Jailing a mother of three - WTF

The fact that a law can have bad consequences, doesn't mean we don't understand why the state is trying to do it.

That's my point here: some places do have laws. The state can recognise that it's something like human life.

I don't think it matters much if she couldn't have been prosecuted in Northern Ireland. That doesn't seem to mean that she suffered some great injustice.

Is there?

If the woman had waited she could have given the baby up for adoption. The pill didn’t remove the baby she still had to go through labour

What women have found in jurisdictions that have so-called foetal protection laws is that they put women in prison. This is what, the third time that I have written that point. Women have endured police investigations of their miscarriages. Women with drug addiction have been jailed instead of helped to get clean.

Your commitment to this is extraordinary.

A woman is now in prison for an act that she wouldn't even been arrested for if she had been in Northern Ireland at the time. If you're not angry about that, there's frankly something wrong with you.

What women have found in jurisdictions that have so-called foetal protection laws is that they put women in prison. This is what, the third time that I have written that point. Women have endured police investigations of their miscarriages. Women with drug addiction have been jailed instead of helped to get clean.

Your commitment to this is extraordinary.

A woman is now in prison for an act that she wouldn't even been arrested for if she had been in Northern Ireland at the time. If you're not angry about that, there's frankly something wrong with you.

Well, on this analogy, we should be able to terminate up until the child turns five. Because it’s free for them to travel on buses, in my county, until then.

It is interesting @VitoCorleoneOfMNMafia that your absolute right was torture and not life!

the cut off should be if the foetus is capable of being born and taking a breath - as it is. No need to rely on technology or science at all.

You pay for one bus fare, because you only need one seat.

You may get away with one cinema ticket if you have a baby in your arms, but that doesn't tell us much about the legal status of the baby.

It may depend on the location, but there can be laws for harming a fetus in an attack. I guess you could argue that's all about the feelings of the mother but I doubt it.

The state can recognise that we don't give full status until someone is born, but also obviously at a late stage they are pretty clearly human life.

Oh no what about the menz 😱

Come on. You know why that's completely different.

No, for the same reason that I think that Shrimp was morally objectionable in refusing his cousin his kidney, but the court ruling saying that he was allowed to refuse was still correct. scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11988310705292367329&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

You pay for one bus fare, because you only need one seat.

You may get away with one cinema ticket if you have a baby in your arms, but that doesn't tell us much about the legal status of the baby.

It may depend on the location, but there can be laws for harming a fetus in an attack. I guess you could argue that's all about the feelings of the mother but I doubt it.

The state can recognise that we don't give full status until someone is born, but also obviously at a late stage they are pretty clearly human life.

^You didn't mention the material reality of a dead 28 week baby in both scenarios.
The reality of this is not dependent on the women's emotions about the baby.^

If I am 28 weeks pregnant, I pay for one bus fare, not two. Legally, there's one person. What right does the State have to police my body to defend an entity that isn't legally a person yet? To stop doctors from giving me a treatment that would harm the future child to be born? Maybe, for the same reason that we don't implant embryos into anyone who turns up at the clinic. Stopping me from preventing the live birth? Legislative overreach.

Yes dead babies don't exist because they don't pay bus fares.

Your denying of reality to suit your one sacred principle is farcical.

You didn't mention the material reality of a dead 28 week baby in both scenarios.

The reality of this is not dependent on the women's emotions about the baby.

You judge the whole debate based on women's feelings only, this is the only reality for you.

It is the same as Trans ideology where only their feelings matter and must be elevated above all else regardless of consequences for others.

They're sacrificing kids fertility in the purity of the 'my feelings & lived experience trump all' ideology. But at least they're not killing babies.

You are underpinned by the same epistemology.

The 24 week limit is also based on the stages of brain development in the foetus. In particular, it relates to the development of the thalamo-cortical complex, which provides consciousness. Some scientists believe that consciousness cannot occur before 24-26 weeks’ gestation. If they’re correct, the 24 week limit makes sense.

You didn't mention the material reality of a dead 28 week baby in both scenarios.

The reality of this is not dependent on the women's emotions about the baby.

You judge the whole debate based on women's feelings only, this is the only reality for you.

It is the same as Trans ideology where only their feelings matter and must be elevated above all else regardless of consequences for others.

They're sacrificing kids fertility in the purity of the 'my feelings & lived experience trump all' ideology. But at least they're not killing babies.

You are underpinned by the same epistemology.

Generally speaking, your argument about human rights not being absolute (bar torture) is true. The problems with an arbitrary cut-off point some time during pregnancy is a) that it forces a woman to stay pregnant after a particular point in pregnancy, which, as you've probably gathered by now, I consider to be incompatible with her basic human dignity and worth; and b) when is the cut-off? Because basing the cut-off on how well a NICU can support a preemie is basically making women's rights dependent on the current state of science and technology, which is contrary to the idea of rights being universal and independent of time and place.

Having an abortion is possible, changing sex is not.

Says you. What if someone believes it is possible they want the surgery and to live as if they've changed sex, why should anyone stop them??
Because it infringes on the rights of others maybe?....Bingo.

But if it were possible, and they really wanted it, wouldn't the hacking & risk be up to them? And their bodily autonomy? Surely you don't mean risk to the baby because that wouldn't matter, just whether this man wanted one or not.

And it would have a point. Men who wanted to have babies could have them and women could entirely avoid the consequences of unwanted pregnancy.
It would be great, we could get our wombs removed and let the men have the kids.

Everyone could do exactly what they wanted with their bodies. Total choice and autonomy.

I don't know why you're against it in principle?