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

We cannot accord rights to the foetus because a woman must be free to eat, drink, do whatever she is legally allowed to do, she is emphatically not a mere vessel under UK law.

It's an extreme hypothetical that hopefully no one would do, but imagine either the mother or someone else deliberately poisoning the fetus with the intention not to kill it, but to harm the development.

So the child grows up disabled as a result.

Now if it's someone other than the mother doing this, without her consent, it's already going to be illegal presumably as you have to drug the mother. But the mother may not be directly physically harmed from it.

I think such a crime should be prosecuted both as a crime against the mother and as a crime against the rights of the fetus.

And if it's the mother herself doing it, no I don't think she has a right to perpetrate such evil, just because it's "her body". And yes I would think it should be a criminal act.

We cannot accord rights to the foetus because a woman must be free to eat, drink, do whatever she is legally allowed to do, she is emphatically not a mere vessel under UK law
Completely agree

“And if it's the mother herself doing it, no I don't think she has a right to perpetrate such evil, just because it's "her body". And yes I would think it should be a criminal act.”

We do not criminalise women who smoke, take drugs, don’t eat an optimal diet etc To do so would be to take rights away from all women during pregnancy and genuinely reduce us to vessels.

I have known of a case where a woman was habitually consuming a poisonous/toxic substance during pregnancy, it was a pregnancy related psychological condition, she was sectioned until the birth, not for the harm she was doing to her baby but for the harm that she was doing to herself.

In UK law poisoning a pregnant woman would be prosecuted as a crime against the woman. The fœtus has no rights as a separate person.

In looking after the mother’s health, wellbeing and best interests the best interests of the fœtus are usually covered too, because their best interests are not truly separate. Mother and baby form a dyad. What is objectively good for the mother is good for the baby. If the mother is safe, well nourished, supported, content, relaxed all of that is going to be good for the baby too.

In the UK the combination of the rights being with the woman and not the foetus and the abortion laws we have create a reasonable balance.

Take drugs which legal but harmful to the fœtus I should say, obviously we criminalise illegal drug taking, not because of it being harmful to unborn babies however.

I think such a crime should be prosecuted both as a crime against the mother and as a crime against the rights of the fetus.

Foetuses don't have rights. We cannot go down the route of foetuses having rights, every country I can think of which does afford rights to foetuses ends up removing rights from women, whether as a bug or a feature. There are several examples on the thread of women who have been prosecuted, had medical treatment they didn't want, have been denied treatment they did want/need and even died because the law explicitly or implicitly gave rights to the foetus. Like it or not, rights for foetuses = less rights for women.

This is a very important point.

We cannot afford rights to the fœtus. It puts the life of women at risk.

Haven't we seen enough rights removed from women in various places without actively removing even more?

What current rights are we proposing to remove on this thread?

The suggestion of giving triggers to a fortis necessarily removes rights from the woman carrying it.

Rights not triggers! God help us if they arm foetuses

@Britinme which rights that women currently have is anyone proposing to remove though? Surely there needs to be a change for it to constitute removal.

Obv. if you're arguing for a change to rights or the law then fair enough but seems an odd way to phrase it!

@Mustardseed86 - I am obviously being unclear. I have no idea whether anybody is actively proposing to remove rights from women. I am merely pointing out that giving rights to a foetus necessarily removes them from the woman carrying the foetus if they are held to override her rights to personal and bodily autonomy.

So if you can find something that will deliberately make your baby disabled, and it's a legal substance to possess, that's all OK for the mother to deliberately poison her fetus?

I don't understand the point you're making. Are you talking about thalidomide? Foetal alcohol syndrome? Sodium valproate?

Not heavy drinking, which is done probably because you have an alcohol problem.

But deliberate poisoning with something like Sodium valproate could qualify. I don't know if it's actually that reliable as a poison, but we can ignore that.

Imagine it's taken not for any medical reason, but purely to poison the fetus.

With Sodium valproate, I think doctors will often refuse to prescribe to women of child bearing age, unless they are on contraception.

So the "bodily autonomy" of the woman to make her own medical choices is being undermined, to protect a potential fetus.

But the law states that women cannot terminate their own pregnancy after 24 weeks unless approved by a doctor and for very specific and medically necessary reasons.

So there’s a grey area here, where the rights of a foetus are considered.

It seems to me that you are the one proposing change. Do you think this law should be changed and women should be able to abort, no questions asked, until birth?

@GrinAndVomit - I have made no proposals at all. I'm simply pointing out a natural consequence. On the whole I think UK law as it stands is pretty sensible.

What natural consequence?

What are you talking about?

@GrinAndVomit - I suggest you reread my post and think about it a bit.

I'm obviously being dim but I'm still not with you. Are you saying a woman might deliberately take a substance because they want to have a disabled child? Why?

The law as it stands doesn't set the abortion limit at 24 weeks because the foetus has rights though, it's because the law considers 24 weeks to be the point at which it could be born and survive (albeit with a lot of medical intervention and risk of ongoing issues).

'Capable of surviving outside the womb' isn't the same as 'has the right to be born'. Again, we cannot afford to ascribe rights to foetuses. To do so would remove rights from women, and has done in countries that have tried it.

And no, I've never said I believe in abortion up to birth.and I've never said I want to change the law. Why do you want to make it so black and white? The law as it stands in the UK works pretty well and on balance I wouldn't support changing it.

I said before: "It's an extreme hypothetical that hopefully no one would do".

But extreme evil acts do happen occasionally. They don't necessarily have to make much in the way of rational sense.

Capable of surviving outside the womb' isn't the same as 'has the right to be born'. Again, we cannot afford to ascribe rights to foetuses. To do so would remove rights from women, and has done in countries that have tried it.

If you have a 24 week limit, then that "removes a right from women", regardless of whether you call it "giving the fetus rights" or not.

Well sometimes parents poison, beat, abuse their born children, whether it's legal or not. I don't see the relevance to the thread?