Woman sentenced to prison for abortion.

hurfdurf said:
We’ve already addressed this, keep up.

Scary how a bunch of male computer nerds who I expect don’t have the most success relationship wise view women and consent.
Click to expand...

I think you will find that most women agree with many of us on here...

I would argue that the people who see no issue with what this woman have done are either:

  • ideologically driven i.e. they take the most basic stand that women can do what they want to anything that involves their body
  • people who don't have children so don't have such a strong reaction to a late term baby being murdered by its mother. Someone who should be protecting it at all costs.
 
hurfdurf said:
We’ve already addressed this, keep up.

Scary how a bunch of male computer nerds who I expect don’t have the most success relationship wise view women and consent.
Click to expand...

I can only speak for myself but i'm a married man (10 years + now) and a father.

And as usual your talking nonsence as your insinuations don't even stand up to basic scrutiny anyway.

The fact is that women are *more* against late term abortions than males when polled.

Caracus2k said:
There's not really that much difference between the views of men and women on the subject

Agree abortion should be legal

First 6 weeks - Male 59% female 65%

First 14 weeks - Male 44% Female 45%

First 20 weeks - Male 28% Female 26%



So interestingly it appears men are slightly less in favour of abortion in general but when it comes to late term abortions men are slightly *more* in favour than women.

Which would make shouting "misogyny" for prosecution for an elective abortion circa 30-32 weeks a bit ridiculous as the evidence suggests women may be slightly *more* of the opinion that it should be illegal vs men.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
hurfdurf said:
We’ve already addressed this, keep up.

Scary how a bunch of male computer nerds who I expect don’t have the most success relationship wise view women and consent.
Click to expand...

What exactly are you on about. Assumptions much.

Scary how little value you place on the life of an unborn child.
 
Last edited:
hurfdurf said:
We’ve already addressed this, keep up.

Scary how a bunch of male computer nerds who I expect don’t have the most success relationship wise view women and consent.
Click to expand...

No surprise on how a violent thug (or at least someone who acts like one on the internet) views killing a child however :(

I will concede that you do have one point in that she shouldn't be forced to carry the baby, but removing it should be done within the realms of the law, e.g. an induced birth in a hospital with emergency care on hand.

Just like if I decided I couldn't be bothered with my kids anymore, I could put them up for adoption - fine (although arguably a bit of a **** move to do to a 3 year old and 11 year old), but slipping a fatal dose of sleeping pills into their food would be... frowned upon.
 
hurfdurf said:
We’ve already addressed this, keep up.

Scary how a bunch of male computer nerds who I expect don’t have the most success relationship wise view women and consent.
Click to expand...
lol............... i could be wrong, maybe it is my bias showing through but i have a sneaky suspicion that if anything on average women would find the notion of killing a perfectly viable baby just before the point of its birth even more abhorrent than the average male.
 
"I'm off to have sex on camera with some slappers again today dear, what's for dinner tonight? Remind me to give the OC lot some moral guidance about women when i get back, they're lacking in that sphere again, I'll see you later".

One might quietly wonder who might confidently say such a thing? (Whilst just talking mockingly earlier about sexually unsuccessful computer nerds)?
 
LACKERKNACKER said:
She should never have been sent to prison for the offence, a more appropriate disposal should have been used, thankfully the appeal court thought so.
Click to expand...

What do you think the appropriate sentence should be for a woman who terminates a slightly premature but otherwise healthy newborns life because the child is inconvenient to the rest of their domestic circumstances?

And if the answer is rather different to your post I quoted why?

Given that:

1) there is no significant difference in the cognitive state and ability to suffer of a slightly premature newborn and a nearly full term child in utero

And

2) a child at this stage of a pregnancy is going to have to be 'delivered' dead or alive so killing it in the womb doesn't magically make it go away
 
Last edited:
LACKERKNACKER said:
She should never have been sent to prison for the offence, a more appropriate disposal should have been used, thankfully the appeal court thought so.
Click to expand...

If the baby had been born at exactly the same term, and she had decided to kill it 10 minutes later, would you still have the same opinion? What's the difference?

Remember, this isn't just a blob of cells we're talking about here - this is a fully formed (albeit small) baby with a 95% chance of survival.
 
Caracus2k said:
What do you think the appropriate sentence should be for a woman who terminates a slightly premature but otherwise healthy newborns life because the child is inconvenient to the rest of their domestic circumstances?

And if the answer is rather different to your post I quoted why?

Given that:

1) there is no significant difference in the cognitive state and ability to suffer of a slightly premature newborn and a nearly full term child in utero

And

2) a child at this stage of a pregnancy is going to have to be 'delivered' dead or alive so killing it in the womb doesn't magically make it go away
Click to expand...
A Non Custodial Sentence would more likely be more effective, cause less harm, but probably not punish the woman as much.

It’s difficult to understand what a custodial sentence would achieve in terms of public protection and reducing further risk of harm or reoffending; an element of punishment is achieved through imprisonment, but that in itself is unlikely to have any deterrent factor in future cases.

A terrible situation, but there is a possibility other disposals would probably be more effective and less harmful - given the parlous state of UK prisons, and the relatively short custodial sentence given, its likely nothing to reduce the risk of harm etc would be achieved.

Your points 1 and 2, clearly.
 
Haggisman said:
If the baby had been born at exactly the same term, and she had decided to kill it 10 minutes later, would you still have the same opinion? What's the difference?

Remember, this isn't just a blob of cells we're talking about here - this is a fully formed (albeit small) baby with a 95% chance of survival.
Click to expand...
I don’t know with the limited amount of information I have.

But I suspect that if it had been 10 minutes later, we would not be having this discussion now; my sense is this case has become more about an illegal termination as opposed to murder or infanticide.

But if pushed for an answer, I would probably still think prison may not be the right place for the perpetrator.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Infanticide in England and Wales - PubMed

In England and Wales children under one year of age are at four times greater risk of becoming victims of homicide than either older children or the general population. The annual rate of infant homicide (45 per million) has remained relatively constant since the Homicide Act (1957) in contrast...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
 
LACKERKNACKER said:
It’s difficult to understand what a custodial sentence would achieve in terms of public protection and reducing further risk of harm or reoffending;
Click to expand...

Assuming she went to a women only prison then it would probably do a pretty good job of making sure she didn't "accidentally" get pregnant again, and have another "inconvenience" to get rid of ;)
 
Last edited:
Haggisman said:
Assuming she went to a women only prison then it would probably do a pretty good job of making sure she didn't "accidentally" get pregnant again, and have another "inconvenience" to get rid of ;)
Click to expand...
I don’t think (but will stand to be corrected) we have forced sterilisation in uk prisons;if not released on appeal, she would have been out within 14 months, possibly 8 month, she is only 44 and subject to her bodies reproductive abilities, prison would not stop her from getting pregnant again. Personally I would not assume anything about prisons in the uk and what good they do.
 
LACKERKNACKER said:
I don’t think (but will stand to be corrected) we have forced sterilisation in uk prisons;if not released on appeal, she would have been out within 14 months, possibly 8 month, she is only 44 and subject to her bodies reproductive abilities, prison would not stop her from getting pregnant again. Personally I would not assume anything about prisons in the uk and what good they do.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I should have specified that I meant while she was in there!

It would also almost certainly act as a deterrent to anyone else in the same position, rather than the message which is currently been given (essentially "it's fine to kill your kids")
 
Last edited:
Haggisman said:
Sorry, I should have specified that I meant while she was in there!

It would also almost certainly act as a deterrent to anyone else in the same position, rather than the message which is currently been given (essentially "it's fine to kill your kids")
Click to expand...
A deterrent would result in more women taking dangerous options rather than ‘illegal’ deception.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom