Jailing a mother of three - WTF

But this is a baby whose life would be viable outside of their mother. We’re talking about a stage babies survive out of the womb.

The difference might be clear to you and one or two others on here but the majority are appalled by it and don’t see much difference between a baby inside the womb and a baby, at the same stage, outside the womb.

Continuing this all or nothing approach polarises the issues and ultimately loses support for the pro choice side.

And you’re wrong! Legally, that baby was entitled to live and not have their life needlessly ended. Which is why the woman in now in a cell.

I find denying women's rights extreme and dehumanising to women and I care about women.

This

Apologies, the biological definition of parasite refers to a species different to its host you are correct @Anactor . You could call a pregnancy pseudo-parasitism perhaps. You could reject the term parasite on semantic grounds but there is a clear biological distinction in the relationship between mother and foetus in utero and mother and baby after birth, as I stated. If a pregnant woman dies, her baby will die imminently without rapid medical intervention to extract it. If the mother of a newborn dies the baby remains as dependent on adults to nurture it as it was already.

The point of the post was not meant to be emotive but descriptive. It describes the reason why I think women's bodily autonomy trumps the rights of the foetus until birth.

And of course laws are subject to change over the years. Morality not so much. We can certainly have laws we disagree with in a moral sense.

Legally, an unborn foetus isn't afforded the same rights as a living person

Morally, it's a different story for many when we get to 32-34 wk.

I'm pretty sure this was covered upthread. Euthanasing children instead of putting them in care is not the same as performing a late term illegal abortion. Those children already exist as independent people, this woman's child did not.

It's not about 'less worthy to a chance of life', as multiple other posters have explained more eloquently than me. Those children are already independent humans with the rights of independent humans, this child was not. Legally, an unborn foetus isn't afforded the same rights as a living person, and I think that's probably the right thing overall.

I think abortion limits are fine as they are. The only change that needs to be made is full decriminalisation. This sort of case is extremely rare - unique possibly - and was a terrible mistake rather than malice.

In answer to when the foetus has rights, that has to be from birth. Before then the mother's rights (plus needs and wishes) must take precedence, always and without exception, otherwise we will have more horrifying cases like what happened to poor Savita Halappanavar.

This.

Ok. How about babies who are abandoned at birth? They are unwanted by their mothers. They are placed straight into care. Should they be euthanised?

What makes a fully gestated baby more or less worthy to a chance at life?

Is there evidence the baby experienced pain, or is that just your assumption? Not being goady, I genuinely don't know the answer.

At this stage the foetus would have felt the way you would if gradually deprived of oxygen, I imagine. Well into that stage of development. Utterly grim.

Yes I agree.

VitoCorleoneOfMNMafia ·

I'd really like the people advocating extreme late abortions to explain where they think the baby is a human life?

Zygote. A single cell. Abortion isn't about when life begins, it's about women's right to decide what happens to their own bodies, including the right to refuse to have their bodies used to provide life support to a fellow human.

I've been called "monster" and "the devil" on this thread and had my words called "chilling" and "disturbing" by people who think that a baby is not a human life until 23 weeks and six days 23:59:59, then one second later at 24 weeks zero days 00:00:00 it somehow magically is a human life with more rights than any other human being because it has the right to use someone else's body as life support.

I don't think I'm the unreasonable one here.”

You are by talking about 24 week abortions. Most people on the thread have no argument with those.

This person deliberately ended her baby’s life at up to 34 weeks.

Had she not wanted her body “used as life support” she could have intervened far, far earlier.

Very well said. We need to push back very firnly on this kind of emotive, misleading and dehumanising language. I've felt this for a while but you've crystallised it for me.

A woman is not a 'vessel', a foetus is not a parasite. If you feel that way you need counselling, frankly.

“Biologically speaking, the foetus is a parasite: an organism that is dependent on its host for survival. This is an objective and neutral description although the word parasite is often used pejoratively.”

Biologically speaking, @thedankness , you are fairly confused about the definition of ‘parasite’. Unless pregnant mammals are all hosting entirely different species in their wombs, their foetuses aren’t parasites. A biological parasite is of a different species to the host.

The use of ‘parasite’ is neither objective, nor neutral- it’s a dehumanising language technique. It’s scientifically inaccurate, it implies the foetus is of another species - not only is it not related to the mother, it’s not even the same species - and it deliberately uses the pejorative connotation of ‘parasite’.

You use similar dehumanisation language techniques when you talk about ‘leech-like organisms’.

Broadly speaking, your argument is using the language techniques I’d expect to see in extremist propaganda.

Babies 'forcibly removed' is a whole different argument which isn't relevant to this case. I have plenty of feelings about the removal of children from their birth parents, but this thread isn't for that.

Well clearly to this woman it seemed the least worst option didn't it, or she'd have done something else! I'm not saying she was right, what she did was wrong, but it's very easy to sit behind a screen and judge others who have complicated messy lives and make bad choices or no choices. You don't know that wasn't a reason in this case.

Is there evidence the baby experienced pain, or is that just your assumption? Not being goady, I genuinely don't know the answer.

Exactly, plus having a child out in the world who you don't know and aren't parenting is a complex thing. 'Just give it up for adoption' isn't as simple as people who have no idea about adoption make out

How less complex do you think this feeling is for women who have their babies forcibly removed and put into the care system? Why not just euthanise all babies who face creating “complex feelings” for their parents?

Exactly, plus having a child out in the world who you don't know and aren't parenting is a complex thing. 'Just give it up for adoption' isn't as simple as people who have no idea about adoption make out

Just abort a late baby! That's less traumatic than allowing it to be raised by another family member (maternal or paternal) or finding an adopter.

This is really selfish. Nobody would support euthanising a newborn because the mother doesn't want it but doesn't want anyone else to have it either!

Your complex feelings do not outweigh the pain of the fetus and this wasn't even the reason in this case anyway

Biologically speaking, the foetus is a parasite: an organism that is dependent on its host for survival. This is an objective and neutral description although the word parasite is often used pejoratively.

When the baby takes its first breath after birth, it goes from receiving oxygen via the mother's blood through the umbilical cord to receiving oxygen from the air via breathing. This is how it becomes an independent living being. Of course it is still dependent on adults for feeding, shelter, development etc but it is no longer a parasite.

This is why birth is a major distinguisher between a late term abortion and infanticide.

In response to the dehumanisation aspect of the parasitical nature of pregnancy: this is a subjective view as some women would enjoy knowing that they are life-creating and life-sustaining and some would feel their body to be taken over by a leech-like organism. Both are true.

Additionally, with any state limit on abortion up until birth you deny a woman bodily autonomy. This act itself is dehumanising. You can't expect every woman to react positively to this and not feel reduced to a vessel just because some women enjoy the life-sustaining properties of the parasitical relationship that is pregnancy.

Women should be trusted to make their own decisions, even if the outcome is unpleasant to others.

Why do we need to blindly trust people because they're female? No, I don't trust women to administer at-home late-term abortions.

So many issues including to the fetus, who may be born alive. Why the heck would we just allow that to happen???

Also, there are so few people who choose to wait til they're 34 weeks for non-medical reasons. We don't need to change the law to cater to this. Most people can figure out how to be responsible and sort any termination within the 5 month window given.

Actually, legal abortions in England and Wales have increased since 2016, despite abortion being legal up to 24 weeks throughout that time. The last government stats in 2021 show that abortions in 2021 were the highest since the 1967 Act passed. 214, 256.

If you look at year by year stats, it start increasing after the generation who’ve had legal abortions all their lives come to adulthood. 2021 is more than double 1971, yet the population hasn’t doubled.

If you want to argue for abortions, don’t use ‘legalising reduces abortions’. The stats show it doesn’t.

Exactly, plus having a child out in the world who you don't know and aren't parenting is a complex thing. 'Just give it up for adoption' isn't as simple as people who have no idea about adoption make out

It is very difficult to get a baby adopted - we don't have the US system of buying babies from teenage mothers.

even if the outcome is unpleasant to others.
yes, I reckon it would be 'unpleasant' to the baby at a late stage like this. But let's not worry about that, shall we?