Chekhov Posted June 18, 2023 Author Share Posted June 18, 2023 (edited) 14 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said: There was a time when contraception was illegal and some forms were regarded as abortion by religions(and other) controlling the state. Those suppressionists have lost their influence and most of the world does accept that women have certain rights over their fertility requiring the need for abortion and for it to be legal. Your opinions and beliefs on abortion are recognised and not uncommon and are represented in Parliament where these matters are decided. This has resulted in the 1967 Abortion Act and amendments. They do, and it's called contraception and/or just saying no and/or yes but keeping ones legs closed. Once another human has been created it's not just about the woman (or the man, they are fundamentally involved...) any more. Edited June 18, 2023 by Chekhov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie Bynnol Posted June 18, 2023 Share Posted June 18, 2023 1 hour ago, Chekhov said: They do, and it's called contraception and/or just saying no and/or yes but keeping ones legs closed. Once another human has been created it's not just about the woman (or the man, they are fundamentally involved...) any more. "They do, and it's called contraception and/or just saying no and/or yes but keeping ones legs closed" is probably the stupidest pro-life argument and therefore seldom used. The repost to this archaic and ridiculous opinion is of course keep your pants on and your fly done up. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted June 18, 2023 Share Posted June 18, 2023 (edited) On 16/06/2023 at 11:11, Annie Bynnol said: The issue is not of guilt, it is the use of Section 58/9 of the 1861 Act which has not been repealed when it should have been. No. The issue in this sad case was the Virus-era 'abortion pills by post' Regulations, a mere year or two old. The woman who killed her child lied in order to obtain the pills. It's nothing to do with the 1861 Act** nor the 1967 Act, in fact. [** The Act is still very relevant. It deals with offences such as manslaughter, GBH, etc See https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/contents Is anyone now asking that these offences be decriminalised too, simply on grounds of the Act's age? Yes, maybe the Act should be replaced by updated legislation- but what was wrong then is wrong now.] Edited June 18, 2023 by Jeffrey Shaw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie Bynnol Posted June 18, 2023 Share Posted June 18, 2023 2 minutes ago, Jeffrey Shaw said: No. The issue in this sad case was the Virus-era 'abortion pills by post' Regulations, a mere year or two old. The woman who killed her child lied in order to obtain the pills. It's nothing to do with the 1861 Act** nor the 1967 Act, in fact. [** The Act is still very relevant. It deals with offences such as manslaughter, GBH, etc See https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/contents Is anyone now asking that these offences be decriminalised too, simply on grounds of the Act's age? Yes, maybe the Act should be replaced by updated legislation- but what was wrong then is wrong now.] She was charged under Section 58 of the 1861 Act -Attempts to procure Abortion. 58 Administering drugs or using instruments to procure abortion, to which she pleaded guilty when accused of lying to obtain the 'abortion pills by post' which has just been introduced in April 2020. Sentencing under the 1861 Act section 58 required the judge to administer a custodial sentence which he did not want to. Campaigners wanted this and future incidents to be charged under the 1967 Act and the much amended sections 58 and 59 of the 1861 Act removed/repealed. She was not charged under Acts causing or tending to cause Danger to Life or Bodily Harm, 24. Maliciously administering poison, &c. with intent to injure, aggrieve, or annoy any other person. 25. If the jury be not satisfied that any person charged is guilty of felony, but guilty of misdemeanor they may find him guilty accordingly and as far as I am aware nobody is "...now asking that these offences be decriminalised too, simply on grounds of the Act's age". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chekhov Posted June 18, 2023 Author Share Posted June 18, 2023 Chekhov said: They do, and it's called contraception and/or just saying no and/or yes but keeping ones legs closed. Once another human has been created it's not just about the woman (or the man, they are fundamentally involved...) any more. 6 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said: "They do, and it's called contraception and/or just saying no and/or yes but keeping ones legs closed" is probably the stupidest pro-life argument and therefore seldom used. The repost to this archaic and ridiculous opinion is of course keep your pants on and your fly done up. Why is it ridiculous or archaic to state the obvious ? It is not. If you don't want kids use contraception or don't bother having sex. In fact, apparently (so they tell me) it is even possible to have sex without any risk of conceiving a child. Anyone with a sense of personal responsibility and ethics does not have sex, conceive a child then kill it off because it is inconvenient. Why exactly is that an archaic and ridiculous opinion ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie Bynnol Posted June 18, 2023 Share Posted June 18, 2023 1 hour ago, Chekhov said: Chekhov said: They do, and it's called contraception and/or just saying no and/or yes but keeping ones legs closed. Once another human has been created it's not just about the woman (or the man, they are fundamentally involved...) any more. Why is it ridiculous or archaic to state the obvious ? It is not. If you don't want kids use contraception or don't bother having sex. In fact, apparently (so they tell me) it is even possible to have sex without any risk of conceiving a child. Anyone with a sense of personal responsibility and ethics does not have sex, conceive a child then kill it off because it is inconvenient. Why exactly is that an archaic and ridiculous opinion ? In the UK 85% of the population think that women should have the right to an abortion, a figure that has remained pretty constant for decades. Only 6% think that women should not have the right to an abortion. Unlike the UK most countries in Europe women have the right to an abortion on request. Your opinion was considered along with others and Parliament decided that abortion could be permitted in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chekhov Posted June 19, 2023 Author Share Posted June 19, 2023 (edited) 17 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said: In the UK 85% of the population think that women should have the right to an abortion, a figure that has remained pretty constant for decades. Only 6% think that women should not have the right to an abortion. Unlike the UK most countries in Europe women have the right to an abortion on request. Your opinion was considered along with others and Parliament decided that abortion could be permitted in the UK. I personally think killing off any healthy baby because it is "inconvenient" is abhorrent, but, as it happens, this thread is about whether a woman should be killing off a baby who would survive if born. A completely different animal. I'd be amazed if more than a tiny percentage of people (probably extreme feminists) think that killing off a baby at 8 months is acceptable. Edited June 19, 2023 by Chekhov 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie Bynnol Posted June 19, 2023 Share Posted June 19, 2023 Now you have managed to return to the subject of the thread from your journey through your personal opinions we can focus on why this case attracts attention. The media loves tragedy, particularly if it involves sex. Nowhere in the world would a self induced abortion be legal at 32 weeks although some medically supervised abortions do take place in extreme cases. In England and Wales she could have been charged under the Abortion Act of 1967 and if found to be guilty, be sentenced appropriately by the judge after consideration of the relevant facts and reports. Instead she was charged under Section 58 of the 1861 Act which requires a custodial sentence. The judge said that he had no choice in applying a custodial sentence. Campaigners who want to modernise the Law and what they call 'decriminalization', point out that Section 58 charges and sentencing are being used which reflect Victorian opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted June 19, 2023 Share Posted June 19, 2023 Should any law exist only if it reflects opinions, though? It was wrong to kill a viable child in 1861. It still is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted June 19, 2023 Share Posted June 19, 2023 8 minutes ago, Jeffrey Shaw said: Should any law exist only if it reflects opinions, though? Should any law exist if it doesn't reflect opinions? They get changed all the time as attitudes to things change. Quote It was wrong to kill a viable child in 1861. It still is. In this case people are arguing about the punishment, not whether terminating a pregnancy at 8 months is wrong. 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