Woman sentenced to prison for abortion.

krooton said:
I'm pro-choice up until a point too, and I was a 6-week premie myself.

Was there any more context to this? Did she get pregnant before COVID came in hard and fast and made the world a scary and depressing place? Already having 4 kids could have added to the stress.

She says she didn't know how far along she was, and that isn't unfeasible, there have been loads of instances of people giving birth never knowing that they were even pregnant. She also was already in her 40s, which if she really didn't know how far along she was, and was aware of the risks of post-40 pregnancies, maybe that also fed in to the decision?
Click to expand...


Apparently there was evidence in her search history that she knew she was 34 weeks.
 
JonRGV250 said:
People actually voted for this moron..

Click to expand...
Just watched Stella Creasy on Newsnight repeatedly say it wasn't a viable child as it hadn't drawn a breath. Therefore it wasn't killing a baby, as nobody could prove the child would have lived.

Honestly, a lot of the current Labour lot are vile.

I'm not sure how anyone watching it could take away any other impression than that Creasy thinks abortion at any point until the child starts breathing should be legal. I'm sure she wouldn't say that on camera, tho.
 
The current 24 week limit exists for a reason - you have to draw the line somewhere between being a fertilised egg and it being one day prior to birth, so the point at which it can (theoretically) survive outside the womb by itself is a sensible choice. It's not exact, and there will be cases either side on the bell curve of them surviving before this date and not surviving after it, but it should be enough time to know you're pregnant and do something about it except in the rare cases of people who first find out when they actually give birth. In these cases, you've just got to suck it up as a possible consequence of having sex.

The law is the law.
 
Irish_Tom said:
Didn't we do this to death (;)) in your last thread?
Click to expand...
Maybe he's pregnant and seeking guidance?

FoxEye said:
Just watched Stella Creasy on Newsnight repeatedly say it wasn't a viable child as it hadn't drawn a breath. Therefore it wasn't killing a baby, as nobody could prove the child would have lived.
Click to expand...
She's not qualified to assess viability anyway, and as Penfold said, we have a law covering this.

But Creasy's opinion is irrelevant - It was a 'woman, being with child, who, with intent to procure her own miscarriage, [did] unlawfully administer to herself any poison or other noxious thing, or [did] unlawfully use any instrument or other means whatsoever with the like intent'.
That's the offense, in this case - Unlawful procurement (ie lying) and administration of abortion medication.
 
How do they even change abortion laws to suit this anyway? Make it right up to the day before birth?

Looks like she was having an affair and was trying to hide the pregnancy from her husband.
 
explicit4u said:
It's not that I'd be okay with it, I just dont like the idea of the law forcing someone to give birth.
Click to expand...

Looking past the absolutely horrific idea of a baby being killed the day before it is due to be born, unless they stick a hand blender up there, the woman has still got to get the baby out somehow, how do you think this is going to happen?

You've managed the feat of having both an abhorrent and -not smart- point of view, although I guess you're not that special thinking about it.

(Edited to be less inflammatory)
 
Last edited:
Abortion is a funny thing. We rarely talk straight about it.

What really irritates me is that we hide behind phrases like "allowing women to control their body" and set age limits between acceptable and unacceptable.

It's all unacceptable, at any age, but the alternative is even more unacceptable - widespread misery and a flood of unwanted children.
 
FoxEye said:
Just watched Stella Creasy on Newsnight repeatedly say it wasn't a viable child as it hadn't drawn a breath. Therefore it wasn't killing a baby, as nobody could prove the child would have lived.
Click to expand...

That suggests to me that she does not understand what the word 'viable' means. At that point in time it did not need to draw its own breath.
 
Last edited:
explicit4u said:
Yes, once they give birth the baby should have all the legal protection any other person would have, and I'd support a harsh prison sentence if there's no extenuating circumstances like mental health.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested in your reasoning as to why killing a 34 week old baby inside the womb is fine, but killing it outside the womb isn't?

I'm definitely pro-choice, and will argue vehemently for women's rights to terminate early in the pregnancy, but I think the current cut-off point is about right.

This is what a 26 week old "foetus" looks like btw, I'm sure you can extrapolate the extra 2 months up to 34 weeks...

VspBNc9.png
 
Last edited:
Haggisman said:
I'd be interested in knowing your reasoning behind this?

This is what a 26 week old "foetus" looks like btw, I'm sure you can extrapolate the extra 2 months up to 34 weeks...

VspBNc9.png
Click to expand...
you know i am pro choice (to a certain time limit) however looking at that image does make me question if 24 weeks isnt too long in general ( without risk of complications.)

in this day and age with all the education, contraception as well as testing kits, there really is no excuse to not abort sooner than 24 weeks, far from excusing the woman who did what she did, i think there is a strong argument to dial back the 24 weeks. i am not a medical professional so maybe i am wrong, but i just think 24 weeks is cutting it a bit fine with the medical advancements we have. 21 weeks maybe? (just spitballing) after that just give birth and adopt. its not like there is a shortage of people desperate to adopt newborn babies
 
Last edited:
bigmike20vt said:
you know i am pro choice (to a certain time limit) however looking at that image does make me question if 24 weeks isnt too long in general ( without risk of complications.)

in this day and age with all the education, contraception as well as testing kits, there really is no excuse to not abort sooner than 24 weeks, far from excusing the woman who did what she did, i think there is a strong argument to dial back the 24 weeks. i am not a medical professional so maybe i am wrong, but i just think 24 weeks is cutting it a bit fine with the medical advancements we have. 21 weeks maybe? (just spitballing) after that just adopt. its not like there is a shorrage of people desperate to adopt newborn babies
Click to expand...

I think the fact that it also requires the agreement of 2 doctors gives a bit of a safety net - this should (hopefully!) mean that abortions in the later weeks need some good justification
 
bigmike20vt said:
the mind boggles....... that excuse may be ok for lions............. or even apes in the wild but to try that as a defence blows my mind.

IF she would have gotten away with it, it would have set a terrifying precedent.
Click to expand...
we'll all be accused of mansplaining why the original verdict is correct
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom