Jailing a mother of three - WTF

[Capitalismwantsyou]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/12/woman-in-uk-jailed-for-28-months-over-taking-abortion-pills-after-legal-time-limit

Maybe, for the same reason that we don't just implant embryos willynilly into anyone

I'm getting tired, proofreading is failing.

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.

I'm getting tired, proofreading is failing.

You have been arguing for the killing of healthy babies up to full term pretty much constantly for nearly 24 hrs now.

Your commitment to this is extraordinary.
And weird.

I said something like this and yet my post was removed.

I didn't say it as deftly as you have however!

The bus fare was one example of how the child in utero isn't deemed a person yet. The point is that it's not a person yet.

pretty much constantly

Just quietly ignoring the bits where I slept, did some washing, paid the gardener...

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.

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.

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.

I don't think it was a kidney, but bone marrow transplant. Which I'm guessing is an easier thing to do.

I don't personally think that was "morally awful" but I guess you can disagree. I think it was morally disappointing. But for all we know he may have been bullied by his cousin or had a fear of the medical procedure.

Yes. A closer comparison would be a man giving his partner, unbeknownst to her, termination tablets.

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 wasn't my absolute right.

Your right not to be tortured or treated in an inhuman or degrading way is absolute. This means it must never be limited or restricted in any way. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-3-freedom-torture-and-inhuman-or-degrading-treatment

By contrast, right to life says Article 2 is often referred to as an ‘absolute right’. These are rights that can never be interfered with by the state. There are situations, however, when it does not apply.

There's no "does not apply" to Article Three, at all.

It's as if what I'm saying might actually be based in the European Convention On Human Rights...

<eyeroll>

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.

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

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.

I agree btw

(The is there was for the frankly there’s something wrong with you.)

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

My point here is that laws like that inevitably privilege the baby over the woman it uses for life support, to the detriment of the woman. And usually aren't needed anyway. If you want to punish a man for throwing his wife down the stairs and causing her to miscarry, you can prosecute him for what he did to her without requiring a special foetal protection law.

I'm not angry about a woman being in prison for aborting a baby at 8 months, no. What she did was wrong and sometimes it's important for society to send a clear message that it is wrong. We also know nothing about the baby's father who may have been looking forward to the birth of his child. But most importantly the child didn't get to live their life because of her actions. It's just terribly sad that she did something she shouldn't have done and regretted it.

The law prioritises the baby over the women in late term pregnancy not because it considers babies to matter more than women, but because if what's at stake for the two of them. The women will suffer some pain and inconvenience carrying the pregnancy for another few weeks (and in this case her affair would have been uncovered) The baby stands to lose its life. That's the reason its rights are placed above those of the woman, not that the baby is considered more important. Indeed, it's permitted to abort up til full term if the mother's life is at serious risk - showing that the mother is considered more important if only one may live.

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.

I'm sorry...you've repeatedly ignored any suggestion that there's a balance of rights when it comes to, you know, actual babies, mentioned that 'self-abortion' would be difficult at 36 weeks because the baby might breathe, used really dehumanising and weird language about pregnancy ("it uses the woman for life support") and given us the real argument-clinchers in favour of unrestricted abortion access: bus fares and imaginary police robots, and you're suggesting there's something wrong with other people on this thread?

My oldest boy was born at 33 1/2 weeks.
He weighed 4lb 4oz.
Because of how little he was, they kept him in an incubator for a couple of weeks before he came home, but there was nothing wrong with him other than being small.
He was one of the bigger babies in the preemie unit.

He's now in his 30s, a productive, healthy, happy member of society.

That poor baby was murdered, at an age where he could very likely have survived outside the womb if he'd been delivered.

What that woman did was not about abortion rights.
She abused abortion rights to murder a child.

This was a planned murder. even if she thought it was 'only a 28 week old baby.'

I've seen 28 week old babies.
They are little people too, almost ready to be born with about an 80- 90% survival rate.

The other children she has are better without a child murderer for a mother.

We also know nothing about the baby's father who may have been looking forward to the birth of his child.

PPs have told me repeatedly that how the adults feel doesn't count.

But most importantly the child didn't get to live their life because of her actions.

This differs from a 12 week termination how?

The "lost future" argument you just outlined was one of the reasons why I was vehemently anti-choice (to the point of "not even for rape cases") throughout my early twenties, a stance that I am now thoroughly ashamed of (and no I was not catholic, always been atheist). Its flaw is that it prioritises the baby's future over the mother's bodily integrity, her present, and her future.

If the "lost future" argument is prioritised over bodily integrity, the woman cannot have an abortion at any stage.

For me, as the baby becomes a viable life, it becomes a life. This is with the exception of the baby having significant health issues that would impact that viability upon birth.

The "lost future" argument you just outlined was one of the reasons why I was vehemently anti-choice (to the point of "not even for rape cases") throughout my early twenties, a stance that I am now thoroughly ashamed of (and no I was not catholic, always been atheist). Its flaw is that it prioritises the baby's future over the mother's bodily integrity, her present, and her future.

You've gone from one extreme to another, swapped one set of absolutes for another and you appear to be unable to allow for the reality that both positions are ugly in different ways. Because life is more complex than you allow. I imagine your 'not even in the case of rape' phase was only possible because you wouldn't or couldn't look with empathy at the reality of a person in that situation. Now you either can't or won't acknowledge the humanity of a full-term child.

The 'lost future' comment is not an argument per se. It's a normal expression of sadness that a child, an actual child not a potential child, has lost their life and therefore also their future. This is a normal way of thinking and nearly always comes up if someone dies very young.