Young, British and Anti Abortion.

[TooBigForMyBoots]

I was half watching it last night and intend to watch properly later. The guy they featured was a misogynistic Incel type.

Did anyone else see it?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00256p2

I just watched the IVF movie on Netflix. It took them 10 years and over 200 women before they got Louise Brown - the first IVF baby.

It’s a beautiful film. But what stuck out the most was Jean who was religious and suffered moral quandary when she found out her fellow colleague was not only trying to create life from these cells but that he performed all the abortions because no one else would. As someone who suffered infertility herself this must have been incredibly difficult.

There’s an incredibly poignant scene where she discusses this with the no nonsense matron and they have it out. Woman to woman. She said it’s reproductive healthcare. It’s about choice.

And at that point I was talking to DP and saying it’s incredible really. How far we have come. And I remarked that the romans had abortions too. However we lost access in the dark ages after the fall of the Roman Empire. So in demand was abortion that they accidentally made extinct the plant which they used to induce it.

And then I was sat thinking about the ebb and flow of society. How it’s not linear. How we can go backwards so drastically. From palatial stone builds, knowledge and modern sanitation to mud huts and peasantry in the blink of an eye.

Im still sat here thinking about what wisdom has been lost through time which we still don’t know again. Humanity can be rather fickle and short sighted.

We did not lose access to abortion in the Dark Ages. We've always had it because women have always needed it.

It's just that in the 20th century we made it legal, and therefore, safer for women.

No we did apparently. It was socially acceptable, common place and safe in an undefined period pre BC up until about 1-2AD (definitely included the ancient greeks up to the romans but likely predated as is a plant of African Libyan origin and grew wild as well) It was a herbal remedy called silphium used as both a birth control and ‘to purge the uterus’; amongst other uses. It was highly sought after. So common place and ubiquitous with romance that it is thought the heart shaped seeds are where the heart shape for love originated from.

It is fascinating to me.

1. That’s your POV. Mine is: why should Couzens get to live (and probably spending his days comfortably reading letters from his fan club), when Sarah has been killed, and in such a horrific manner?
2. Who considers a confession enough? We have CCTV footage which we did not even 15 years ago. DNA evidence which we did not have. Sorry and your ‘secret identical twin nobody knows about’ is just silly
3. Beyond a reasonable doubt still leaves room for strong circumstantial evidence but no direct evidence. People do get convicted on this, and it may not be enough to apply death penalty. I don’t believe death penalty is a deterrent (because I believe most murderers are actually low IQ and cannot think about consequences at all) I just think it’s best if we euthanize people who are a danger to society and move on.

All of this is just my opinion. But I think a truly civilized society will remove dangerous elements permanently, to protect the innocent and give bereaved families peace of mind.

Western society wants to avoid the death penalty because they are afraid to get it wrong. I think this is cowardly and a symptom of the rot inside the West.

Accept responsibility and use this power wisely.

I watched the documentary off the back of this thread.

I technically have had an abortion as I had a MMC and opted for surgical intervention. Yes, I did mourn the end of the pregnancy - not the fetus, but the future baby. Logically, I knew there was no baby. Tbh, I don’t think there was a fetus, I had an amniotic sac and that was all.

I think “life” does begin at conception, but not an independent, sentient life - a parasite in other words.

There’s a book called “unborn” which is really gritty - set in a state where abortion is illegal (before Roe vs Wade) and follows 3 women who are sent to prison for having abortions - one woman has a late loss and it is deemed she tried to abort herself. The book is extreme but raises the issues of control over women’s bodies.

To say anti-abortions is a feminist issue is bullshit. Feminists do not seek to control women’s bodies. Eden’s argument of coercion was just word salad. Loved the guy outside the art gallery! Eden is very privileged and needs to get off “tik tok” and if she wants to do “good”, she should start campaigning for better health and education services for those women and children she claims to advocate for.

Speaking of documentaries, I think both sides of this debate should watch After Tiller about the last remaining late-term abortion doctors. I believe it was made by firm pro-choice activists but is very sensitive about the process and the people providing these services.

Not wishing to de-rail, but as to your third point, the Lucy Letby case is a prime example of possible conviction on circumstantial evidence.

And some women in the US have been convicted of illegally terminating pregnancies when they claim miscarriage or stillbirth based on "we think" you did it. While they may not face the death penalty, any absolutist approach to the death penalty is fraught with the risk that innocent people will die.

The use of technology and the ability to manipulate evidence digitally is a real concern. It takes one persuasive dog with a bone to put a suspects life on the line for a myriad of allegedly well meant reasons if the death penalty is on the table. I suppose it's another situation where it seems reasonable until you're the one falsely convicted or accused. Are these people supposed to just "take one for the team" and accept their fate? Getting an appeal is no walk in a park due to the strict laws around the process.

If the wrong person is convicted / executed for a crime (where sometimes it's in doubt a crime has been committed at all) it also means a potentially dangerous predator goes free to wreak more havoc.

Anyway, as I say, don't want to de-rail.

Western society wants to avoid the death penalty because they are afraid to get it wrong. I think this is cowardly and a symptom of the rot inside the West.

I don't think it is cowardly. I think it is a sign of a strong moral compass to think that is can never be acceptable to execute someone who hasn't committed a crime. And where there is a death penalty, this happens.

There are cases we do absolutely know they did it. And you still won’t apply the death penalty because someone, somewhere may misapply it.

There was a case just recently where a Somali man in your country orally raped a woman on a park bench until she suffocated to death. He was caught on CCTV footage and obviously there is DNA evidence. Only a fearful, cowardly society would keep such a man alive at taxpayer expense.

If he ever got out of jail, you probably wouldn’t even deport him.

Sympathy for monsters (what if someone else someday died of a miscarriage of justice because we executed this obvious rapist-murderer???) and little to none for victims. You don’t even care to protect future victims either, since you allow so many unvetted young men into the country and do nothing to stop it.

You probably think anyone complaining about it is racist too.

It isn't about 'someone somewhere'. It is about right here in the UK (where I have lived for 27 years, so can we stop whinging about 'my country'?) I have pointed out the example of Stefan Kiszko to you - he had learning disabilities, the police knew he could not have committed the crime and they sent him down for it anyway because they needed a result. That is why I don't want the death penalty - because ultimately the police and the law cannot be trusted, and you can't resurrect someone.

This is not about sympathy for criminals. It is about preventing irreversible miscarriages of justice for the innocent.

We will have to disagree.

The case you mentioned was convicted on a confession, but at that time they could not test the semen that was present on her clothing, isnt that so?

So how is this relevant to today?

They could test the semen, and did. They knew Kiszko was sterile and that the murderer was not. They put him away anyway because he was a soft target. Kiszko confessed because he was coerced to, by a corrupt police force who knew very well what they were doing. See also the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six. This stuff is not a case of a few bad apples, it's rife. It still is - otherwise Andrew Malkinson would not have ended up in jail. It's worse in the US, where racism plays a massive part.

It's also exceptionally arrogant to suggest that there won't be further scientific discoveries that will overturn things we believed we knew in the future.
I for one could not stomach even one innocent person dying at the hands of the state in this way. There's a reason very few countries still have the death penalty.

flagondry · 21/11/2024 19:39

...we simply follow the science and try to help as best we can.

What do you mean by "follow the science"?

You don’t have to apply death penalty to all murders you know. Just to the ones where it’s beyond all doubt they did it. So you wouldn’t apply this to Lucy Letby but you would for Wayne Couzens.

Don't overcomplicate things

Why does no one ever ask the anti abortion people how, practically they plan to keep a women pregnant, who does not want to be pregnant?

That's not over complicating. Plenty of people have been convicted 'beyond reasonable doubt' and then found innocent when new discoveries come along.

You don’t have to apply death penalty to a case like Letby’s.

You can do it to Couzens because he 100% did it.

Many such cases like this.

This is something I'd like to know. I mean, it's obviously going to involve involuntary detention forced feeding etc. Or threats and coercion such as removing existing children. It really doesn't bear thinking about.

I'm watching it now.

God these people....

Pro choice all the way.....

Deepfake technology means that footage claiming to be CCTV or a bystander's cellphone isn't necessarily reliable any more.

15 years ago, we had CCTV and camera phones but we didn't have to worry about deepfakes.

Sorry and your ‘secret identical twin nobody knows about’ is just silly

I didn't say that the twin is secret. Man A commits murder and gets several people to give him a false alibi. His identical twin B has no alibi and the DNA evidence says that one of A or B committed the murder. Who is getting sent to prison?

If Letby didn't "100% do it", she shouldn't be in jail. Which part of "presumption of innocence" do you fail to understand?

A guilty verdict is supposed to mean "sure beyond reasonable doubt". Not "almost sure, so we'll convict anyway".

What you are effectively arguing for is for convicted murderers to be subjected to a form of second trial, where someone reassesses the evidence to redecide their guilt, and if the second assessors aren't quite sure that the prisoner is guilty then they are kept in prison for life instead of being released.

1. I'm pretty sure that what's left of our double jeopardy laws doesn't allow this assessment, this second trial for the same offence, without new evidence or the prisoner appealing.
2. A prisoner should be released if there is reasonable doubt as to their guilt, so the assessors should never return someone to prison unless it's to death row.

It shows the nation's moral standing and a sense of justice when we say collectively say that we aren't going to euthanise the people we find inconvenient to imprison, we are going to house them anyway as a precaution against the possibility that any one of them might have been wrongfully convicted.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/24/slippery-slope-fears-over-assisted-dying-echoes-of-abortion-debate

Looks like we're in the thick of all sorts of life and death issues at the moment.

I hold my hands up and say I'm utterly conflicted about assisted dying, mostly because I find the state more untrustworthy to arbitrate these matters than ever before.

On the one hand I have an elderly relative with end stage dementia who expressed the desire to die early in the diagnosis, and is now basically existing with no quality of life. I nursed my mother through end stage cancer during lockdown for a month and it was horrific for her and us. I had to agree with doctors decisions to pull the plug on my late DP after brain bleeds from undiagnosed cancer nearly three years ago. If I was terminal I wouldn't want to be a burden on my son and would probably try to plan a dignified exit if I could.

Yet still a bit of me worries about mission creep and slippery slopes.

In my 50s I am experiencing the very definition of existential crisis over so many issues at the moment.

However, I remain staunchly pro-choice.

So much sadness. So much stress in the world. I wish I had wine in the house tonight.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ms_Y

And yet, in Gilead, we already know what happens