Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

woman sentenced to 8 years for 38-week home abortion

508 replies

WokingOnSunshine · 17/09/2012 12:57

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-19621675
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2204471/Mother-Sarah-Catt-terminated-baby-week-date-using-medication.html

OP posts:
pumpkinsweetie · 22/09/2012 11:03

Even if she didn't kill the baby, she still ordered the drugs and pre-meditated the birth senario. Just say she is innocent of killing him and he was infact still born, she did indeed induce his birth illegally on her own: therefore the risks to the baby were still all her doing.
And why would she wait until her dh was away to do it if she had any intention of keeping the baby?
Why doesn't she clear her name, if the baby was stillborn? Seems extremely clearcut to me why she won't reveal the burial place!

Bonsoir · 22/09/2012 11:09

And prison is the right place for her? She needs psychiatric help, IMO, not incarceration.

edam · 22/09/2012 11:30

pumpkin, you can't sentence someone based on what you think might have happened, nor for committing a crime they have not be charged with, not tried for, and not convicted for. The law has to be applied.

You may choose to assume from her behaviour that the child was born alive and died, but a. you don't know that, none of us do and b. she wasn't charged with killing a live baby so it is still irrelevant.

BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability · 22/09/2012 11:43

edam I dont suppose you know (you seem quite clued up :)) if she admitted she killed the baby after it was born alive, but wouldnt say where it was, is it true that you cant be convicted for murder without a body??

OrangeandGoldMrsDeVere · 22/09/2012 12:20

Afaik that is not the case. You can know be charged with murder without a body. Can't get on my laptop to look up relevant cases though.

edam · 22/09/2012 12:31

Agree with oranges but it's tricky and rare. I think there have been prosecutions with no body, at least one in the last few years, but it's incredibly difficult to bring a charge and make it stick. Friend of mine is a crime reporter and told me about one awful case where a man had killed his wife - everyone 'knew' (or had a ruddy good idea) but he wasn't prosecuted until the body was found.

shesariver · 22/09/2012 12:54

Bonsoir she doesnt need psychiatric help, shes not mentally ill. Here we go again using mental illness as an excuse...

pumpkinsweetie · 22/09/2012 12:57

She wasn't mentally ill though!

joona · 22/09/2012 12:58

She was given a psychiatric assesment to determine wether she should go to prison or a psychiatric unit to get help.

She went to prison. Because she is NOT mentally ill.

Viviennemary · 22/09/2012 12:58

To me she seems a person who has no moral conscience or concept of right and wrong. And that can be a very dangerous person indeed. I think she should be in prison until she admits what has happened to the baby.

BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability · 22/09/2012 13:04

Not saying she is mentally ill, but it has been mentioned on the other thread that there is a difference between actually being mentally ill, and "getting away" with pleading insanity. That doesnt mean she is 100% of sound mind, just that she isnt crazy enough to meet the criteria.

I have already pointed out upthread, I suffer with mental illness. I'm not saying this lightly to make excuses and distance her from normality, as mental illness is my normality.

Although it is probably relevant that I dont believe in "evil", the idea seems a bit too religious to me.

BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability · 22/09/2012 13:05

Ps, thanks edam and mrsdevere :)

Extrospektiv · 22/09/2012 13:39

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere I know you're not morally conservative as I am. But that does not make me a "Mail reader"- I am only strict conservative on family issues (I believe in sex within marriage only, abortion is bad except to save the mother's life or if the foetus has lethal abnormalities, etc., parents' rights, no graphic sex ed in schools, and no teachers who keep secrets for sexually active pupils- their parents should normally be informed.)

Otherwise I'm pro-poor, pro-welfare state, pro-diversity, anti-racist, anti-sensationalist, anti-war in most cases, anti-death penalty (perhaps exceptions for the likes of Hitler or Saddam Hussein...), pro-human rights, pro-environment, etc. I am NOT right wing in general, just a pro-life/pro-family traditionalist.

edam- this case, in itself, has little to do with "safe and legal" abortions but it shows the extreme of the pro-abortion mentality. That even at 38 weeks, it's OK to just choose to take a pill that kills your own child because, hey, it's still your body! As for "legal" I don't make moral distinctions by law. I believe an abortion at 22 weeks is much worse than one at 6 weeks, for example, although both are legal in the UK, because the unborn child being killed is far more developed. (although I find it wrong from conception.)

Extrospektiv · 22/09/2012 13:59

Btw the judge has every right to criticise legal abortion in his sentencing remarks. What he's not allowed to do is convict or sentence someone for a legal abortion.

bemybebe · 22/09/2012 14:02

haha love "I'm pro-poor"

shesariver · 22/09/2012 14:03

beyondthelimits what other thread is it? I would be interested in reading the debate.

She hasnt pleaded "insanity" - she has been examined by psychiatrists who can find no evidence of a mental illness, "insanity" has not been used as a defence.

Sadly in my job I've seen what a human can do to another human being, and the only word I can think of is "evil".

BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability · 22/09/2012 14:03

As a poor person, I am very anti-poor Grin

bemybebe · 22/09/2012 14:05

exactly beyond

shesariver · 22/09/2012 14:09

extro

That even at 38 weeks, it's OK to just choose to take a pill that kills your own child because, hey, it's still your body!

But the drug she took was to induce labour wasnt it not to kill Confused...

shesariver · 22/09/2012 14:10

Thanks beyond

Have to agree with you there, Im rather "anti-poor" to Grin

edam · 22/09/2012 14:47

Extro - it's clearly not OK to take a drug to induce labour at 38 weeks without medical supervision and no-one thinks it is - that's why she was prosecuted and no-one is arguing about that.

You are wrong about the judge, he has no right to allow his personal prejudices to influence sentencing. No more than a judge who is pro-death penalty has the right to make comments about killing a murderer during sentencing.

Extrospektiv · 22/09/2012 15:17

Don't make stupid jokes about "pro-poor". WTF?

I am saying, like any decent person would recognise, that I support policies that benefit poor people, unlike the Bullingdon boys or Thatcher's lot. And THREE people see fit to make a joke out of it. Show me some respect!

I am NOT wrong about the judge, he is not allowed to sentence according to personal prejudice (I already agreed that, his sentencing must be based on the law of the land, which it was) but he can make personal remarks about abortions. They did not affect his sentencing, so it was not illegal prejudice.

And if a judge said "I would prefer that hanging had never been removed from the statute book for a murder such as you", then proceeded to deliver the mandatory life imprisonment sentence required by current law in this country, he would NOT be doing wrong either. If he actually said "I sentence you to death" then his sentence would be invalid, because it would be unlawful. But it's not the same thing.

OrangeandGoldMrsDeVere · 22/09/2012 15:58

Extro I don't think I accused you of being daily mail. I reserve that insult only for the gravest of offenders ;)

But I do not think 'mucking about outside of marraige' is at all relevant to the abortion debate or even this case(despite the baby apparently being th product of an affair)

It connects abortion with promiscuity with immorality.

Many abortions are carried within marriage. Many are carried out despite the pregnancy being conceived within a loving and committed relationship.
And many are carried out due to rape and other sexual abuses
Besides all of that, this is a extreme case and not an abortion.

I would like to see this woman recieve treatment. Mentally I'll or not, she has made decisions regarding pregnancy and motherhood which point towards someone being deeply troubled.

It serves no purpose other than revenge to simply lock her up for years and years.

Personally I find what she did horrific and I can find no logical explanation for it.
It was wrong. She had choices. She s an educated person with means of support and apparently not in an abusive relationship.

So why did she do it?
What makes someone commit such an act?

I don't buy into the 'just evil' argument. It's a cop out and gets us no where, it changes nothing.

Extrospektiv · 22/09/2012 16:06

It was because of the infidelity element I mentioned it. For me, pro-life views and chastity (which includes abstinence outside of marriage, and fidelity within marriage- many people wrongly assume "chastity" means just not having sex full stop) go together because a lot of abortions would be prevented that way.

I know that abortions are done in marriage (something like 20%) and rape (1-2%?) That leaves 78%.

Of course not all abortions are the result of promiscuity.