So abortion is not an option? What? Is English your first language?
Woman sentenced to prison for abortion.
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
So abortion is not an option? What? Is English your first language?
The unborn child’s, which is clearly dependent on her, but it’s an innocent life. She can do what she wants, but it’s still taking the life of a child.
This is such a ridiculous comparison.
Even dead bodies have the right to their own organs, even if the use of them would save someone else’s life (innocence doesn’t come into it)
The unborn child does not have autonomy over someone else’s body. She can do what she wants, if it results in the child not surviving, that’s the child’s problem, not hers. She doesn’t owe the child anything and we cannot force people to be responsible for people they don’t want to be.
A truly sick perspective.
Responsibility goes out of the window, it’s all about the individual, even at the cost of another life.
I’m not against abortion in its entirety - but there’s a line, already clearly outlined in law, where as a society we consider it immoral to abort. My understanding of the original case is, she was way beyond that.
Responsibility goes out of the window, it’s all about the individual, even at the cost of another life.
I’m not against abortion in its entirety - but there’s a line, already clearly outlined in law, where as a society we consider it immoral to abort. My understanding of the original case is, she was way beyond that.
Last edited:
Soldato
Stupid analogy. In this case she a) almost certainly decided to get pregnant in the first place (either deliberately or by failing to use appropriate contraception), and b) failed to get an abortion within the legal period (and let's be honest here, 24 weeks isn't exactly a short period, it's plenty of time to make that decision).
There were multiple options available up until this point which she chose not to use. She could even have been induced, had the baby and given it up for adoption.
If the child had been born prematurely at the same age and she'd killed it at that point (or even just walked away and let nature take its course), then she'd be looking at a potential life sentence for murder or neglect.
While I fully support abortion up to the current limits, I'm really struggling to see the difference between this situation and just deciding to kill your baby, and would love to hear an actual argument which doesn't have more holes in it than a sieve.
Thankfully the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, s.5 disagrees with you.
Last edited:
I meant in terms of bodily autonomy medically.
It doesn’t matter how she got there. She got there, the analogy fits.
What’s to say she wasn’t raped, and was too scared to admit that for fear of being murdered by her partner?
We can all indent scenarios and say what she “should” have done to not be in the position, but there is little point in that.
Soldato
Of course you did
but feel free to shift the goalposts if you feel it plugs one of the many holes in your argument.If you say so. However if you want to make your analogy more accurate, it's more like you asked that person hold a gun to your head in the first place and then when you changed your mind, instead of just asking them to stop, you decide to kill them.
If we're getting into the realms of ridiculous what-aboutery, who's to say this wasn't all just a big publicity stunt by an anti-abortion group?
Of course, as you've said (and I agree) - it doesn't matter how she got there, she still decided to kill a baby, and I'm still waiting to hear why you think this should be treated any differently from slitting the throat of your baby born at 32 months?
Agreed, however we can discuss what should be done about it going forward, and personally I agree with the groups campaigning for a change in the outdated law.
a) An unborn baby (after the legal cut-off) should be offered exactly the same legal protection as a baby who has been born.
b) The cut-off period should be reviewed - due to medical advances, the chances of survival for a an ex. prem. baby are significantly higher than in 1967 when the legislation was created. I'm not saying it should necessarily be changed if it is still deemed to be appropriate, but it should certainly be looked at.
Last edited:
Soldato
I know what it means, I just don't agree.
It is not her body. The entire point of a placenta is to allow a genetically different being to develop within the woman without her rejecting it. It is by all definition a separate being, albeit dependant.
Well, according to your own words, the issue is closely tied to an abusive relationship.
People in abusive relationships have to realise there is help out there, but not usually in the way they want it. It is as simple as going to the police. It is as simple as going to the council. People are just very slow to realise that and take the dramatic steps that are needed. They are in many cases their own worst enemy. But someone in an abusive relationship can't continue to blame everyone else for their own inaction.
Sure, if they get pregnant, they women should always have the right to an abortion, but there have to be sensible time limits. You can't cry "oh, abusive relationship", or "oh, whatever", there has to be a cut-off where people have not done enough to sort themselves out... and if they haven't then they must seek out help and adoption for the child.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,853
Now I have YMCA and In the navy stuck in my head.......... thanks for that!.
Of course you did
Taken within the context of the post you mean?
Yes, just like if someone invites you to have sex with them, and if you change your mind mid sex, the other person doesn’t stop when you ask, and so you kill them to prevent the further rape. Justified.
She couldn’t ask the unborn to stop, so she ejected it, it failed to survive on its own. Skill issue.
It’s not a baby until it’s born, Drs abort babies well past the 24 week mark if they can’t induce pregnancy. There is no cut off.
But let’s call it 27 weeks. Give the unborn baby the same rights as a living baby. Nobody had the right to gestate in someone else, that unborn baby is being evicted.
If you woke up tomorrow and I had surgically attached myself to yourself in a way that meant if you detached me I would die, you would not legally have to carry me around and would have every right to ask me to be removed from you so you could live without me.
Soldato
Yes, for medical reasons, not just because the mother decides it's an inconvenience. Why can't I throw my 3 year old down the stairs if I decide I want more time and money? What's the difference?
Yes, because that's totally the same thing
Women are under threat of murder for going to the police, and often are murdered by their spouse in comparison to other murder victims.
The Police routinely fail to protect Domestic abuse victims.
See my post previously about bodily autonomy.
Lol you answered your own point mate!
Yes, because that's totally the same thing
A 3 year old is a viable living being, an unborn baby is not.
You left out part of my post you failed to respond to when you quoted me that will help better explain it. (I’m guessing because you don’t have and can’t answer the points)
“she ejected it, it failed to survive on its own. Skill issue.”
“But let’s call it 27 weeks. Give the unborn baby the same rights as a living baby. Nobody had the right to gestate in someone else, that unborn baby is being evicted.”
Last edited:
Soldato
A baby born at 32 weeks is perfectly capable of surviving and living a long, happy, healthy and normal life. A 3 year old left on their own would be lucky to last a week. You're still not providing any argument as to why they should be treated any differently
The rest of your post is utter drivel (which I'm sure you're aware of
)
Soldato
She didn't wake up and suddenly find an almost full term baby attached to her. She had circa 5 months to do things legally.
Do better @hurfdurf
Last edited:
Soldato
Then get out.
I know, I know, abuse victims see this as impossible. At least if you are a woman it is extremely possible, you can just walk out of your house and there are places that will look after you. But until they realise it's not only possible, but there is a ton of support for them when they do, then situations like this will continue to happen. It's another case of "can't help them unless they help themselves". You can't force someone to see sense, they have to see it themselves, and make the first move themselves.
Of course, I have sympathy for people (and it's not just women) who are trapped in abusive relationships, but there comes a time when they do things that cannot be accepted in place of making the right decision.
Last edited:
Caporegime
If you wanted to make this analogy even vaguely relevant then perhaps it should be that if I detach you you will be absolutely fine but instead I decide to kill you before I go in for the surgery to get you removed. Because why not. I don't want you attached.
The women involved in this still had to give birth. Just to a dead baby that she murdered instead of an alive one that almost certainly would have gone on to live perfectly fine. She wouldn't even have had to see the baby or touch it if she didn't want to.
This ruling essentially completely kills the law on late term abortions.
This is exactly where the late term abortions argument fall apart.
If a fetus can be delivered alive and have a good chance at not only surviving but having a healthy life then what can be the possible justification for killing it given that its going to have to be 'delivered' from the body dead or alive?
Caporegime
I assumed that was one of the core thoughts behind the rule. A baby has a chance of surviving after 24 weeks. This isn't about taking away womens rights to decisions over their own bodies its about protecting a life that is viable. If you want to abort then you should have done it before 24 weeks. If you don't want the baby after that then you have options that don't involve you holding onto the baby for another potentially 16 weeks but also don't involve killing it.