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

Oh ok. So should we be telling mothers who lose a baby at 34 weeks gestation that it's not a baby but a foetus?

32-34 weeks is basically fully cooked. Very viable outside the womb with NICU support. I gather from the news articles that she shagged someone else then returned to her original partner and found out she was pregnant. Spent 3+ months spinning her wheels in a panic before seizing the chance lockdown provided and lying to obtain the abortion drugs.

Women are oppressed by their reproductive biology. But they can also be shitty, dishonest people. I’m pro choice. But I don’t believe that human life doesn’t matter until it exits the womb. The hard thing is that it does. That’s why society has to try and work out some sort of balance. Killing a healthy 32-34 week old baby because you fucked around is not okay. I think that’s a perfectly reasonable feminist position.

It's seems very arbitrary for a judge to impose significant jail time 'because' she didn't plead guilty earlier. I can understand it where there is a victims family being put through a trial unnecessarily but surely in this case the only person who suffered more through having a trial is the woman herself?

I'm not sure that she would be allowed to remain in custody of her children regardless.

I'm not sure those children would be best in her care. I wonder what they will think when they learn about what she did to their sibling.

Blaming lockdown also seems a bit dubious - the baby was stillborn/aborted on the 11 May 2020 and estimated to be 32-34 weeks. So the women would have already been around the 24 week legal limit when lockdown started (and should have been seeking medical care much earlier than this, having conceived around October 2019.)

What difference does it make whether women "take the decision easily/lightly" or not? The action itself is what the issue is..not how they feel about doing it.

The magical vaginal birth canal doesn't turn it into a human.

Always baffled at how pro-late-term-abortion people find themselves appalled if a mother were to smother her new born baby to death...but getting a 35-40 weeker torn limb from limb is A-OK 👌🏻

He may have been able to suspend her jail sentance because ahe would have had time knocked off for an early guilty plea which would have taken the sentance to 24 months or under, which he could then have suspended. Not because he was cross and did it out of spite

Thank you for explaining that

I'm sorry to say whilst I feel deep empathy for her, she has done something that I consider, as does the law, to be criminal. So I agree with you too. I'm not doubting she was in a bad way, but given the reported Google searches, she new what she was doing.

That would make sense if there were a minimum legal term that the judge was obliged to give her. But I'm not sure there is in this case is there? The judge could have decided to give her 23 months and suspended it if they wanted to couldn't they?

She was also given less time as she pleaded guilty before it went to trial , I think that starts at 3 years up to life

If "she must have been in an awful way to do such a thing" is a reason she shouldn't be punished for this. Why isn't this also acceptable for parents who kill newborn babies? That's even harder to comprehend to be, and the parents very likely absolutely desparate (and guilt ridden afterwards) Yet somehow we do know that that's still wrong, very wrong.

Always baffled at how pro-late-term-abortion people find themselves appalled if a mother were to smother her new born baby to death...but getting a 35-40 weeker torn limb from limb is A-OK

It's not A-OK. It's the best of a very very awful and troubling set of options. Because removing personhood from women and making them into a walking incubator, subject to forced birth is the worst option.

Women's choice up to birth is all we have until we can magically teleport fetuses into men/incubators.

Using emotive language like torn limb from limb shows exactly your agenda.

I support the rights of women over their own body above the rights of the unborn. I agree there has to be a line drawn somewhere. For me it is birth.

Yes this is where I am with it. If we consider a baby at this stage to be viable (and it is) and worth protecting from harm then that counts for whoever might harm them.

I also find it offensive for posters to keep insinuating or even outright claiming that she must have been mentally ill to have done this. People dont have to be mentally ill to commit crimes or harm their children.

That is exactly what they do in late term abortions actually!!

I agree with this.

I am passionately pro choice and don’t think a woman should be made to continue a pregnancy against her will.

However, at 32-34 weeks, just because you no longer want to be pregnant, doesn’t mean the baby has to die. She could easily have been supported to be induced as early as safely possible- probably only a week or two later,
if that- or had an elective section under GA if she didn’t want to go through labour. The child could have lived. She didn’t have to have any involvement whatsoever after that point if she didn’t want to. What she did was so unnecessary and yes, so illegal.

Really. Can you explain how taking an abortion tablet removes the limbs of a foetus.

Basically I have heard everything people like you have to say before. I’m not interested. I’m not emotive about unborn babies and I value women and their rights more highly than the foetus they are carrying. In all circumstances.

No because that would be needlessly cruel. A medically correct definition is not required in that case. This case is different- "baby-killer" is an accusation that pro-life advocates throw around to demonise the pro-choice - and its wrong.

Iirc sentancing starts at 3 years for what she was charged with, which seems right as the reporting had mentioned 3 years if it had gone to trial. She had time taken off for a guilty plea before the trial starting but it wasn't early enough for a suspended sentance

Thanks for explaining that @MakesMeFeelSad . So the judge didn't have much choice about sending her to prison them.

@TooOldForThisNonsense

"Really. Can you explain how taking an abortion tablet removes the limbs of a foetus."

Late term abortions are not carried out by taking an abortion tablet like this woman did. They're surgically removed using instruments - literally limb from limb.

The woman in this article would have had to have further surgical intervention to remove any remaining tissue.

But why is it ok to remove personhood from an innocent baby and not a woman?

One life doesn't outweigh the other. Both lives are precious.

It's not the best out of a very very bad set of options, it is by far the worst given that other options allow the innocent life to live and strive.

I think in this case the woman didn't need further intervention once the baby had died (due to the pills) as her body went into labour. It's my understanding that this doesn't always happen so for late term abortions that usual procedure is to physically remove the baby (in parts) after it has died.

Is this true? That's a horrible shock to me to read.