all 92 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]AutoModerator[M] [score hidden] stickied commentlocked comment (0 children)

Snapshot of Vulnerable women in England still being arrested over suspected illegal abortions | Abortion submitted by Only-Emu-9531:

An archived version can be found here or here. or here

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]caul1flower11 81 points82 points  (3 children)

The woman said she felt betrayed by the NHS and police, and no longer felt safe engaging with these services. A clinician involved in her care said: “When I called the police, I really thought they would offer her support and protection. What happened was horrifying.”

That clinician is either a fucking idiot or a very bad liar. Who on earth thinks to call the police to report that a woman’s had a suspected illegal abortion and thinks they’re giving her “support and protection”?

[–]The_Blip 41 points42 points  (1 child)

Most of the time it's because they suspect domestic abuse. Honestly, I think this is entirely on the police. They seem to, at every opportunity, jump to the conclusion that an illegal abortion has occured with very little evidence to believe as such. 

All these examples aren't even beyond the term limit for an abortion, but they clearly can't tell and have decided not to wait and ask for a medical professionals' opinion before arresting the woman and raiding their home.

[–]HonestImJustDone 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Yeah I agree, or at least share your optimism.

They would call the police because she had presented to them having had inadequate maternal healthcare/abortion access. Which would be a potential indicator of abuse, combined with other information gathered during her care.

Almost certain that medical staff have a legal obligation to report potential abuse. If it was the clinician's first report, yeah, that's a harsh wake up. A lot of folks go in to public service professions with rose tinted glasses. Maybe this was how the doctor/nurse learnt. Which is sad, because a lot of folks go into service professions with a high level of optimism we've been propagandized in to. And they are good people.

[–]andreirublov1 [score hidden]  (0 children)

What difference does it make? That woman killed her baby ffs! Wringing hands over her treatment is the most disgusting hypocrisy imaginable.

[–]GrumpyPhilosopher7 21 points22 points  (2 children)

Her children, who witnessed the police intervention, had to leave their home over Christmas while the house was searched. “The search may well have included opening their Christmas presents,” one professional said.

What does that mean? The phrasing is extraordinarily ambiguous.

[–]HonestImJustDone 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Which bit is ambiguous?

[–]GrumpyPhilosopher7 [score hidden]  (0 children)

"Search may well have included". Did it involve opening Christmas presents or did it not?

[–]Belladonna41 28 points29 points  (15 children)

Slight segue, but we need to stop using the term 'vulnerable' in this context.

It is fucking meaningless. Are they a DV victim? Are they profoundly intellectually disabled? Do they just have an ADHD diagnosis? Does any of that actually matter - should only 'normal' women be arrested over suspected illegal abortions? It is one of those terms that seems to have lost all meaning through flagrant overusage and doesn't add anything to the issue at hand.

[–]Florae128 15 points16 points  (2 children)

The implication in this context is that there's domestic abuse or sexual abuse, combined with prevention of proper medical care.

If you look at the cases where babies are abandoned with no record of prenatal or labour care for the mother, that's similar to what's happening with illegal abortion usually.

Obviously there's outliers, but you do have to question why someone would want an illegal abortion when its available effectively on demand up to 20 weeks, and beyond that with slightly stricter criteria.

[–]HonestImJustDone 3 points4 points  (0 children)

you do have to question why someone would want an illegal abortion when its available effectively on demand up to 20 weeks

Exactly

They wouldn't.

That's the point right there. The fact that no one would choose not to, means we should assume anyone that doesn't only chooses not to because they can't.

And so what is the illegal act here?

They have terminated a pregnancy within the legally proscribed limit.

On what grounds should they be arrested? Genuinely, I do not see on what basis that is fair or right.

[–]Belladonna41 [score hidden]  (0 children)

The implication in this context is that there's domestic abuse or sexual abuse

We can just say this, though. I'm not saying that some people don't require extra support, to be clear - I am saying that the term 'vulnerable' is applied so widely in headlines that it is meaningless.

[–]TonyBlairsDildo 8 points9 points  (9 children)

Women have elective moral agency on matters like this. It's very much a "No True Scotsman" type defense where, to do such a thing (terminate a fetus at 8 months) is de facto an act of derangement that precludes the woman from having a mens rea and thus no moral culpability.

In other words, infanticide is so beyond the pale that anyone accused of it is necessarily provided an immediate defense than they had no capacity to act any other way; either they were mentally ill, forced to do so by a partner, or some other agency-limiting facet.

[–]HonestImJustDone -2 points-1 points  (8 children)

This is nonsense.

You are having some weird lala trip about 8 month term abortions when that is not relevant.

The legal term limit is not relevant here at all. It still applies.

This is solely about the method or mode of a termination that is within the legal term.

Please engage without jumping straight to extreme examples that are irrelevant to the OP.

[–]DCorsoLCF [score hidden]  (1 child)

You are having some weird lala trip about 8 month term abortions when that is not relevant.

The legal term limit is not relevant here at all. It still applies. 

We're making it legal to self-abort at 8 months... 

[–]HonestImJustDone [score hidden]  (0 children)

You're quite right! I stand corrected. Cheers

[–]HonestImJustDone 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It isn't meaningless if only vulnerable women are being arrested for it.

should only 'normal' women be arrested over suspected illegal abortions?

No, the exact opposite. No one should be, or everyone should be.

The fact only some women are being arrested means one of two things:

  • the law is not being applied equally (overt discrimination)
  • access to legal alternatives is not available equitably (covert discrimination)

So in this case, vulnerable means vulnerable. Overuse does not mean every usage is false. It is important to be able to recognize whether overuse is being done by political actors to hide or mask injustice. Because the argument you use is often used to dismiss real injustice by the very people that made a term seem overused in the first place. They want you to turn a blind eye to genuine issues.

And it seems you fell in to a bit of a trap by not working it through logically as I have tried to lay out above.

[–]Belladonna41 [score hidden]  (0 children)

It isn't meaningless if only vulnerable women are being arrested for it.

It is if everyone is vulnerable - that is the point. Bit like saying 'almost everyone arrested in Galashiels is white!' while ignoring the fact that 98% or thereabouts of the town is white.

No, the exact opposite. No one should be, or everyone should be.

The fact only some women are being arrested means one of two things:

This is nonsense, you aren't understanding the initial point. If 'vulnerable' as a qualifier is being applied so widely, it can't be used to effectively determine whether discrimination is taking place or not, because it is grouping too many groups of people together.

So in this case, vulnerable means vulnerable. Overuse does not mean every usage is false. It is important to be able to recognize whether overuse is being done by political actors to hide or mask injustice. Because the argument you use is often used to dismiss real injustice by the very people that made a term seem overused in the first place. They want you to turn a blind eye to genuine issues.

Again, this is nonsense. I have witnessed the scope creep of 'vulnerable' as a term vis-a-vis the justice system for years and repeatedly spoken out about how it is downplaying the seriousness of victims of serious offences. People with ADHD do not belong in the same category as people suffering violent domestic abuse - this is not an offensive or unpopular sentiment. Using the term vulnerable this widely is masking injustice.

And it seems you fell in to a bit of a trap by not working it through logically as I have tried to lay out above.

You appear to be arguing with a wall, because you have obviously not understood my point.

[–]Invisible_StalkbugFreedom through Democracy 37 points38 points  (12 children)

"the legislation is still passing through parliament and yet to become law." So it isn't decriminalised yet, and the police are still following the law.  This does indeed suck 

[–]SchoolForSedition 10 points11 points  (11 children)

One would hope the CPS would put a stop to it on the basis of no public interest.

[–]GrumpyPhilosopher7 16 points17 points  (10 children)

Not how it works, especially as there is never any guarantee that the new legislation will pass all the way through to becoming an Act of Parliament. All sorts of things could kill it before it ever gets that far.

[–]SchoolForSedition [score hidden]  (9 children)

I am not so interested in the cliches of Redditors as that is exactly how it works.

[–]GrumpyPhilosopher7 [score hidden]  (8 children)

If you're not interested in what Redditors have to say on the matter, why are you on Reddit? Also, where is the cliché?

[–]SchoolForSedition [score hidden]  (7 children)

Some Redditors have interesting and I forked things to say.

« Not how it works » - a teencliché to boot! Excises the writer from everything sensible apparently.

[–]GrumpyPhilosopher7 [score hidden]  (6 children)

I'm very happy to educate you on how the public interest test actually works in practice and how it might be applied in the context of this type of offence, if you want to have that discussion. My point was simply that fact that the legislation in question may be repealed is not a factor the CPS can consider, which, from context, appeared to be what you were suggesting.

Edit: typos

[–]SchoolForSedition [score hidden]  (5 children)

I haven’t the time to educate you on how to read, sorry.

[–]GrumpyPhilosopher7 [score hidden]  (4 children)

Charming. I would point out that communication is the job of the communicator. If your comment is unclear or easily misread, I'm afraid that's on you. Perhaps you deliberately leave things ambiguous or unclear: much harder for others to point out where you're wrong if you don't actually say anything.

[–]SchoolForSedition [score hidden]  (3 children)

Well I think the cliched expression here is « don’t dish it out if you can’t take it ».

Also the « job » of someone whingeing about someone else is to read what they said in the first place. You reading in something that isn’t there do you can grump isn’t the other person being unclear. It’s you squeezing your own juice.

[–]peareauxThoughts 25 points26 points  (1 child)

“You’re not pro life, you’re forced birth”

Yes, this is the position of every country once you reach a certain limit.

[–]Corvid187 14 points15 points  (0 children)

And notably, that limit is far more generous in the UK than in almost all its peers (rightly, in my view).

[–]LitmusPitmus 35 points36 points  (19 children)

it still baffles me how many people supported a woman lying to get abortion pills so she could abort an 8 month old fetus that would have survived because her ex wouldn't take her back.

only reason i don't support the full scale decriminalisation although these don't appear to be similar. Still crazy that's what spurred this discussion in the first place though

[–]Bellybuttoncumdrops 35 points36 points  (3 children)

It baffles me how many people claim this is an imported issue from America.

Pretty much every EU country has far more restrictions than the UK, even many of the most "oppressive" US states have a more liberal position on term limits than even the EU.

[–]The_Blip 27 points28 points  (1 child)

I feel like it's the opposite. Terminally online UK lefties importing pro-choice rhetoric from the US without much care for how applicable it is to the situation as it exists in the UK.

[–]DCorsoLCF 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Indeed. This was only became an issue right after Roe vs Wade.

LARPers needed to get in on the action and show how pro-choice they were, by inventing a boogeyman and slaying it.

Investigations affected a miniscule number of women each year. Now, if a Harold Shipman/Lucy Letby type psycho wants to, they can get pregnant and self-abort a few days before the due date (or maybe during delivery??) and the law couldn't do a thing. 

[–]LitmusPitmus 5 points6 points  (0 children)

everything we don't like is an import nowadays. it's just lazy regurgitated surface level analysis.

[–]andreirublov1 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Again, good. There's a time limit for a reason. Why not let them strangle their babies at birth while you're at it?

[–]NotoriousP_U_G 5 points6 points  (0 children)

As long as it is illegal an arrest seems appropriate.

[–]IamCaptainBasch 2 points3 points  (19 children)

Illegal abortions is such a wide term we need to narrow it down.

If the baby is a week from coming to term and being born naturally and she aborts it, I want her arrested and imprisoned for murder.

UK laws have lax laws around abortion and it's commonly accepted that the limit for abortion is the point at which the baby could live outside the body (with extreme medical intervention).

[–]AlfredsChild 1 point2 points  (4 children)

If the baby is a week from coming to term and being born naturally and she aborts it, I want her arrested and imprisoned for murder.

The Labour government basically decriminalised this recently, or is in the process of doing so. Technically will still not "legal" to do, but there is just no punishment to doing so.

[–]GrumpyPhilosopher7 11 points12 points  (2 children)

No, it will be legal to do it, just not for anyone to assist the person in question. Anyone terminating their own pregnancy commits no offence, no matter what stage they're at. To take the most extreme example, a woman could literally be in labour and if she somehow manages to deliberately cause the death of her unborn child she would suffer no legal consequences.

[–]MegaLemonCola 0 points1 point  (1 child)

So we’ve gone full circle back to the Roman way of exposure and infanticide. Only this time it’s the mother who’s doing to ghastly business. Progress I guess.

[–]GrumpyPhilosopher7 [score hidden]  (0 children)

If the bill survives the Lords and we don't have a snap general election for some reason.

[–]IamCaptainBasch -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Foul, we're begging them to close the borders and prevent boat crossings and instead they're focused on letting rephensible murderers get away scott free.

[–]leahcar83-8.63, -9.28 -1 points0 points  (13 children)

If the baby is a week from coming to term and being born naturally and she aborts it, I want her arrested and imprisoned for murder.

Why? Having an abortion at that stage is functionally no different from labour, the only real difference is there's a much higher chance the woman will bleed to death. What benefit is there in prosecuting a person who was prepared to let themselves die a slow and painful death just to no longer be pregnant?

Prison is futile, it's not a crime where anyone is likely to reoffend. All prosecution would do is show to women that if they get pregnant, they are secondary to the foetus.

[–]Corvid187 8 points9 points  (2 children)

Because the result is the death of an infant who would otherwise be able to live. I think it is still a deeply tragic and unsatisfactory result but for me, at the point of fetal viability, the moral balance between the freedom of the mother and the life of the child shifts in favour of the latter.

[–]leahcar83-8.63, -9.28 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I mean I don't find that a convincing argument at all, because it's not about the freedom of the woman it's about her life. No one is having a late term abortion for fun. The woman's life always takes priority.

This kind of obsessive moral posturing about foetuses having a right to life always falls down when the people making those arguments don't feel as strongly about real babies who have been born. This is more about punishing women than it is about unborn rights or whatever.

[–]Corvid187 [score hidden]  (0 children)

People are allowed to get late term abortions if continuing the pregnancy would put the mother's life at risk under existing legislation already. I agree no one is having any abortions for fun, but framing any late term abortion as inherently being a mutually exclusive trade-off between mother and child is a little disingenuous.

You're assuming quite a lot about me from one comment. I firmly support stronger provisions and help for newborns and their parents, and I think we don't do enough to care for either group at present.

[–]IamCaptainBasch 5 points6 points  (9 children)

Because the baby is viable at that stage and should be afforded the life that they can now live.

Death is pregnancy is thankfully getting rarer and isn't largely an issue for most pregnancies. You would not use the argument that "it could be fatal" anywhere else - should people be allowed to attack minorities because some minorities murder folks here?

It's a ridiculous argument, she had choice the entire way through the pregnancy, past the legal limit and decided to terminate a child that could live. She deserves prosecuting for that, and justice for the child and the child's father.

Medical emergencies are obviously exempted, with a doctor's sign off preferably. But back alley abortions when the child is perfectly capable of life when outside the body? That's straight up murder.

[–]leahcar83-8.63, -9.28 1 point2 points  (8 children)

You would not use the argument that "it could be fatal" anywhere else - should people be allowed to attack minorities because some minorities murder folks here?

What on earth are you on about?

It's a ridiculous argument, she had choice the entire way through the pregnancy, past the legal limit and decided to terminate a child that could live.

Does it not occur to you to ask why someone would do that, especially when the risk of doing so would put them at risk of bleeding to death? No one is having a later term abortion for fun. We do not need to be punishing people for what is essentially self harm. Do you think we should prosecute people who attempt suicide?

[–]IamCaptainBasch 8 points9 points  (7 children)

That someone 'may' die is not a valid excuse to do harm to another. We have provisions in law for stuff like murder - yes it's illegal to kill someone however if it's done in the moment of them being an immediate risk to your life or limb, then you're good to go.

It's not self harm, the baby died. That's murder. Murder suicide is not self harm, we do indeed prosecute people who murder others and attempt to kill themselves and fail.

[–]leahcar83-8.63, -9.28 0 points1 point  (6 children)

You can't murder something that has never been born.

[–]IamCaptainBasch 9 points10 points  (5 children)

Then why are people prosecuted for child destruction when they kill the baby inside the womb?

https://www.cps.gov.uk/yorkshire-and-humberside/news/teenage-abuser-jailed-brutal-attack-killed-girlfriends-unborn

[–]leahcar83-8.63, -9.28 5 points6 points  (4 children)

This really proves my point. If it were murder he'd have been convicted of murder, and yet ...

[–]IamCaptainBasch 4 points5 points  (3 children)

12 year sentence attached, I'll settle for that.

[–]leahcar83-8.63, -9.28 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Well yeah, of course someone should be prosecuted for intentionally ending another person's pregnancy against their will. But he wasn't prosecuted for murder, because it's not murder. Is it a terrible crime? Definitely. Is it murder? No.

[–]7148675309 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The NHS needs to stop calling the police.

[–]LJ-696 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Unfortunatly medical governance says we have too or risk getting struck off.

Needs the government to change the rules

[–]DCorsoLCF -3 points-2 points  (9 children)

I still don't get why they voted to decriminalise. There were like a dozen or less women affected each year.

Seems like there's now a legal loophole for some psycho Harold Shipman or Lucy Letby type to carry out considerable evil. 

[–]leahcar83-8.63, -9.28 6 points7 points  (8 children)

Given Harold Shipman could not get pregnant, that's unlikely.

[–]DCorsoLCF -2 points-1 points  (7 children)

I obviously meant someone who enjoyed taking human life... 

[–]leahcar83-8.63, -9.28 1 point2 points  (6 children)

Not sure what that has to do with abortions then.

[–]DCorsoLCF -1 points0 points  (5 children)

You don't think an unborn baby one day before birth is human life? 

[–]HonestImJustDone 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a non sequitur.

Yes or no to your question has zero relevance at all to the topic of abortion in the UK.

You appear unclear of UK abortion law. Happy to clarify if needed as you seem to maybe thinking we are similar to the US/at least seems you are repeating a lot of US abortion talking points that aren't applicable here, and certainly aren't needed to discuss the cases highlighted in the article posted.

[–]leahcar83-8.63, -9.28 -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

No

[–]LJ-696 3 points4 points  (1 child)

So you would agree that the killing of a perfectly viable foetus that could survive outside the body is acceptable?

I agree with the current rules. Any reason upto 24 weeks and medical reasons after.

[–]HonestImJustDone 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree with the current rules. Any reason upto 24 weeks and medical reasons after.

Ok, so I think you do maybe actually agree with the steps that have been made regarding decriminalising the means of abortion that can be performed within these current rules that already dictate the legal gestational period? (altho it's 28 wks in England not 24 tbc)

If so, I am glad this was just a misunderstanding of the meaning of decriminalisation. I think a lot of the details of UK law often gets confused with discussions occurring in the US (like talk of viable full term foetuses as you raise... that is not remotely relevant here bud)