? Those things are known, or at least suspected, of endangering the baby. At what point do we stop criminalising what women do with their own bodies during pregnancy? I say that we shouldn't criminalise them at all.

Laws that criminalise what women do with their bodies during pregnancy result in women being criminally investigated and jailed after miscarriage or stillbirth when they meant no harm to the baby at all and are grieving the loss. I mentioned upthread a 15yo schoolgirl who was criminally investigated and her laptop and phone taken by the police, during her GCSEs, after her stillbirth. The coroner concluded that the baby died of natural causes. No pregnant woman or girl should fear that a miscarriage or stillbirth will get her arrested. In Northern Ireland, they already don't fear that.

What she did was wrong and deceitful and she should pay the price for that. Let's not portray her as a victim.

I don’t think any of us think it’s “ok“ to kill a baby. It’s a question of whether there are any benefits to jailing a woman in a case like this. It’s difficult to see that jail serves any purpose other than causing additional suffering to both the woman and her children,

The law should be that abortions are permitted up until the point when the child could be safely delivered and survive outside the womb, and early inducing for someone who can't tolerate being pregnant any longer should be available (coupled with automatic surrendering of parental responsibility if the inducing is effectively a non-fatal abortion procedure). No one should be forced to be pregnant against their will.

If a developing unborn baby is not yet sufficiently developed to survive outside the womb then so be it. If someone dies because I decided not to donate my kidney to them, I didn't kill them, my right to bodily autonomy outweighs their wish for a greater lifespan than their body can manage on its own. Same goes for declining someone the use of my womb. It is my body. Forcing an unwilling woman to remain pregnant against her will is morally equivalent to forcing healthy people to be hooked up in a hospital bed to share their blood supply with a dialysis patient against their will. It's abhorrent. Life is a gift, yes. Taking something that should be a gift without permission is always wrong.

That this baby died when it could have survived was wrong, but the crime was committed by law makers who failed to create easy and accessible pathways for the unwanted pregnancy to be terminated sooner on-demand, and/or safe and legal pathways for a late stage pregnancy to be terminated on-demand without the baby being killed in the process

Agreed up until the last paragraph because actually there are/were 'accessible pathways' and it's pretty infantilising to suggest there aren't. But the other stuff you've said makes sense to me.