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

Completely agree

She shouldn’t be allowed to care for her other children after killing their sibling in a horrendous manner.

abortion has legal limits for a reason, she broke that and has rightly been jailed for it. The sentence should be longer.

It’s in the public interest for the same reason that being jailed for infanticide is in the public interest because this is the same thing.

Nobody, in what we would consider to be a “sound mind”, would kill at all

How many times do I have to say in this thread that you can hand a born child to someone else (SS if need be) with little if any delay? You can't do that with an unborn child. If someone is so unable to care for their born child that they are considering infanticide, they can call SS. No equivalent "I need rid of this child now, someone please take it from me" mechanism exists for a pregnant woman.

So, imagine we changed the law, so that a woman could decide at say, 30 weeks that she didn’t want to keep her baby and wanted to end her pregnancy. After a consultant appointment, and taking a few days to think it over, she would be induced/have a c-section at around 32 weeks.

Would that be enough in your opinion,@VitoCorleoneOfMNMafia ? Or do you think the woman should still be able to insist on having feticide before the procedure?

In theory that's OK. In practice, the obstetrician would refuse to induce that early because of the harm that the premature delivery might cause to the baby. I addressed this upthread already.

Those who think she should not have been prosecuted:

If the baby had been born alive, and she had suffocated it, would you think she should be prosecuted?

Women's choice up to birth is all we have until we can magically teleport fetuses into men/incubators.

This is not true, up until birth though. Up until viability, yes, removal from the womb will result in death. A 34 week baby could survive outside the womb. There is no magic needed, just for it if it was born naturally, by induction or c-section.

obstetrician would refuse to induce that early because of the harm that the premature delivery might cause to the baby

less harm than killing it first though.

As I said upthread, if she had killed her new born baby she would have been unlikely to have been sent to prison. It makes no sense that a late term illegal abortion carries a harsher punishment than killing a new born baby.

Why do you think a woman wouldn't be sent to prison for killing a newborn baby? That's happened many times. And also for failing to protect the baby against a partner who kills it. A case where the woman didn't plead guilty initially would also be treated more harshly, as has happened here

If that happened then wouldn’t you have an abortion before 20 weeks? A foetus can be born into a viable baby at 24+ weeks gestation. I will never support late term abortion. This woman who was jailed knew how far along she was and still chose to poison and kill a 30+ week baby rather than give it up for adoption. She would have to give birth anyway at that late stage so absolutely no need to murder it.

BodgerLovesMashedPotato · Yesterday 13:24
You seemed to have missed the point being made which was that pregnancy even for those women that want to have a baby can be difficult and deeply unpleasant. To force that onto women who don't want to do it and don't want to have a child is the point to consider.
Exactly”

Why can’t they consider that before 34 weeks?

Goldencup · Yesterday 21:47
Binjob118 · 12/06/2023 15:56

What about her poor poor dead baby? She lied through the whole thing. Her baby was 32-34 weeks, so completely viable. A line has to be drawn somewhere.
Show quote history

“As early as possible as late as necessary, there's your line.”

No. This case was not “ necessary” it was a deliberate, horrific choice.

But the example you gave was of a wanted baby. In those cases, the obstetrician would assume that the mother wants to give the baby the best chance that her own health allows.

This would be a different scenario, in which the mother chooses to invoke her (hypothetical, new) right to have her pregnancy ended, regardless of the effect on the baby. Luckily, I don’t think many women would choose this option, but a baby born past 30 weeks and given intensive neonatal care normally has an excellent chance.

yi because that will really help won't it. She has three children she should be there for and not in prison. Honestly.

They have a father don't they? Nobody think men should be spared jail when they commit a crime.

If they were going into a foster care placement with no family available then maybe it would be understandable to avoid a custodial sentence.

I think there's a huge danger in these extreme arguments being made, that it pushes us towards a situation more like the US. If you wanted the perfect way to convince anyone who might be a bit on the fence that abortion rights are really about selfish, callous women who aren't prepared to take responsibility within reasonable parameters, then just show them some of the posts on this thread. You run the risk of radicalising whole swathes of the population against abortion if you insist on opening up a conversation and you imagine for one second that most people will be ever cool with zero restrictions up until birth.

There is a very well funded, obsessively anti-abortion lobby group in the US and I would imagine funnelling some money across the pond would be an next obvious course of action. So by all means let's give them an open goal here by talking about babies in utero as parasites with no right to exist who can be 'evicted' for any reason up until the point a woman actually goes into labour. That will definitely not play into their hands at all.

She made a mistake in estimating how long she'd been pregnant, that's all. It's something that has no doubt happened before to many women even without suffering the denial of healthcare caused by lockdown and will probably happen in the future to many more women, they'll just be lucky enough to be properly diagnosed. Extrajudicial social media trials like this one are horrific. No woman should ever be imprisoned because she had an abortion.

Go on. What dreadful punishment would you like to be inflicted on a woman who procured an abortion while making a mistake in her dates at a time when she was unable to access healthcare?

Made a mistake with dates?! Yeah right, pull the other one. She knew full well she was telling bare faced lies.

And as for, unable to access healthcare...that's BS too. She had plenty of time before the lock down to do it, but she waited. As well as this, plenty of women on other threads about this subject have stated that they had abortions during lockdown.

Go on. What dreadful punishment would you like to be inflicted on a woman who procured an abortion while making a mistake in her dates at a time when she was unable to access healthcare?”

Just not true in this case, as her google history demonstrated in court. Even without that evidence, do you not find it a stretch to believe that a woman who had already been pregnant at least three times already would make such a miscalculation?
This woman euthanised, to put it extremely kindly, her near full term baby, tried to cover it up then consistently lied when medical staff were suspicious and continued to lie and plead not guilty in court.

The sentence was fair.

For instance, this:

https://www.counselmagazine.co.uk/articles/100-years-of-the-infanticide-act

Note that it states 'it has been decades since a woman convicted of infanticide has been imprisoned'. So no, that hasn't 'happened many times' and if she'd killed a new born instead of had an illegal late term abortion she'd not have been sentenced to prison. That makes no sense.

Our local GP surgery weren't answering the phone during lockdown never mind seeing people and is barely any better even now. Our walk-in centre was operating extremely restricted hours. But it's beyond some people to think not everyone will have access to the A* healthcare they did.

One hell of a "mistake"! And "healthcare" WAS available! She could have had a legal abortion if she'd wanted to - many people continued to have abortions and obtain healthcare during the covid lockdowns.

The baby could have been born viable with minimum medical intervention at the age it was aborted. If she'd given birth and killed the baby, it would have been murder.

Not sure what the difference is really.