UK woman convicted of abortion

[Veterinari]

Full story here www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/woman-given-suspended-sentence-for-having-abortion-in-the-uk-a6968676.html

Very sad. Is there a will in NI to update legislation on this issue? As it stands everyone loses

[gonetoseeamanaboutadog]

treacle I'm very glad that you and your baby came out of such a difficult pregnancy unscathed. I'm frankly appalled at the treatment you received re your experience with the cancer scare and would be increased to know if this is still the policy and if it would be defended publicly.

I haven't personally met anyone who shares the views re mothers life not trumping baby's life, but having met someone who thought unborn babies went to hell (not having been Saved) , I could believe that these views do exist. Very sadly. However I do doubt they are the majority view. A good barometer would be the position of Care, the organisation that represents Christian principles in politics. I'll have a look.

[gonetoseeamanaboutadog]

'Society is getting better at doing this the more civilised we become'
Just to clarify, are you saying that our society is more moral than a tribe in the rainforest - that we really do have the corner on the natives in terms of ethics? As I understood it, this is a patronising misconception and there's a lot we can learn from the sophisticated ways in which some of those communities function to determine justice, bring it about and live together peaceably.

[gonetoseeamanaboutadog]

You're wrong about it all coming to 'My god says so', though that's part of it. Most Christian principles make sense in a society in which people can be safe, live in families, work and be free from financial or political oppression. Have you read the Bible? If so, (and I mean properly!) and if you've looked at the examples in history of people who have taken a stand against injustice on principles that were clearly taken from their personal faith, that's different.

If I'd said six weeks as a termination date, you would have quite rightly pointed out that many women would not have worked out that they were pregnant by that stage. As I said before, most people have known they are pregnant for at least a month by twelve weeks, usually longer.

[gonetoseeamanaboutadog]

And a very minor point but you're using the word morale wrong...it only applies to your spirits being up or down. The word is moral.

If you truly think morality is self-correcting, you need to look further back but also more recently too. The injustices you describe society as having corrected were actually the same mistakes playing over and over again, often being corrected on grounds of conscience by people of faith. We'll have to talk about the war...

[gonetoseeamanaboutadog]

And it doesn't matter to me how often this actually happens - it's the fact that it's there in law and this is our society and our collective morality that's being reflected here. To me, it's awful and if this is what the abortion argument can do - perpetuate such dreadful injustices - well, I don't know really. I trust the morality less.

[gonetoseeamanaboutadog]

urban I don't have time to get into all of your post, quickly skimming though the question that springs at me is re: the Down's issue. I wasn't asking about a late-term abortion, but about the idea that, legally, it's possible to abort a baby with Down's Syndrome up until the last minute. I'm imagining that hypothetical baby who could perhaps have breathed and survived if born at the same point, instead being delivered maimed and dead, and remembering the outcry about that lady who induced an abortion very late on last year. And I'm thinking down's is not a disability that renders your life brief, meaningless or agonising. Yet we are prepared to say it's perfectly acceptable to kill that child when he or she is very much a baby, while it is apparently obscene to for a mother to kill her unborn child at the same point providing it is healthy? It may very well be for the greatest good in a world where we kill off the maimed and the vulnerable so they won't be a drain on the state but that doesn't make it right. If it's wrong for one, it should be wrong for the other too, unless it truly is merciful..but for Down's, it's convenience dressed up as mercy.

[urbanfox1337]

I would like to know if the late-term abortion re Down's Syndrome issue
makes you uneasy. I realise this is a personal issue for you so will try
and be careful with my words whilst still being honest. And I do have
experience of disabled children (not downs) so it is also personal to me.
Most people would be uneasy about it were it personal and in real life but
this is the internet and you don't have to express morale angst, its easy
just to give your conclusion rather than how you reached it. Firstly
unless I am remembering wrong the test for downs was done at 18 weeks, so a
late term abortion is not involved? But for debate lets assume its a 30
week abortion. Well what do you mean by uneasy? Honestly if it was a
stranger I wouldn't care, if it was myself, of course I would be anxious,
having a late term abortion can't be pleasant and if it was a relative I
would feel in-between. But I guess you mean the morality of it rather than
the anxiety of it. A thought experiment, not yet possible but not far off.
You have 5 sperm and 1 egg, computer simulations of the DNA show 1
combination will produce a downs child, one an unspecified minor defect and
3 average/normal specimens. Which one would you pick to turn into a baby?
If your answer is leave it up to god or random chance then I see that as
abdicating responsibility I think a parent is better placed and should make
that choice. So far as I can reason in just a few hours thinking about it
is that I would choose one of the average/normal specimens. So that leads
me to conclude that were I to generate a foetus that had downs it would be
an acceptable choice to terminate and create a baby that didn't have it. I
am also aware that when emotions become involved in a personal situation
then I might not think that, there are other factors to consider, can I
terminate and still have another pregnancy, can I afford to look after a
down's baby, do I want to live a different life than I had planned, is it
fair to create a life with differences than its peer group, is it right to
pre-burden a child with obstacles, who will look after it when I die. These
are all legitimate questions and if a mother decided to abort then I would
support that choice. But I would also support a mother who chose to keep the
baby, I can't see there is a one answer fits all.

Think that covers everything.

[urbanfox1337]

gonetoseeamanaboutadog

the law is very much set up to ensure that women carry their babies to
full-term after this point (24 weeks) No it isn't, a woman can drink,
smoke, take aspirin, caffeine, over-the-counter medicine (even prescription
drugs), take part in dangerous activities, drive fast cars, commit suicide,
fly to another country and terminate the birth 1 hour before birth, legally
there are no sanctions and currently there is nothing anyone can do to stop
them. So if you have any factual evidence whatsoever as to how you can
justify saying, "women are losing absolute bodily autonomy for almost half
the pregnancy", please share. Because that is just not true in the UK.

If the state was taking away a woman's absolute bodily autonomy the
precedent set would be that when a life is at stake the state could morally
force you to use your body in a way you don't want. For example you could
be forced against your will to donate a kidney, some liver, lung, pancreas,
intestine, bone marrow, blood cells, eggs, sperm, all in the name of saving
life. Don't you think that is morally outrageous?

The factor that changes is not anything to do with women's right to bodily
autonomy, but instead it's down to how the developing baby is perceived Its
both factors and many more, I listed them in previous post. Once the time
scale is set, people's perceptions evolve from that. If I remember right the
church used to say the moment of life was when you first felt the baby kick,
opinion changes based on the information they are given from agreed
experts/authority figures.

*The pro-choice lobby tends to be highly subjective in how the foetus is
viewed. * This is part of the 'bonding' process selected by evolution to
ensure the survival of the species. It does not change any facts, we
override our evolutionary instincts all the time when it suits us. We no
longer live in caves, we have hospitals. In a previous post I explained we
can put absolute values on life, when its personal we feel aggrieved but
when discussed rationally we agree because it is the morale thing to do.

there is certainly an acknowledged sanctity about the existence of a wanted
'baby' regardless of gestational age Is there? Where is there evidence
for that? There is no moral dilemma over aborting a few cells, its just
popping another pill the word baby hardly even comes into the discussion
these days, no one I know would perceive it as one. I have some friends
that discussed miscarriages from the second half of their pregnancy but I
have never heard (m)anyone mention miscarriages in the first or second
month, it just isn't considered losing a 'baby', nothing like the scale of
sanctity everyone considers in relation to life after birth. I have never
known anyone have a funeral for a 12 week termination, why is that, maybe
because its not the same as losing an actual baby. From my experience it is
totally dependant on gestational time. So where is your evidence that there
is a sanctity to a 'wanted baby' regardless of gestation time? Perhaps you
mean the hopes and dreams a mother has for what the egg/cells might become?

A strength of the pro-life approach is that a consistently high value is
placed upon the unborn child irrespective of how convenient that life is
This is also its greatest weakness. A belief in anything irrespective of
facts is dogmatic, irrational and can cause a person to end up supporting
immoral acts. Whilst you might claim to not be an extremist the logical
conclusion to dogmatic beliefs is extreme behaviour. For example pro-lifers
in America will defend the 'life' of a few cells to the extent that they are
prepared to bomb clinics and murder doctors. Closer to home they are
content to let mother and child die in childbirth, or imprison a teenage
girl.

if the life of both woman and foetus were in danger, the mother's life must
be seen as of higher value Only, because of irrational dogmatic religious
beliefs that abortion is wrong, this is not always the case. Abortions are
refused even if it kills the mother, I have already cited the recent case in
Ireland. This is a direct consequence of making unborn cells/foetuses
sacred life.

You mention several times that pro-life people see it as a moral principle
set in stone but you have still not defined what life you mean, when it
becomes alive, is and how you justify these conclusions!

You need to define what you mean by life because I think the word is being
using to mean different things. A lot of people might include quality of
existence as integral to the definition of what life is. So someone who
values life might decide their life is so painful or meaningless so as to be
no life whatsoever.

valuing a life less because we can't see it, or ..... is not something we
could accept Yet everyday you do. Pro-lifers drive cars and pollute air
killing someone somewhere. They support governments that go to war killing
others. They keep money in the bank when someone somewhere is starving to
death. They eat meat which is the result of an animal being killed. They
eat vegetables which is the result of a plant or flower being killed. They
go on holiday wasting money when someone somewhere is dying. They have
operations to fix varicose veins when that surgeon could be saving other
peoples lives. They don't donate every organ/cell in their bodies to save
others. It just hypocritical to pick one example and say "this life is
sacred" but don't do literally everything possible to save other lives in
the world.

You still haven't answered 12 weeks, why not 6? You miss a period 4 weeks,
2 weeks to have an abortion. Why have an extra 6 weeks to think about it,
why not 18 more? You still haven't said what you would do to a woman who
chose to have an abortion at 13 weeks. How would you stop the thousands of
women flying abroad to have abortion at 21 weeks? What would you do with
any increase of unwanted babies, who would pay for them? How would you deal
with the massive trauma you would do to women forcing them to have babies
they don't want but aren't allowed to abort? I know you talk about an ideal
world but that is just fantasy, in the meantime we have to make good laws
in the real world.

Have you considered that since you have postulated removing women's bodily
autonomy is morally acceptable that a solution would be to sterilise all
women at birth and they could only have it reversed when they pass a test to
prove they want, afford and cope with a baby? Is that your ideal world with
no abortion?

Morality is self correcting. An end to slavery, women's equality, gay
rights, equal marriage, human rights... History is littered with immoral
acts which advanced countries have ended. Priests used to pass immoral
laws, we now have superiority secular morality. We had horrific wars,
Europe got together and created the EU so we would never fight again. We
ended the death penalty, banned guns. We faced mutually assured nuclear
destruction and stepped back. Yesterday Europe upheld the mass murderer,
Anders Breivik, human rights. The biggest threat the world faces now is
beliefs based on irrational, dogmatic religions. So perhaps you could
provide evidence to the contrary?

Wasn't aware that MN didn't talk about war, I assume you mean WWII?
Society can be trusted to evolve human standards, advanced western societies
have. The model of the greatest good is something that society uses 'sub
consciously'. When people verbalise it to justify actions, its usually to
hide evil acts. Like when the church discriminates against gays, women,
hides child abuse, bans contraceptive etc. and hides it all behind a
omnibenevolent good god. Morale societies joined together to stop atrocities
in the last century and now Germany is one of the most pacifistic benevolent
counties in the world. Humans corrected its mistakes, because if we hadn't
we wouldn't be here, exactly as evolution works. This all works because
there are more people doing good things than bad people doing bad things,
were it not so the human race would go extinct, this is how evolution works.

I don't think the NHS funding issues are a great analogy here In real
world morality, its a very comparable. In a week doctors in England are
going to withdraw emergency care because they want more money. Now lets
take the doctors at their word and say they are doing it to protect future
of the NHS. The reality is people having accidents on those 2 days could
die because of them. So in reality doctors could let people die because
they are trying to protect people's future care. That sounds very like
pro-lifers who are willing to kill doctors to save a future life. People
are making a judgement about the value of life and deciding that all life is
NOT equal.

I know quite a bit about religion albeit not at the level of a theologian,
more a philosopher. You're confusing understanding to agreeing with. What
values has christianity given our society, other than bad ones? Any cursory
study of history teaches that society has struggled against religion to
create a better world. Perhaps you could give some examples as I did
above? Religion is irrational, illogical and arbitrary for one very simple
reason. All its ambiguous out of date rules arise from, "because my god
says so". This is the opposite of logic and rational thinking. After
thousands of years and thousands of different gods in this world not one
single religion has come up with any other explanation as to what determines
their morality other than invoking an unknowable deity's opinion inflicted
upon you as a quirk of which country you were born in.

I certainly don't think our morality is more or less innate in our society,
we have to work at it every day with reason and experience. Its like
pushing a rock up a hill, if you stop struggling forwards you fall back
down. Our court of human rights is full of moral dilemmas that society has
to confront and reason out, balancing the greater good. It will be a sorry
day if we ever think we have come to a conclusion about an absolute moral
code is, there isn't one.

I agree we should live our lives considering the consequences of our
actions, most people I know do. That should not give the state the power to
force a 19 year old to go through a pregnancy and have a baby they can't
afford, can't cope with and don't want. That is just entrenching poverty,
and who knows what other discrimination/abuses.

We don't get to make all the rules up and we don't get to hide behind
'society' either Society does make up the rules, we have a common law
system, so not sure what you mean by this.

Right and wrong is not right and wrong because society has decided it
should be so Democratic governments reflect the will of people, so laws
are usually based on what the population agree is morally right, informed by
expert advice on what is factually correct and what is possible. The
majority of people come to morale conclusions based on their experiences,
reasoning and empathy. Of course their are a few people that are morally
corrupt, sometimes they even get into power and corrupt other minds but over
time the majority of the population comes to sane rational morale
conclusions and the bad decisions are reversed. Humanity gets better and
faster at doing this the more civilised we become.

Yes saying all life is sacred is a subjective statement. Plenty of 'morale'
people believe in the death penalty, assisted suicide, self defence,
veganisim etc most people place a high value on human life but to say all
life is sacred is a very religious statement and is not backed up by any
evidence, do you accept that?

Anti-abortionists do get accused of not being objective, surely you could
change that by giving the explanation and reasoning on how you came to your
objective conclusion, unless you are accepting that your position isn't
objective. So far all you're saying is that it is because it is. That does
not mean pro choice is saying all their arguments are objective, they all
aren't but some are and I have already listed some objective medical facts
in previous posts. Unless you list some that are wrong then I will assume I
have proved that point.

I don't know exactly when life begins but I think God does, and the point
at which that life entrusted to an individual (so, if you like, when our
moral responsibility begins) is at implantation Ok, so that does beg
quite a few questions, that you have avoided. How do you know gods opinion
is the morale one? How has god communicated his opinion to you? Why does
gods communicated opinion change over time? Why does every religion in the
world disagree on what gods communicated opinion is? Why do intelligent
morale people work out what the greatest good is and its different from gods
opinion, because normally the same objective facts are reached by every
logical person who looks for them.

I am not saying life begins at the point of independent foetal viability, is
anyone? I am simply saying this is one factor to consider when working out
the date of 24 weeks. If you changed the date to 12 weeks and a woman
decided to have a caesarean to get a baby out she didn't want and wasn't
allowed to abort then the foetus would die making 12 weeks a useless date.
At 24 weeks a woman can have a caesarean and still have reasonable
independent foetal viability, making it a sensible date to allow the baby to
survive and the mother to maintain bodily autonomy.

Just because you say a pre 24 week foetus looks like a fully formed baby
does not mean it is. The objective facts prove it isn't. To suggest that
they never lived just makes no sense, that statement doesn't make any sense
because you haven't defined what life is.

[sparechange]

I think a lot of you are forgetting that abortions are performed regularly in Belfast now.

Where on EARTH are you getting that from? It is absolutely, categorically incorrect.

Do you know how many abortions were carried out in Belfast in the last year?
12.
That's an average of one a month and doesn't count as 'regular' by any stretch
www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/news/northern-ireland-termination-pregnancy-statistics-201415

[urbanfox1337]

Yes nod, you are right there is something rotten with the moralistic attitude of people who would treat such things as dirty little secrets to be quietly swept under the carpet so society can pretend girls like her don't exist and the world is a utopia.

It has horrific echos of the church homes in Ireland where unwed mothers were sent to keep them hidden from society. The mothers were forced to do unpaid labor or were so traumatised they were sent to psychiatric hospitals. The children were then either sent to america or neglected and abused until they died and were interred in concrete tanks.

To even suggest the flatmates were the victims here is very disturbing. A teenager left with no option by the state but to take an abortion pill because she couldn't afford to travel to England. Can you imagine how hard that would have been for her to go through all alone and then suggest the girl was doing the wrong thing in not considering her flatmates feelings in all this. Insult upon injury, then to punish the girl is just beyond cruel.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

[noddingoff]

Just finding this thread now and haven't RTFT. Read Gone's first post though and was thinking about the bit that said, "at the very least she should have done it quietly". Like thousands of others. The theme tune of a children's programme that was on when I was little popped into my head when I read that. "Let's pretend, is that OK, just pretending, just pretending..." Yep let's keep hoping that girls who "get themselves pregnant" have the decency to keep their mouths shut and get themselves on the boat so we can carry on with our nice shiny lives.

[urbanfox1337]

gonetoseeamanaboutadog Correct I have no idea about the teenagers mental health, but you have no idea that she had mental health 'problems' either. So we only have what information is in the public domain and there is nothing that suggests she did have mental health problems. She was in contact with an abortion clinic, so it sensible to conclude that if she could have had a free legal abortion she would have. She was in effect forced to take the abortion pill due to her lack of funds.

We do know how hard it is to get signed off for a legal abortion in N.Ireland as thousands are forced to travel to England because they can't get one in NI. Also you will find the attitude and law is similar to across the border where recently a mother and baby both died because even when it was legal the Doctor refused to perform an abortion to save the mother's life.

The facts are pretty straight forward the young woman was punished for doing something that would have been legal anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

I will reply to your longer post when I get a chance.

[treaclesoda]

gone I think you have made some very well reasoned points in your post. But I do take issue with one point which is that you say that the pro life lobby would not say the foetus is more important if your life were in danger. I just don't think that is always true. I know I certainly have some family members who believe that even the mother's life being in immediate danger would not justify ending a pregnancy. And as I posted further upthread, when I developed a breast lump during pregnancy, I was told that it couldn't be investigated until after the baby was born, which was five months later. I was lucky, and it was nothing serious. But if it had been cancerous, there is no doubt in my mind that the five month delay would have been a certain death sentence for me. And psychologically those were a difficult five months.

However, interestingly, in a different pregnancy I was very ill, to the extent that it was considered that they may have to deliver my baby at 28 weeks. Not to save my life as such, but to prevent long term potentially life threatening complications. I was told that there was a 50% chance of the baby surviving. That wouldn't have been an abortion, because it would have been done with the intention of saving my baby, but if the baby had died anyway, would I then have been morally responsible for taking my baby's life? I thank my lucky stars that my health improved and I was able to remain pregnant until 36 weeks and didn't have to face that choice.

[gonetoseeamanaboutadog]

Right...urban

I think the point about causing accidental miscarriage is a complete red herring. Whether it could be done in some accidental way that didn't involve breaking the law or not, the point is that women are indeed not* free to make this choice in any accessible way after 24 weeks and the law is very much set up to ensure that women carry their babies to full-term after this point. So yes, anyone who supports the current set-up is supporting women losing absolute bodily autonomy for almost half the pregnancy. Consequently, the bodily autonomy argument on its own is not a strong reason to argue against abortion; in practice, it's clear that women cannot do as they like with their own bodies for a significant period of time...and most people support this. The factor that changes is not anything to do with women's right to bodily autonomy, but instead it's down to how the developing baby is perceived.

The pro-choice lobby tends to be highly subjective in how the foetus is viewed. The same woman can view a developing foetus as 'just a few cells' or 'my growing baby' depending on how she feels about the pregnancy - and there is certainly an acknowledged sanctity about the existence of a wanted 'baby' regardless of gestational age. It would be disingenuous for the pro-choice lobby to place an absolute value on an embryo or foetus when this is the case.

A strength of the pro-life approach is that a consistently high value is placed upon the unborn child irrespective of how convenient that life is - there is no wavering and it's not borne out of self-interest (I'm not saying all self-interest is a bad thing though).

We agree that if the life of both woman and foetus were in danger, the mother's life must be seen as of higher value. However, that's a special circumstance that doesn't apply in many cases. The indignation I've seen on this thread - 'Are you saying that the life of a foetus could be more important than mine?! - is a bit unclear because 'important' is a vague concept. So the pro-life lobby would not say the foetus's life is more important if your life is in danger. But if your life isn't in danger, then it's not such a clear picture. No, they don't feel that your lifestyle choices are, on the whole, 'important' enough to justify taking a life, but that's is only because a life is viewed as so very important, rather than because they don't place a high value on you as a human being. And rather than seeing your rights as a woman and as an individual as 'unimportant', the pro-life lobby recognises some moral principles as set in stone. Taking a life because you don't want it is not an approach that we would see as honouring to life, or morally acceptable. Likewise, valuing a life less because we can't see it, or because it's more vulnerable and less able to defend itself or make a case for itself, is not something we could accept.

Regarding the 12 weeks - no it's not remotely hypocritical. I have explained that I wouldn't have abortion at all in an ideal world, so my purpose would be purely to provide the option for any woman who might otherwise be harmed in a backstreet abortion clinic. It's the minimum time possible for a woman to find out she's pregnant and have a few weeks to think about it. I'm not pretending that anything magical happens for the greater good on that date and I'm not trying to say there is justification for abortion before that date.

I think you are breathtakingly naive to think that society's morality is self-correcting. There is nothing in history to support this theory (though I suppose no one on mumsnet would know that since it's Not Done to talk about the war.) No, society cannot be trusted to evolve a humane, decent standard of moral living like some kind of Darwinian animal, particularly when the 'greatest good' model is being used (which, BTW is how some of the greatest atrocities of the last century were justified).

I don't think the NHS funding issues are a great analogy here.

Looking through your post I can really see that you know very little about religion other than what might have been picked up second hand in passing, and you simply don't realise how much Christianity has contributed to the values that you are assuming are more or less innate in our society. They aren't, and you are complacent to think they are. Not that Christianity isn't fallen - in many ways it is - but you are taking the moral framework and assuming someone else invented it, like a self-important teenager who has no idea how little he knows and has a long way to go before becoming humbler and wiser. I encourage you to look into Christianity more closely and see if you continue to think it's irrational, illogical and arbitrary.

I don't believe we can live our lives deciding, without worrying about conscience or a bigger moral framework, what's right and what's wrong, what's a mistake that has to be lived with, and what's a mistake that can be eradicated. We don't get to make all the rules up and we don't get to hide behind 'society' either. Right and wrong is not right and wrong because society has decided it should be so - just look at how society is getting it terribly wrong all over the place in the world now and has always done so.

There is nothing subjective about the phrase 'life is sacred' unless you think the idea of something being morally wrong is a bit Out There. (In which case, I have nothing to add.) You know what the phrase would mean if someone tried threatening your life; it's the same thing, applied to a life that is not yet fully formed.

The reason pro-lifers expect pro-choicers to have rational, objective moral arguments is because they accuse the pro-life outlook of being unobjective and immoral. If you're going to make the accusation, then yes I think the onus is on you to prove objectivity at all points.

I don't know exactly when life begins but I think God does, and the point at which that life entrusted to an individual (so, if you like, when our moral responsibility begins) is at implantation. Although I understand the practicality of the viability argument, I don't think it makes any sense if you're suggesting life begins at this point; I have seen younger babies in very personal circumstances and believe me, they were babies. To suggest that they never lived just makes no sense; as I say, I understand the viability argument but it doesn't hold as a 'life begins here' line in the sand.

I know you had more points but we have to stop somewhere and I'm sure you've done well to get this far, if you have.

I would like to know if the late-term abortion re Down's Syndrome issue makes you uneasy. I know we struggle to understand where the other is coming from but that is such an important issue to me...I can't get my head around others not having a problem with it.

[gonetoseeamanaboutadog]

You also have no idea how easy or difficult it is to get a doctor in NI to sign off on an abortion...

[gonetoseeamanaboutadog]

urban you have no idea if she needed mental health support or not.

[urbanfox1337]

Oh... sorry, dont know why that posted twice

[urbanfox1337]

wickedlazy, Why didn't she go to the Marie Stopes clinic in Belfast city centre for a safe, legal abortion? She was convicted for having a diy abortion "administering a poison with intent to procure a miscarriage" I think.

Wicked, she couldn't have an abortion in the Marie Stopes clinic in Belfast because In Northern Ireland abortion is ILLEGAL, (abortions can only be legally carried out there when the life or mental health of the mother is believed to be in danger). The young woman (who was only 19) could not afford to travel to England where she could have had a perfectly legal abortion, just like over a thousand women from Northern Ireland who can afford to do so, do every year.

The teenager did not need mental health support, she did not poison herself, she took the abortion pill which is legal in every other part of the UK. The whole reason for the outrage is that this young person was punished because she couldn't afford to travel to England.

[urbanfox1337]

wickedlazy,
Why didn't she go to the Marie Stopes clinic in Belfast city centre for a safe, legal abortion?
She was convicted for having a diy abortion "administering a poison with intent to procure a miscarriage" I think.

Wicked, she couldn't have an abortion in the Marie Stopes clinic in Belfast because In Northern Ireland abortion is ILLEGAL, (abortions can only be legally carried out there when the life or mental health of the mother is believed to be in danger). The young woman (who was only 19) could not afford to travel to England where she could have had a perfectly legal abortion, just like over a thousand women from Northern Ireland who can afford to do so, do every year.

The teenager did not need mental health support, she did not poison herself, she took the abortion pill which is legal in every other part of the UK. The whole reason for the outrage is that this young person was punished because she couldn't afford to travel to England.

[gonetoseeamanaboutadog]

I wonder if you talk like that in real life, Augusta... If so, I very much doubt that everyone else understands you. Draw whatever conclusions you like, I'm not interested in your opinions or having a debate with someone so contrived and pretentious.

[AugustaFinkNottle]

wickedlazy, according to a poster upthread the Marie Stopes clinic is very expensive. On googling, I see that a surgical abortion there starts at £644 and rises depending on the length of the pregnancy.

The fact that this policy discriminates against the most financially vulnerable is one of the most objectionable aspects of it.

[AugustaFinkNottle]

No one is obliged to answer your questions

Oh, the irony. No, gone, no-one is obliged to answer anyone's questions. The questioner is however entitled to point out the inferences to be drawn from that fact. Live with it.

The lengths you are prepared to go to in order to try to justify failing to answer reasonable questions are pretty extraordinary. First you made ludicrous suggestions that you couldn't understand posts which everyone else could understand. Then you seek to impose conditions before you will deign to answer. Then, when your conditions are met, you resort to somewhat childish abuse and spurious further conditions imposed retrospectively. What next? Are you going to demand a specific word count? Why is that, when a poster agrees with a view that has already been expressed, she has to repeat it before you will ordain that it is valid?

[wickedlazy]

The more I think about it, the more I agree with pp she probably needs mental health support. I think a lot of you are forgetting that abortions are performed regularly in Belfast now.

[wickedlazy]

Why didn't she go to the Marie Stopes clinic in Belfast city centre for a safe, legal abortion?

She was convited for having a diy abortion "administering a poison with intent to procure a miscarriage" I think.

[gonetoseeamanaboutadog]

Lucy I don't want to try and defend indefensible behaviour, just to make the point that it's not representative of religion right across the board. The present pope is making a sustained effort to at least redress the balance in many areas, though I would understand if you didn't give a damn at this point.

Augusta You will find people don't want to talk to you if you can't be bothered to speak for yourself. Waving your hand and saying 'What she said' doesn't cut it. No one is obliged to answer your questions and will be less inclined to do so if you expect more than you give.