Woman Self Aborts Baby At 33 Weeks

[Annie Bynnol]

52 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

You regularly argue with me on the Covid thread.

That said, if I have got your position wrong and you actually agree with me that the suppression of society was a disproportionate and draconian over reaction I am happy to retract that statement.

  I have absolutely no interest in 'arguing' with you.

  Your stance is that your beliefs are paramount and that everything and everybody who acts, behaves, shows you a different interpretation or informs you is a 'suppressionist'. 

   As for the case in question you are drifting toward your position on abortion and 'muddying the issue of legality with your 'privileged' sources of information to paint an emotive description. 

[Chekhov]

2 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

  I have absolutely no interest in 'arguing' with you.

  Your stance is that your beliefs are paramount and that everything and everybody who acts, behaves, shows you a different interpretation or informs you is a 'suppressionist'. 

   As for the case in question you are drifting toward your position on abortion and 'muddying the issue of legality with your 'privileged' sources of information to paint an emotive description. 

>>I have absolutely no interest in 'arguing' with you.<<

 

I think you are being "economical with the actualité" there, bearing in mind how often divert threads to argue over how dangerous (or not....) it is to cross railway lines.

 

>> Your stance is that your beliefs are paramount<<

 

But they are not just "my beliefs".

 

>>everybody who acts, behaves, shows you a different interpretation or informs you is a 'suppressionist'.<<

 

I have clarified my definition of a suppressionist.

It is someone who not just obeyed the rules suppressing their own lives, but positively argued in favour of it (suppressing other people's lives) at the time, or, even worse, still does now.

 

>>As for the case in question you are drifting toward your position on abortion and 'muddying the issue of legality with your 'privileged' sources of information to paint an emotive description.<<

 

Wrong again. TBH I think pretty much all abortion is wrong, but that is not the issue here. The issue is that child was between 32 and 34 weeks old, and therefore would almost certainly have lived and had a perfectly normal life. Therefore, to me, and many others, that is murder, plain and simple.

Edited June 14, 2023 by Chekhov

[Annie Bynnol]

23 hours ago, Chekhov said:

>>I have absolutely no interest in 'arguing' with you.<<

I think you are being "economical with the actualité" there, bearing in mind how often divert threads to argue over how dangerous (or not....) it is to cross railway lines.

>> Your stance is that your beliefs are paramount<<

But they are not just "my beliefs".

>>everybody who acts, behaves, shows you a different interpretation or informs you is a 'suppressionist'.<<

I have clarified my definition of a suppressionist.

It is someone who not just obeyed the rules suppressing their own lives, but positively argued in favour of it (suppressing other people's lives) at the time, or, even worse, still does now.

>>As for the case in question you are drifting toward your position on abortion and 'muddying the issue of legality with your 'privileged' sources of information to paint an emotive description.<<

Wrong again. TBH I think pretty much all abortion is wrong, but that is not the issue here. The issue is that child was between 32 and 34 weeks old, and therefore would almost certainly have lived and had a perfectly normal life. Therefore, to me, and many others, that is murder, plain and simple.

    Sticking to the thread.

    The charges and sentencing were made under Section 58 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and not under the 1967 Abortion Act.

    Her offence therefore was that of having an abortion-nothing to do with late termination or lying. If she had been charged under the 1967 law it would have allowed the judge to consider the mitigating circumstances when sentencing and as said, not impose a custodial sentence.

    I said earlier that abortion was legal in the Britain -it is not. It is still a criminal act. The 1967 only defines specific  circumstances in which an abortion is permitted. As there have and are other cases coming up, the need is to repeal section 58/9 and its Victorian interpretations and sentencing and use the 1967 Abortion Act as intended. Others want to bring about a 'decriminalization' of abortion and allow 'abortion on demand'(with gestational limits) as is the case in most of the rest of the world. Some 'of course' see this as a vehicle to suppress the right to choose. 

     

[Chekhov]

3 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Some 'of course' see this as a vehicle to suppress the right to choose. 

Personally I think do not think abortion should be easily available to every woman no problem like some sort of after thought birth control.

Parenthood has taught me that most of a child's personality is genetic and therefore it is present from the moment of conception, it is not "just a clump of cells".

But, as it happens, my feelings on the subject are irrelevant.

Aborting a baby that is capable of life on its own is not allowed, and rightly so.

At 8 months what she did was murder, pure and simple.

Edited June 15, 2023 by Chekhov

[francypants]

8 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Personally I think do not think abortion should be easily available to every woman no problem like some sort of after thought birth control.

Parenthood has taught me that most of a child's personality is genetic and therefore it is present from the moment of conception, it is not "just a clump of cells".

But, as it happens, my feelings on the subject are irrelevant.

Aborting a baby that is capable of life on its own is not allowed, and rightly so.

At 8 months what she did was murder, pure and simple.

Totally agree.    

[Tipstaff]

As I now understand it, this woman was pregnant during 'Covid lockdown' and could not get a face to face (required) appointment to request a legal termination.  She subsequently researched the internet on how to procure an abortion.

I believe that she was between relationships with two men and didn't know who the biological father was.  She already has other children.  Her reasons for wanting a termination are quite clear.  However, she chose to do what she did and there are consequences in law.

I don't believe that sending her to prison was the right decision.  The judge should have sought to impose a suspended or none-custodial sentence.

[Chekhov]

9 hours ago, Tipstaff said:

As I now understand it, this woman was pregnant during 'Covid lockdown' and could not get a face to face (required) appointment to request a legal termination.  She subsequently researched the internet on how to procure an abortion.

I believe that she was between relationships with two men and didn't know who the biological father was.  She already has other children.  Her reasons for wanting a termination are quite clear.  However, she chose to do what she did and there are consequences in law.

I don't believe that sending her to prison was the right decision.  The judge should have sought to impose a suspended or none-custodial sentence.

For murder ?

[Annie Bynnol]

1 minute ago, Chekhov said:

For murder ?

    There was no murder charge. 

[Chekhov]

40 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

    There was no murder charge. 

I am saying it was murder, and many others think the same.

[Annie Bynnol]

3 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

I am saying it was murder, and many others think the same.

  In a court of law your opinion is irrelevant unless you are the juror or the judge who has to find and sentence according to the laws of England and Wales directed by Parliament. Whether it is 'murder' or not has already been decided by Parliament. Judges normally have the ability to decide within the 'sentencing guidelines' what the punishment should be. In this case the use of charges under the 1861 Act prevented the Judge from using his knowledge of the situation to give a non-custodial sentence which he thought would be more appropriate and more importantly possible under the 1967 Act. 

  The issue is not of guilt, it is the use of Section 58/9 of the 1861 Act which has not been repealed when it should have been.

  The issues of 'on demand' and 'lime limits' should be reviewed and debated in Parliament and (in my opinion) be brought in line with most of the world).