Criminal or a Health Matter?

Germanshepherdsmum

I can’t imagine the feelings of women who have suffered a stillbirth or neonatal death, or who have been unable to have a child, reading this. There are such women on GN. They post frequently and are likely to have seen this thread. Arguing in this woman’s favour insults them. Perhaps time to stop the emotional mitigating.

You have no proof that the woman was not just as emotionally damaged by what she went through GSM this concept that only "good" women feel things is not true. The woman seems to have named the baby "Lily". Her tragedy is just as worthy of our sympathy as any other woman's. Compassion does not have to be limited.

Glorianny

Casdon

Glorianny

Casdon

Glorianny

Germanshepherdsmum

Glorianny, what is the point of talking about what would have happened if she killed the child after it was born, and post-natal depression? She deliberately killed the child whilst it was in her womb, at a stage of gestation where survival is usual with proper care. Stick to the known facts, such as they are.

I wasn't the one who posted she could have been charged with murder and have been given a mandatory life sentence.
I think it is relevant that a woman who had killed her baby would probably not be given a custodial sentence, but this woman has been. I think it is part of a general and growing view that women who have abortions are somehow "bad" women.

You win the generalisation of the day prize for that Glorianny, it’s not true that women who kill their babies ‘would probably not be given a custodial sentence’ at all. It depends entirely on the circumstances, and there are cases in the papers daily where women are indeed sent to prison because they have killed their babies.
I don’t agree with the judges decision in this case based on what we know, but to turn that into a perceived slight on women who have abortions is several steps too far.

Sorry Casdon but can you post some evidence for this claim please.
I probably should have said "women who kill their babies in the first year of life" when the crime is infanticide.
www.claims.co.uk/knowledge-base/court-proceedings/infanticide-and-criminal-law#:~:text=the%20criminal%20law-,What%20is%20meant%20by%20infanticide%3F,on%20it%20as%20a%20defence.

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/rachel-tunstill-retrial-liverpool-burnley-15789927
www.hampshire.police.uk/news/hampshire/news/news/2021/july/woman-sentenced-for-infanticide-of-baby-girl-in-aldershot/
I can find more if you want them?

Only one of those cases resulted in a prison sentence Casdon it was an unusually violent case. In the Hampshire case the woman was sentenced to a community order of 2 years and a rehabilitation order of 30 days Ironically she had already spent a year in prison.
Interesting isn't it? Two years (serving at least 14 months) for abortion
Community service for killing a baby.

The point is Glorianny that women are imprisoned for infanticide, although these two both were, one before and one after sentencing. It’s not about those two cases specifically though, it’s about your assertion that women who have abortions are treated differently. It’s not the case, as I said every circumstance, baby death and sentence is different.

Indeed Casdon. I find Glorianny’s continued arguing in this woman’s favour, when she has no detailed knowledge of the case, very distasteful. I have already said that there will be posters whose names we know who have suffered stillbirth, neonatal death or infertility. Out of respect for their feelings I will not comment further on this thread.

Actually Glorianny
This woman did kill a baby. A baby of 32-34 weeks gestation is a viable baby. My 34 week baby was a viable baby. She had a condition that was nothing to do with viability and that’s why she was induced early to be treated. With blood transfusions. But she was breathing and normal, a viable baby. Babies are viable at that stage.

maddyone

Actually Glorianny
This woman did kill a baby. A baby of 32-34 weeks gestation is a viable baby. My 34 week baby was a viable baby. She had a condition that was nothing to do with viability and that’s why she was induced early to be treated. With blood transfusions. But she was breathing and normal, a viable baby. Babies are viable at that stage.

I know this. And of course it is a tragedy, but punishing this woman will not bring the baby back. And women who have killed babies are not always imprisoned.

The assertions that because I disapprove of the criminalisation of abortion, and feel that this woman deserves more consideration, does not mean I don't feel or understand the distress other women who lose or have babies, who are premature or still born experience is completely unnecessary and wrong. We have both in our family. Including babies who would not have lived had they been born in this country. As I said before compassion is not limited.

but punishing this woman will not bring the baby back

Well, we could use that argument for any murder couldn't we? All the men, women and children who have been brutand callously murdered can't be brought back so why imprison the murderer? It won't achieve anything will it?

This is a particularly tragic case. The woman knew she was pregnant in December 2019, yet didn't take the pills until May 2020. She's in her 40s so it would seem to be sufficient time to take action within the law. Plus Covid restrictions didn't come in until March. The baby would almost certainly have survived and I can't help but think that babies of this gestation need some protection. I guess that the only way to prevent this from happening again is for pills by mail to be banned. Maybe they have post Covid? Whether prison is right, I really don't know.

It seems the problem was that the woman was able to obtain abortion pills by post, because of Covid. I can’t understand why a woman seeking an abortion during Covid wasn’t seen as she usually would be, by a doctor. People will say well GPs wouldn’t see patients, but they did. I know this because my daughter who is a GP was seeing patients face to face all through Covid. Of course she did telephone consultations but she and other doctors were seeing patients face to face. Two doctors are supposed to agree that an abortion is necessary in order for it to be legal, but a nurse agreed these pills and sent them by post. It seems that the abortions were just being signed off without proper consultation. If anyone, even the nurse, had seen this woman, it would have been obvious that she was at a much later stage of pregnancy and the abortion not allowed. Other solutions would have been discussed with her, and she would not have been made into a criminal.

maddyone

It seems the problem was that the woman was able to obtain abortion pills by post, because of Covid. I can’t understand why a woman seeking an abortion during Covid wasn’t seen as she usually would be, by a doctor. People will say well GPs wouldn’t see patients, but they did. I know this because my daughter who is a GP was seeing patients face to face all through Covid. Of course she did telephone consultations but she and other doctors were seeing patients face to face. Two doctors are supposed to agree that an abortion is necessary in order for it to be legal, but a nurse agreed these pills and sent them by post. It seems that the abortions were just being signed off without proper consultation. If anyone, even the nurse, had seen this woman, it would have been obvious that she was at a much later stage of pregnancy and the abortion not allowed. Other solutions would have been discussed with her, and she would not have been made into a criminal.

I'm not sure her pregnancy would have been obvious. She was reconciled and living with a man (the other children's father?) and he doesn't seem to have known about it.

Glorianny, I have no doubt that you are sincere in the views which you have expressed on a number of topics on this thread, but you consistently present arguments as though they are based on fact, rather than on the mere supposition which actually defines them as speculative. You also have a habit of speaking for others, and for claiming that you somehow know what they are thinking. You have also resorted to playing the victim card when the weight of argument is going heavily against you. Please accept that “Glorianny world” is not a place which I inhabit, and that the fact that I may strongly disagree with your opinion is not a personal attack on you, it is merely an indication that on many topics, we exist on very different pages and operate with very different value systems. Having now experienced many exchanges which usually become circular, and into which you often introduce diversionary, somewhat irrelevant distractions, I have reached the stage where I will no longer be responding to any posts which you choose to post here, on any topic. Starting now.. Wishing you well.

Sorry but as someone who had a later miscarriage I hate the use of 'our' feelings as a way to stop discussion of this subject. We cant not talk about important issues because people might be hurt.
I dont speak for anyone but myself but I feel just deeply sad about the situation and dont think prison was the answer.

Beautifully summed up NanaDana.

Galaxy I agree with you when you say.
I don't speak for anyone but myself but I feel just deeply sad about the situation and don't think prison was the answer

Good post, NanaDada.

And I also echo Galaxy's feelings. It is a complex case, and the rights of the woman and the baby need to be weighed up much more carefully than in the case of an early termination, but given the times in which it happened, when life was very different, and that the judge accepted that there was depression involved, jail seems both pointless and unnecessarily harsh.

I too am conflicted - I do believe legal abortion is a right and should be available to all woman, and I don’t believe prison is the right place for this woman, however she did know she was much further on than she told the online doctor and this is one reason why abortions should be carefully controlled and why face to face GP consultations and scans should be completed - I feel for all involved

From the scant press coverage I have seen, it seems that she set out deliberately to lie to get the means to kill the unborn child - who could have survived if born - to get herself out of a difficult social situation.

She researched (by her web searches presented in court) & undertook a deliberate planned crime rather than face up to the consequences of her adult choices. Anyone else, any other crime, they’d do the time.

Maybe there is a case to address the sentencing guidelines, but she was fairly represented & found guilty, so there is the basis of the sentence.

I defend a woman’s right to choose & have always fought against random changes to the elective abortion deadline so that fewer women are denied this right. There is a reason why we have the upper limit & hard fought consensus that this is medically ethical, socially acceptable & fair.

Beyond that is another matter where medical issues are harder & rigorously managed. This is not what happened in this case.

The children are denied their mother by her own actions, same as if she killed anyone by plan or committed any other serious crime. Mitigating circumstances are taken into account at trial & at sentencing, if there were leeway it’d have been factored in. I assume that she may appeal.

If we know more, understand the law better & defend the rights we already have - just waiting for the backlash - then all is not lost.

A dreadful scenario, but presume the probation service did pre-sentencing reports to determine the best solution. Altho they don’t always get it right.

I don’t have a lot of sympathy for her, to be honest, The baby was very nearly full term. I don’t think it’s any different to giving birth to the baby and then killing it. There are many parents receiving long (justifiable) sentences for killing their children during lockdown. No one is saying ‘oh but lock down made it much harder for them’ so I don’t see that it’s any different for her.

Redhead56

I wonder if the balance of her mind was disturbed while she was having unprotected sex it’s the children I feel sorry for.

In that case she had weeks and weeks to have an early termination, for me it’s her waiting for so long that’s the main issue

I too am conflicted about this. Terribly tragic for all concernef however we look at it. If its not treated criminally, then do we give a free pass to other cases? Whilst it's likely to be a rare event, it could happen again. We have to draw a legal line somewhere regarding abortion dates. She may well have mental issues, but does that justify her act? I've often thought there is a very fine line between mental health issues and plain bad behaviour. I'm concerned that 'mental health' can become a convenient excuse for bad behavior/decisions. I do have very mixed feelings about this case.

Glorianny

I think in some of your responses you’re totally missing the point, this woman probably was disturbed and upset, but it is totally incomparable to those poor women who experience miscarriages, stillbirth or are barren and unable to conceive. She knowingly had unprotected sex and then made the choice to lie and have a very late termination, I have no doubt that this experience was awful for her, but she chose this action, as a forty year old mother - her actions were deplorable

She must have been desperate to have done it. She must need psychiatric care not prison. I also understand that in the magistrate court the charge was different to which she pleaded not guilty. In the crown court the charge was different and she pleaded guilty. The judge passed the sentence on the grounds that she pleaded not guilty to begin with BUT the charge had changed. Surely this is not justice. Again we are judged by men who just don’t get it. I hope her lawyer appeals and gets her hope asap.

Am I missing something here? Surely the fault lies with the person/company who supplied the drugs! (The drugs which killed the child!!!). Just because someone asks for something, it doesn't follow that they should automatically get it! I might ask my pharmacist for XYZ drug, but there is no way I would be given it without checking with my GP. The supply company should be closed down as clearly they do not have the right checks and balances in place to be allowed such a responsibility.

AGAA4

Killing a baby at 32 weeks is totally wrong. She has denied that child the right to life. Abortion if it has to be done should only be carried out in the early stages of pregnancy.
A custodial sentence would just cause suffering for the children she has so I am not in favour of that but hard to know if she is freed would it set a precedent for others to do this?

I agree with this about would it set a precedent?
I worked in a termination clinic many years ago. I heard some awful sob stories about why the women and girls felt they had to terminate. It is not something I could ever have done. I have always thought until you have walked in someones shoes we don't have the right to judge.
Having said that I can recall the consultant shouting after a woman he had just seen that this was her third time and he would not treat her for a fourth, Sadly there are some women who treat termination as a form of contraception.
I feel desperately sorry for all those concerned, the aborted baby, the woman's children and the woman. Funny how the men get off Scott free!

Jannipans

Am I missing something here? Surely the fault lies with the person/company who supplied the drugs! (The drugs which killed the child!!!). Just because someone asks for something, it doesn't follow that they should automatically get it! I might ask my pharmacist for XYZ drug, but there is no way I would be given it without checking with my GP. The supply company should be closed down as clearly they do not have the right checks and balances in place to be allowed such a responsibility.

Different scenario but during lockdown I had repeated UTIs after my urine was tested twice and antibiotics given on the third occasion several months later I had a phone consultation and was issued antibiotics as my symptoms were identical - if I’d lied to my GP would they be at fault ??