Chekhov Posted June 13, 2023 Author Share Posted June 13, 2023 1 minute ago, Mister M said: I agree with this. The judge recognised this in his summation, commenting on the woman's mental health. I really don't have the inclination to condemn this woman given that I've never met her, and don't know all the details. Given that this case is about person in obvious distress, I haven't the stomach to use it political point which involves jumping on a high horse and condemning her. What about people with mental health problem who, say, commit terrorist acts ? I'll bet a good few of them have mental health problems one way or another Surely none of them, should be condemned either ? It's cobblers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted June 13, 2023 Share Posted June 13, 2023 3 minutes ago, Chekhov said: What about people with mental health problem who, say, commit terrorist acts ? I'll bet a good few of them have mental health problems one way or another Surely none of them, should be condemned either ? It's cobblers. It's completely different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chekhov Posted June 13, 2023 Author Share Posted June 13, 2023 1 minute ago, Mister M said: >>Chekhov said: What about people with mental health problem who, say, commit terrorist acts ? I'll bet a good few of them have mental health problems one way or another Surely none of them, should be condemned either ? It's cobblers.<< It's completely different. Why exactly ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted June 13, 2023 Share Posted June 13, 2023 1 minute ago, Chekhov said: Why exactly ? Because I wouldn't have thought that the terrorist goes through the emotional turmoil which this woman went through, and according to the judge still is going through. Also just on a human level, I find it easier to relate to this woman's plight, than I do a terrorist's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chekhov Posted June 13, 2023 Author Share Posted June 13, 2023 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Mister M said: 1 - Because I wouldn't have thought that the terrorist goes through the emotional turmoil which this woman went through, and according to the judge still is going through. 2 - Also just on a human level, I find it easier to relate to this woman's plight, than I do a terrorist's. I accept point 2 (for you, not me, I have far more empathy for the child not the mother), but not point 1 Edited June 13, 2023 by Chekhov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie Bynnol Posted June 13, 2023 Share Posted June 13, 2023 18 minutes ago, Chekhov said: Why not ? It's quite simple, that baby would have lived almost certainly. She killed it. There are tens of thousands of couples who cannot have kids who would have LOVED to adopt it, she did not even have to bring it up if she did not want to. It's obscene...... We shut down society for up to two year to save lives, why is that baby's life so worthless that "if she'd have pleaded guilty to its murder she would not even have gone to jail" ? She was not charged under 1967 Abortion Act, she was charged under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act(section 58) with which the felony can be punished by being "... kept in penal servitude for life". What is the purpose of this vengeance you support? You have turned a personal and family tragedy into another platform for your beliefs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviathan13 Posted June 13, 2023 Share Posted June 13, 2023 The way I read the story is that her and the partner had split up (akin to Ross and Rachel being 'on a break'), she got pregnant by another man then tried to keep it secret from the 'estranged' partner when she moved back in with him. Nothing about her mental capacity which says to me she knew exactly what she was doing when attempting the termination, considering it didn't appear to be a spur of the moment, hormones all over the place kind of thing and more calculated i.e. she was scared of the ex-partner's reaction and how it looked than actually taking responsibility for her actions. This is a far cry from women who have become pregnant through no fault of their own due to horrific circumstances. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chekhov Posted June 13, 2023 Author Share Posted June 13, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Annie Bynnol said: She was not charged under 1967 Abortion Act, she was charged under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act(section 58) with which the felony can be punished by being "... kept in penal servitude for life". What is the purpose of this vengeance you support? You have turned a personal and family tragedy into another platform for your beliefs. You what ! You supported suppressing the whole of society for months on end to save lives, lives of people who, on average had about 5 years to live and most were capable of reducing their own risk of that early demise. Why do you just dismiss so lightly the death (I would call it murder) of a child with - on average - about 85 years to live who had no power at all over his or her early demise ? 1 hour ago, leviathan13 said: The way I read the story is that her and the partner had split up (akin to Ross and Rachel being 'on a break'), she got pregnant by another man then tried to keep it secret from the 'estranged' partner when she moved back in with him. Nothing about her mental capacity which says to me she knew exactly what she was doing when attempting the termination, considering it didn't appear to be a spur of the moment, hormones all over the place kind of thing and more calculated i.e. she was scared of the ex-partner's reaction and how it looked than actually taking responsibility for her actions. This is a far cry from women who have become pregnant through no fault of their own due to horrific circumstances. Agree completely. >>This is a far cry from women who have become pregnant through no fault of their own due to horrific circumstances.<< Which is a completely different kettle of fish and relatively rare anyway. Edited June 13, 2023 by Chekhov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted June 13, 2023 Share Posted June 13, 2023 2 hours ago, Hanzo said: It's her body, she can bring it into this world or deny the entry. It's her right, no one else's. after a certain amount of times its not just her body, its murder...thats the difference 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chekhov Posted June 13, 2023 Author Share Posted June 13, 2023 10 minutes ago, melthebell said: after a certain amount of times its not just her body, its murder...thats the difference I am probably a bit more anti abortion than you, I would say after a certain amount of times its not just her body, its definitely murder...thats the difference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now