# Woman jailed for 8 years for aborting her own baby



## editor (Sep 17, 2012)

This sounds like a mighty grim and desperate tale all round, but eight years seems a hell of a long sentence here, no?



> A woman who aborted her own baby in the final phase of her pregnancy has been jailed for eight years.
> Sarah Louise Catt, 35, of Sherburn-in-Elmet, North Yorkshire, took a drug when she was full term, 39 weeks pregnant, to cause an early delivery.
> 
> She claimed the boy was stillborn and that she buried his body, but no evidence of the child was ever found.
> ...


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 17, 2012)

That's a long sentence. People get way less for less forgiveable crimes


----------



## weltweit (Sep 17, 2012)

No, I don't think excessive, the baby was almost to term, it is murder of an innocent.

eta Actually I don't know, I don't study relative sentences much.


----------



## Firky (Sep 17, 2012)

I think there is more going on with that story than what is reported.

The experience and trauma of what she has gone through is punishment enough.


----------



## agricola (Sep 17, 2012)

editor said:


> This sounds like a mighty grim and desperate tale all round, but eight years seems a hell of a long sentence here, no?


 
It would be interesting to see whether or not she was charged with murder to begin with, which might explain the heavy sentence for a guilty plea to a lesser offence.

edit:  It doesnt seem that she was - at least according to the sentencing remarks.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 17, 2012)

Very very depressing.

8 years incarceration is doing nothing to right the situation.


----------



## editor (Sep 17, 2012)

agricola said:


> It would be interesting to see whether or not she was charged with murder to begin with, which might explain the heavy sentence for a guilty plea to a lesser offence.
> 
> edit: It doesnt seem that she was - at least according to the sentencing remarks.


It sounds a dreadful business:


> You told the Psychiatrist that you acted alone and took the drug whilst your husband was away, delivering the baby induced by the drug at home. You told the Psychiatrist that the child was a boy, was not breathing on birth and did not move – in other words it was still-born. You said you buried the body but have refused to disclose the location. You delivered the afterbirth and cleaned up the bathroom on your own, telling no-one what had taken place.


----------



## agricola (Sep 17, 2012)

DrRingDing said:


> Very very depressing.
> 
> 8 years incarceration is doing nothing to right the situation.


 
I disagree - IMHO this is one of those rare cases where the law has to hand out a heavy sentence in order to discourage other people in a similar set of circumstances from doing the same thing. There were lots of options open to Catt and she discounted them all.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2012)

agricola said:


> I disagree - IMHO this is one of those rare cases where the law has to hand out a heavy sentence in order to discourage other people in a similar set of circumstances from doing the same thing. There were lots of options open to Catt and she discounted them all.


To discourage it must be common. This isn't common.


----------



## 8115 (Sep 17, 2012)

Thanks for that, I've just had something to eat.


----------



## love detective (Sep 17, 2012)

weltweit said:


> No, I don't think excessive, the baby was almost to term, it is murder of an innocent.


 
as early as possible, as late as necessary

starting point should be that it's the woman's right to do what she chooses with her own body, nothing less


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 17, 2012)

agricola said:


> I disagree, IMHO this is one of those rare cases where the law has to hand out a heavy sentence in order to discourage other people in a similar set of circumstances from doing the same thing. There were lots of options open to Catt and she discounted them all.


 
There's Options!!!

No. This looks as if she made a desperate decision. Got herself into a horrendous hole. Her mind must of been shot to pieces. I'm not being sympathetic just lobbing someone in gaol changes fuck all here.


----------



## Firky (Sep 17, 2012)

Didn't that woman from Channel 4's cleaning program smother her baby in the 60s and bury the it in a London park, the police were obliged to investigate as it was neonaticide ?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2012)

8 years is a fucking joke when looked at in comparative terms. Does the legal system say we must do propaganda agricola? Or fucking what?


----------



## agricola (Sep 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> To discourage it must be common. This isn't common.


 
Not really, butchers - deterrent sentences for common offences is shutting the stable door after the horse has long since run off.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 17, 2012)

agricola said:


> I disagree - IMHO this is one of those rare cases where the law has to hand out a heavy sentence in order to discourage other people in a similar set of circumstances from doing the same thing. There were lots of options open to Catt and she discounted them all.


no you're wrong.

simply put.

whatever the cause or reasoning behind this a woman gave birth to a stillborn child who would not have survived in any case.  

The only issue you could possibly have is prevention of a decent burial which if you're a rich drug addict in Chelsea is a fine and a slapped wrist but a clearly emotionally damaged Yorkshire woman is 8 years...


----------



## belboid (Sep 17, 2012)

agricola said:


> There were lots of options open to Catt and she discounted them all.


 
like what?  'keeping the baby; having the baby adopted; making a decision sooner'??  Not really great choices, are they.  Nore are they 'lots'


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 17, 2012)

agricola said:


> Not really, butchers - deterrent sentences for common offences is shutting the stable door after the horse has long since run off.


got any evidence of this... at all... 

as in ANY evidence that the sentencing policy is a PROVEN deterrent to a criminal action...

No thought no...


----------



## Greebo (Sep 17, 2012)

Apart from anything else, if her intention was to kill, she left it very late.  Viable babies can survive being born several weeks earlier than that, even without medical intervention.


----------



## Firky (Sep 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> To discourage it must be common. This isn't common.


 
I am not saying it isn't rare but there'll be more instances like this happening. The woman in this case would have probably never have been found out if she didn't got for an initial scan,


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2012)

agricola said:


> Not really, butchers - deterrent sentences for common offences is shutting the stable door after the horse has long since run off.


Which wouldn't stop out of touch judges drawn from societies elite from thinking and doing it. Is there a wave of cases like this? No? The why the argument that it's exemplary?


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Sep 17, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> whatever the cause or reasoning behind this a woman gave birth to a stillborn child who would not have survived in any case.


How did you get that from the story?


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Sep 17, 2012)

firky said:


> I think there is more going on with that story than what is reported.
> 
> The experience and trauma of what she has gone through is punishment enough.


Yeah, it does seem like there might have been something else going on, she had tried to conceal a previous pregnancy from her husband, and, while I certainly don't condone what she did at all, it seems to me she may have needed some kind of support or help more than punishment.


----------



## agricola (Sep 17, 2012)

belboid said:


> like what? 'keeping the baby; having the baby adopted; making a decision sooner'?? Not really great choices, are they. Nore are they 'lots'


 
They are all better choices than self-administering a drug which induces birth at 38 weeks.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 17, 2012)

I don't think that there are many women who would opt to deal with things this way if it was not for those pesky hefty jail terms.

Nor do I think we would see a big increase of this sort of thing if she had only got 2 years.


----------



## agricola (Sep 17, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> no you're wrong.
> 
> simply put.
> 
> ...


 
Garf - that is what she claimed happened in court, not necessarily what actually happened.  She disposed of all the evidence - including the body - that would have challenged that.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> no you're wrong.
> 
> simply put.
> 
> ...


Seriously get off the thread, you have no idea what happened. There's a lot of serious stuff to discuss here. Can we just leave him?


----------



## belboid (Sep 17, 2012)

agricola said:


> They are all better choices than self-administering a drug which induces birth at 38 weeks.


She clearly did not think so, and you, frankly, have no idea either what was best for her. 

And where would she have got the time machine from?


----------



## Firky (Sep 17, 2012)

agricola said:


> They are all better choices than self-administering a drug which induces birth at 38 weeks.


 
To you, a person who is not: pregnant, female, married to the same man as she is, in her situation and of her mind. I am sure it seemed a perfectly viable thing in her mind.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 17, 2012)

QueenOfGoths said:


> Yeah, it does seem like there might have been something else going on, she had tred to conceal a previous pregnancy from her husband, and, while I certainly don't condone what she did at all, it seems to me she may have needed some kind of support or help more than punishment.


 

Same could be said of most prisoners of course.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Sep 17, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Same could be said of most prisoners of course.


Yes, indeed.


----------



## silverfish (Sep 17, 2012)

Its a fucking mess but I've more sympathy than anything else

What are the odds the Judge has some form of religion in his life.

8 years? Really?


----------



## Yu_Gi_Oh (Sep 17, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> I don't think that there are many women who would opt to deal with things this way if it were not for those pesky hefty jail terms.
> 
> Nor do I think we would see a big increase of this sort of thing if she had only got 2 years.


 
Yep, I don't think there are many women who want to do this, but are put off by the harsh sentencing.  If you're that desperate then you're that desperate, and fuck everything else.  It looked like she wanted a legal abortion but was about a month over the cut-off point, so eventually resorted to this.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2012)

A case of 'how could a woman possibly do that'? Women often get longer sentences for the same crime than men because there is some conception that 'women shouldn't do that'.

Either way, agricola, you're dead wrong here. You think this sentence is going to have any bearing on what another woman may do in the future in similar circumstances? Really?


----------



## Firky (Sep 17, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A case of 'how could a woman possibly do that'? Women often get longer sentences for the same crime than men because there is some conception that 'women shouldn't do that'.


 
How could there possibly be a male version of this crime?


----------



## weepiper (Sep 17, 2012)

It's a horrible thing she's done, but I am 100% sure there's an awful lot more behind her decision to a) conceal the pregnancy in the first place and b) induce the delivery while she was alone than innate badness which must be punished. I feel sorry for her.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 17, 2012)

Buddy Bradley said:


> How did you get that from the story?


Still births tend not to survive... it's a factor in them... 

the drug induced labour, not still birth... assuming she's telling the truth and didn't give birth to a premature but alive baby and kill it afterwards... then it being a still birth it was already dead... 




			
				BBC said:
			
		

> She claimed the boy was stillborn and that she buried his body...


 



			
				BBC said:
			
		

> ...she had purchased a drug over the internet called Misoprostol from a company in Mumbai, India. The drug can induce labour.


 
Misoprostol 

note it's actually used to induce labour, it's not something hospitals usually use to cause a miscarriage at the time of birth... 

a premature baby may have been born alive but was unable to survive outside at that age however so she may have killed it post birth, which is a potential however no body has been recovered and there's no indication that they don't believe her story of what happened meaning the still birth would have occurred later even without the drug usage... meaning that ultimately she's being jailed only for not having said where she buried the body...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 17, 2012)

agricola said:


> Garf - that is what she claimed happened in court, not necessarily what actually happened. She disposed of all the evidence - including the body - that would have challenged that.


 
we don't know so you'd assume she's lying... yet no where is this disputed within the article...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Seriously get off the thread, you have no idea what happened. There's a lot of serious stuff to discuss here. Can we just leave him?


debate or don't but don't ell others where they can post


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

The baby was full term, Garf. And Misoprostol is used for abortions too, especially abroad.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 17, 2012)

Not cooperating and saying where she'd buried the body, them not having found the body and having to accept it was "an abortion" and that the baby may  have been born alive are probably factors in the long sentence.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 17, 2012)

love detective said:


> starting point should be that it's the woman's right to do what she chooses with her own body, nothing less


 
In your view, at what stage does the foetus / unborn baby start to have rights to life?


----------



## weepiper (Sep 17, 2012)

39 weeks is not premature, it's full term. My daughter was born at 38 weeks and weighed over 7 lb and needed no special assistance.


----------



## agricola (Sep 17, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> we don't know so you'd assume she's lying... yet no where is this disputed within the article...


 
Have you read the sentencing remarks?


----------



## Thora (Sep 17, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Not cooperating and saying where she'd buried the body, them not having found the body and having to accept it was "an abortion" and that the baby may have been born alive are probably factors in the long sentence.


Yes, my feeling is the baby was probably born alive and then she killed it, and by not revealing where the body is buried she knows they can only get her for inducing abortion and not murder.

However, I think 8 years is a ridiculously long sentence for abortion, even at term.  Actually it is a very long sentence for infanticide too and personally I think a mother killing a baby immediately after birth is very different to someone murdering a slightly older baby.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 17, 2012)

weltweit said:


> In your view, at what stage does the foetus / unborn baby start to have rights to life?


It's a tricky one because now they're able to keep younger and younger premature babies alive..... 30 weeks could possibly have been able to breath independently, maybe that's a good start?


----------



## Firky (Sep 17, 2012)

.


----------



## Firky (Sep 17, 2012)

Thora said:


> by not revealing where the body is buried she knows they can only get her for inducing abortion and not murder.


 
I am not sure, I can't imagine someone in her position being of clear enough mind to think that logically or be that well versed in English law.


----------



## love detective (Sep 17, 2012)

weltweit said:


> In your view, at what stage does the foetus / unborn baby start to have rights to life?


 
crudely put it doesn't (or it doesn't have rights which override that of the woman who is carrying it)

when it starts breathing air, when transition from fetal to adult circulation has happened and is not part of someone elses body then (in my view) it's a human being and all that goes with it. Any earlier and to me it's just part of the woman's  body, and the starting point should be that it's the woman's right to choose what she does with her body, all of it.


----------



## agricola (Sep 17, 2012)

Thora said:


> Yes, my feeling is the baby was probably born alive and then she killed it, and by not revealing where the body is buried she knows they can only get her for inducing abortion and not murder.
> 
> However, I think 8 years is a ridiculously long sentence for abortion, even at term. Actually it is a very long sentence for infanticide too and personally I think a mother killing a baby immediately after birth is very different to someone murdering a slightly older baby.


 
Its very rare to get a custodial sentence for infanticide - indeed the CPS guidance suggests that there were none between 1979 and 1988 - and it does seem from the sentencing remarks that the judge did not believe her account of what happened:



> What you did was to end the life of a child that was presumptively capable of being born alive, by inducing birth or miscarriage. I am not able to accept anything much that you have told others about what occurred but I bear in mind all that has been said on your behalf in mitigation, in particular the fact that you are a good parent to your 2 children. However, but for the drugs intentionally taken, there is no reason to believe that you would not have been delivered of a healthy boy. Had he been born safely within a matter of days, and had you killed him after birth, you would be facing a charge of murder. Had that been the case you would have faced life imprisonment and I would have to set a minimum term to be served in prison with a starting point of 15 years, less discount for the plea and any mitigating factors.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 17, 2012)

I just realised that the baby was completely full term.  Why on earth couldn't she have adopted it?


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

firky said:


> I am not sure, I can't imagine someone in her position being of clear enough mind to think that logically or be that well versed in English law.


I'm not disagreeing with you, but this was the fifth time this had happened to her.


----------



## Idaho (Sep 17, 2012)

weltweit said:


> In your view, at what stage does the foetus / unborn baby start to have rights to life?


 
It's the fundamental question relating to abortion.

I'm pretty extreme in my views. In my opinion, after it's a week old, can survive 12 hours unaided and there are other people around to help. Before that, it's up to the mother whether the child lives or dies.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 17, 2012)

weepiper said:


> 39 weeks is not premature, it's full term. My daughter was born at 38 weeks and weighed over 7 lb and needed no special assistance.


that's the point and yet the baby was a still birth, no matter what it wouldn't have survived... premature as in pre-expected birth date... assuming she's telling the truth... 


agricola said:


> Have you read the sentencing remarks?


 
yes and can you point to where they have evidenced anything which shows her to be lying, past actions no indication of present intent etc...


----------



## agricola (Sep 17, 2012)

firky said:


> I am not sure, I can't imagine someone in her position being of clear enough mind to think that logically or be that well versed in English law.


 
Thats the thing firky - it was her past experiences (a child adopted, two kids brought to term and raised by her and her husband, a previous termination, and previous contacts with abortion clinics that did not result in terminations because the pregnancies were too far advanced) that demonstrated to the judge that she actually was quite well versed in the legal aspects of abortion.


----------



## Firky (Sep 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> I'm not disagreeing with you, but this was the fifth time this had happened to her.


 

I was wondering how much of this was to do with the husband. Forcing himself on her or forcing her to have children? Speculation without even a whisp of smoke is an arseholes trick so I'll shut up... but she didn't fall pregnant so many times on her own.

All very odd.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> I'm not disagreeing with you, but this was the fifth time this had happened to her.


are we saying that she should know better by now... 

we're discounting of the quite obvious issues surrounding her based on the sentencing summery... she's clearly quite damaged as a person judging by that history...


----------



## agricola (Sep 17, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> yes and can you point to where they have evidenced anything which shows her to be lying, past actions no indication of present intent etc...


 
butchers was right - there are lots of examples in the remarks of her apparently telling fibs, which would be obvious if you had read them.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 17, 2012)

Got to wonder what her backstory regarding contraception is.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 17, 2012)

agricola said:


> Not really, butchers - deterrent sentences for common offences is shutting the stable door after the horse has long since run off.


Trying to deal with what is clearly a social and psychological issue by means of the criminal justice system is highly damaging. What sort of experience will she have in prison? To what end?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 17, 2012)

agricola said:


> Thats the thing firky - it was her past experiences (a child adopted, two kids brought to term and raised by her and her husband, a previous termination, and previous contacts with abortion clinics that did not result in terminations because the pregnancies were too far advanced) that demonstrated to the judge that she actually was quite well versed in the legal aspects of abortion.


your assumption was on each occasion she was happy to have had the child or to have been pregnant or didn't have post natal depression or a host of other things... 

her history tells quite a different story...


----------



## Thora (Sep 17, 2012)

weltweit said:


> In your view, at what stage does the foetus / unborn baby start to have rights to life?


At birth it has equal rights.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 17, 2012)

agricola said:


> They are all better choices than self-administering a drug which induces birth at 38 weeks.


Choices, choices, fucking choices. The mantra of the unthinking.


----------



## agricola (Sep 17, 2012)

firky said:


> I was wondering how much of this was to do with the husband. Forcing himself on her or forcing her to have children? Speculation without even a whisp of smoke is an arseholes trick so I'll shut up... but she didn't fall pregnant so many times on her own.


 
She was apparently having a long-term affair with a work colleague, there is also mention in the remarks that the husband didnt even know she was pregnant when one of the children was born:



> In 2004 you attended hospital for delivery of a child, having concealed that pregnancy from your husband as he now is.


----------



## agricola (Sep 17, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> your assumption was on each occasion she was happy to have had the child or to have been pregnant or didn't have post natal depression or a host of other things...
> 
> her history tells quite a different story...


 
No, thats not my assumption at all.  Indeed if you look at what was posted in that quote you have just pointed to, that will be obvious.


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> are we saying that she should know better by now...
> 
> we're discounting of the quite obvious issues surrounding her based on the sentencing summery... she's clearly quite damaged as a person judging by that history...


No, that's not what I was saying "she should know better by now". But it is a fact, and one that the judge took into consideration.


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

Thora said:


> At birth it has equal rights.


I agree with you.


----------



## Firky (Sep 17, 2012)

agricola said:


> She was apparently having a long-term affair with a work colleague, there is also mention in the remarks that the husband didnt even know she was pregnant when one of the children was born:


 
Yeah, I read that she had an affair which made me wonder if all is well between them.


----------



## Firky (Sep 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> I agree with you.


 
Francesca Minerva has no such rights though.


----------



## love detective (Sep 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> I agree with you.


 
that's what i said too, but you never agreed with me


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2012)

Thora said:


> At birth it has equal rights.


 
That's our local convention, anyway.


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

love detective said:


> that's what i said too, but you never agreed with me


I missed that  I agree with you!


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

firky said:


> Francesca Minerva has no such rights though.


Who is she?


----------



## Firky (Sep 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> Who is she?


 

She's an ethicist who said new born babies could be justly killed because they didn't have the capacities yet that make us a person.


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

firky said:


> She's an ethicist who said new born babies could be justly killed because they didn't have the capacities yet that make us a person.


What does she thnking being a person consists of?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2012)

firky said:


> She's an ethicist who said new born babies could be justly killed because they didn't have the capacities yet that make us a person.


 
Well, there's nothing suddenly magic that happens at the point of birth tbf.


----------



## Firky (Sep 17, 2012)

I've only read the abstract in the BMJ, not exactly sure of her stance exactly.

Looks like the DM caught wind.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> No, that's not what I was saying "she should know better by now". But it is a fact, and one that the judge took into consideration.


it's what's been implied within sentencing this woman should have known better... 

clearly by her actions she intended to resolve this with an abortion and then took desperate measures when she found out she could have the abortion.  from finding you she was 29 weeks to 38 weeks isn't a great deal of time to process matters or indeed to make rational decisions if you think the walls are closing in on her particular problem... 

To come to a rational, clear headed, decision to abort the baby whilst being in such a state of panic wouldn't have been within the power of most with it people... clearly she isn't one of those people...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 17, 2012)

8ball said:


> Well, there's nothing suddenly magic that happens at the point of birth tbf.


self respiration tbf...


----------



## Thora (Sep 17, 2012)

8ball said:


> Well, there's nothing suddenly magic that happens at the point of birth tbf.


The severing of the umbilical cord/detaching placenta is quite definitive.


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> it's what's been implied within sentencing this woman should have known better...
> 
> clearly by her actions she intended to resolve this with an abortion and then took desperate measures when she found out she could have the abortion. from finding you she was 29 weeks to 38 weeks isn't a great deal of time to process matters or indeed to make rational decisions if you think the walls are closing in on her particular problem...
> 
> To come to a rational, clear headed, decision to abort the baby whilst being in such a state of panic wouldn't have been within the power of most with it people... clearly she isn't one of those people...


The other way of looking at the facts (as we know them) is that she decided to resolve matters by waiting until the baby was full term,  then inducing labour and subsequently killing the child.

The facts would support either hypothesis.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2012)

Thora said:


> The severing of the umbilical cord/detaching placenta is quite definitive.


 
Yes, it's a convenient point, but we've chosen that for _our_ convenience. 

I'm not disagreeing that it's a good place to put the marker, but it is entirely arbitrary from the point of view of the baby's moral status.


----------



## belboid (Sep 17, 2012)

firky said:


> I've only read the abstract in the BMJ, not exactly sure of her stance exactly.
> 
> Looks like the DM caught wind.


pretty much the same argument Peter Singer has used for decades.


----------



## Firky (Sep 17, 2012)

8ball said:


> Well, there's nothing suddenly magic that happens at the point of birth tbf.


 
Well it's no longer reliant on the mother for oxygen, food and whale song CDs.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 17, 2012)

8ball said:


> Yes, it's a convenient point, but we've chosen that for _our_ convenience.
> 
> I'm not disagreeing that it's a good place to put the marker, but it is entirely arbitrary from the point of view of the baby's moral status.


self respiration ... until it can breath on it's own it's not a separate entity, but in effect a parasite with a host... all be it usually a welcome one...


----------



## Firky (Sep 17, 2012)

belboid said:


> pretty much the same argument Peter Singer has used for decades.


 
Yup, her name sticks in my head though because I was really surprised to hear such things from a woman. Not that I thinko women are all Gaia or anything but they are pretty amazing when it comes to creation.


----------



## Boppity (Sep 17, 2012)

8ball said:


> Yes, it's a convenient point, but we've chosen that for _our_ convenience.
> 
> I'm not disagreeing that it's a good place to put the marker, but it is entirely arbitrary from the point of view of the baby's moral status.


 
That's what I thought. Birth seems too arbitrary to me since premature babies are born and survive all the time. I'm more inclined to make such a decision based on foetal development. 

As for this case, 8 years seems excessive but I don't think that some sort of custodial sentence is entirely inappropriate.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> self respiration ... until it can breath on it's own it's not a separate entity, but in effect a parasite with a host... all be it usually a welcome one...


 
Yes, but that's irrelevant from the POV of granting rights.  It's just a nice objective (ish) marker, since we can all agree the obvious difference between a foetus and a newborn.  Being born doesn't grant special status or treatment from us in the case of other animals - breathing in and of itself frankly isn't a trick that impresses us all that much.


----------



## Thora (Sep 17, 2012)

Boppity said:


> That's what I thought. Birth seems too arbitrary to me since premature babies are born and survive all the time. I'm more inclined to make such a decision based on foetal development.
> 
> As for this case, 8 years seems excessive but I don't think that some sort of custodial sentence is entirely inappropriate.


So if a woman wanted to end a pregnancy would you advocate inducing a premature labour and seeing if the baby survives?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2012)

firky said:


> Yup, her name sticks in my head though because I was really surprised to hear such things from a woman. Not that I thinko women are all Gaia or anything but they are pretty amazing when it comes to creation.


 
Pfft! I can bang out half a billion 'creations' per hour - women do one a month at best and the rest is just acting as a human grow-bag.


----------



## Thora (Sep 17, 2012)

8ball said:


> Yes, but that's irrelevant from the POV of granting rights. It's just a nice objective (ish) marker, since we can all agree the obvious difference between a foetus and a newborn. Being born doesn't grant special status or treatment from us in the case of other animals - breathing in and of itself frankly isn't a trick that impresses us all that much.


Maybe it's more about women's rights that babies' rights - if someone is living in your body, off your blood supply, your right over your body trumps their's. Once they are independent of you their right's are equal to yours or anyone else's.


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

Thora said:


> So if a woman wanted to end a pregnancy would you advocate inducing a premature labour and seeing if the baby survives?


That's another issue, isn't it? At what point does it become a premature labour rather than an abortion?

(In principle, sort of thing. In this case it wouldn't have been premature labour).


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 17, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> self respiration ... until it can breath on it's own it's not a separate entity, but in effect a parasite with a host... all be it usually a welcome one...




Symbiote, not parasite.


----------



## Firky (Sep 17, 2012)

I wonder if experience of similar cases told the police to look on her computer?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2012)

Thora said:


> Maybe it's more about women's rights that babies' rights - if someone is living in your body, off your blood supply, your right over your body trumps their's. Once they are independent of you their right's are equal to yours or anyone else's.


 
Yes, certainly I agree with that as a good reason of where to put the marker too.

Though that's a clear end to a potential intractable conflict of rights only - in and of itself I can't see that it is a reason to grant full rights of personhood to the baby (that is Singer's stance too).  Not all cultures are the same as us in this regard.


----------



## Boppity (Sep 17, 2012)

Thora said:


> So if a woman wanted to end a pregnancy would you advocate inducing a premature labour and seeing if the baby survives?


 
No. But barring special circumstances (such as late-detection, rape, danger to the life of the woman, mental health issues etc) I think that once a woman reaches a certain point in her pregnancy that abortion should be heavily discouraged and in cases where there is only a week or so until the baby would be due then sure, why not induce labour rather than abort?

E2A I'm not arguing for the fact that foetal rights trump the mother's but I just don't think it's as simple as saying that the foetus has _no_ rights until it's born.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 17, 2012)

Thora said:


> Maybe it's more about women's rights that babies' rights - if someone is living in your body, off your blood supply, your right over your body trumps their's. Once they are independent of you their right's are equal to yours or anyone else's.


Are babies independent?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Symbiote, not parasite.


 
Parasite is more applicable, in that there's no doubt the foetus, while a foetus, takes a lot while conveying no advantage.  Though neither term is really applicable.


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

8ball said:


> Parasite is more applicable, in that there's no doubt the foetus, while a foetus, takes a lot while conveying no advantage. Though neither term is really applicable.


 
That depends on how you quantify "advantage".


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 17, 2012)

8ball said:


> Yes, but that's irrelevant from the POV of granting rights. It's just a nice objective (ish) marker, since we can all agree the obvious difference between a foetus and a newborn. Being born doesn't grant special status or treatment from us in the case of other animals - breathing in and of itself frankly isn't a trick that impresses us all that much.


no it's entirely the point.  until the usually welcome parasite can live by itself with it's own air and blood it's not a person it's a parasite...  frnakly in my book until it's old enough to text and have a mobile contract it's fair game... but that's me... blood and air is the line... it's not arbitrary it's a prerequisite of living... if we remove either from you entirely see how well you live on afterwards... I'm betting you'd be bad at it... 

breathing in in essence marks the start of the ability to survive within and of oneself not doing so means you're not going to survive for long...

it's pretty much definitive...


----------



## Clair De Lune (Sep 17, 2012)

All conjecture of course but the fact she will not reveal the grave is suspicious I feel. She could have her own reasons of course but who knows what a post mortem would reveal.
Terribly sad story whatever, for her, the baby and the children who will now not have their mother around for eight whole years.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 17, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Symbiote, not parasite.


not unless we're in marvel universe....


----------



## Firky (Sep 17, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Are babies independent?


 
Are some adults?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> That depends on how you quantify "advantage".


 
Yep. 

Symbiotes and parasites do not carry the host's genes, which is why the terms aren't applicable, though if you have to use one term or the other based on what they actually mean (so leaving the genes out of it), then 'parasite' is the more appropriate word.


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

Clair De Lune said:


> All conjecture of course but the fact she will not reveal the grave is suspicious I feel. She could have her own reasons of course but who knows what a post mortem would reveal.
> Terribly sad story whatever, for her, the baby and the children who will now not have their mother around for eight whole years.


Pedantry here, but the judge made it clear that she would be out on license after four years. Four years is still a hell of a long time in her childrens' lives though.


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

8ball said:


> Yep.
> 
> Symbiotes and parasites do not carry the host's genes, which is why the terms aren't applicable, though if you have to use one term or the other based on what they actually mean (so leaving the genes out of it), then 'parasite' is the more appropriate word.


I can see why you reject both terms, however I agree with Blagsta's preferred "symbiote" in that a foetus may convey an advantage that's not easily measurable e.g. psychological, emotional and/or sociological.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 17, 2012)

8ball said:


> Pfft! I can bang out half a billion 'creations' per hour - women do one a month at best and the rest is just acting as a human grow-bag.


 
dickhead.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> no it's entirely the point. until the usually welcome parasite can live by itself with it's own air and blood it's not a person it's a parasite... frnakly in my book until it's old enough to text and have a mobile contract it's fair game... but that's me... blood and air is the line... it's not arbitrary it's a prerequisite of living... if we remove either from you entirely see how well you live on afterwards... I'm betting you'd be bad at it...
> 
> breathing in in essence marks the start of the ability to survive within and of oneself not doing so means you're not going to survive for long...
> 
> it's pretty much definitive...


 
All you've done is argue that it's a line that's easy to spot (though Boppity helpfully points out the flaws in even that).

It says nothing about legal or moral status.  Is someone on a life support machine but conscious not eligible for human rights due to their inability to breathe on their own?  What about if they are unconscious?  What about a brain dead patient who can breathe independently?


----------



## Firky (Sep 17, 2012)

Shouldn't cases like this be presided over by an all female court anyway?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 17, 2012)

firky said:


> Shouldn't cases like this be presided over by an all female court anyway?


you sexist pig


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2012)

weepiper said:


> dickhead.


 
And so we illustrate the problem of attaching moral qualities to individuals based on their sexual characteristics.


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

firky said:


> Shouldn't cases like this be presided over by an all female court anyway?


Why?


----------



## Athos (Sep 17, 2012)

I don't buy the deterrence argument. First, because I don't think this is a sufficienly common occurrence for deterrence to operate, and secondly because I can't see that anyone desperate enough to countenance such a measure would be deterred by the possible legal sanction. 

It could be argued that leaves two possibilities: either the judge passed this sentence for punitive reasons, in which case the obviously comparatively excessive sentence has lead some to suggest these it was based on a strong moral or possibly religious foundation; or, secondly, that he believed - based on her refusal to say where the body is - that she had killed the baby after it was born. Not only would it not be right to sentence on the basis of something she wasn't charged with, but also it's worth noting that if she had been found guilty of infanticide she'd almost certainly have received a lesser sentence.

Either way, you have to suspect that this woman is more to be pitied than blamed, and wonder what purpose (or whose interest) is served by such a sentence.


----------



## Boppity (Sep 17, 2012)

Clair De Lune said:


> All conjecture of course but the fact she will not reveal the grave is suspicious I feel. She could have her own reasons of course but who knows what a post mortem would reveal.
> Terribly sad story whatever, for her, the baby and the children who will now not have their mother around for eight whole years.


 
I'd be very surprised if she was made to serve the whole sentence but yes, it is terribly sad.


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

Another point is about the father's rights.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2012)

I think there are probably things about the case we don't know, but it certainly seems a heavy sentence.

Part of me thinks there could be an element of getting back at her because she won't reveal the location of the remains.


----------



## Firky (Sep 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> Why?


 

Old Rumpole of the Bailey wouldn't be the most insightful when it comes to things like this.


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

Athos - all prison sentences are punitive.


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

firky said:


> Old Rumpole of the Bailey wouldn't be the most insightful when it comes to things like this.


Why not?


----------



## weepiper (Sep 17, 2012)

Re sentencing for infanticide, compare this story

http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/767/HMA-V-INETA-DZINGUVIENE

so I don't think 8 years is unusual or excessive sentencing if they do believe she killed the baby after he was born alive. Whether it's helpful is a different matter. Someone who can do something like this is surely in a desperate mental state


----------



## Firky (Sep 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> Another point is about the father's rights.


 
Oohhh I see what you did there


----------



## love detective (Sep 17, 2012)

firky said:


> Old Rumpole of the Bailey wouldn't be the most insightful when it comes to things like this.


 
I don't think a bunch of privileged women are likely to be any more insightful than a bunch of privileged men


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

love detective said:


> I don't think a bunch of privileged woman are likely to be any more insightful than a bunch of privileged men


I agree.  There!


----------



## Firky (Sep 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> Why not?


 
8 year sentence?


----------



## Firky (Sep 17, 2012)

love detective said:


> I don't think a bunch of privileged woman are likely to be any more insightful than a bunch of privileged men


 
Perhaps but they are more likely to have some understanding of what a woman must go through, they must have a bit of empathy in them which just doesn't write off a mother as unstable hormonal wench who needs a good slap in prison to sort her out.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2012)

weepiper said:


> Re sentencing for infanticide, compare this story
> 
> http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/767/HMA-V-INETA-DZINGUVIENE
> 
> so I don't think 8 years is unusual or excessive sentencing if they do believe she killed the baby after he was born alive. Whether it's helpful is a different matter. Someone who can do something like this is surely in a desperate mental state


 
I think these sentences probably relate to the length of the sentence, though of course there's a load we don't know:




			
				Beeb news article said:
			
		

> Ch Insp Kerrin Smith, who led the North Yorkshire Police investigation, said the case was "unusual, disturbing and very complicated".
> 
> Catt had proved to be "more than capable of being extremely deceitful in her actions", said Ch Insp Smith.
> "Catt has proved to be cold and calculating and has shown no remorse or given an explanation for what she did."


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

firky said:


> Perhaps but they are more likely to have some understanding of what a woman must go through. Even the privileged have empathy... don't they?


Not necessarily. On that basis you should have said women-that-have-had-children, only court. And I'd still disagree.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2012)

I don't think there's any reason to believe the sentence would have been less harsh if dispensed by an all-female court.


----------



## love detective (Sep 17, 2012)

firky said:


> Perhaps but they are more likely to have some understanding of what a woman must go through, they must have a bit of empathy in them which just doesn't write off a mother as unstable hormonal wench who needs a good slap in prison to sort her out.


 
I doubt they would have much understanding of what someone like this has gone through


----------



## Athos (Sep 17, 2012)

cesare said:
			
		

> Athos - all prison sentences are punitive.



I agree. Though I appreciate how others can make an argument that they can be deterrent, or protect the public by removing a risk from society, or even that they are necessary to facilitate rehabilitation. However, I can't see how anyone could say those arguments apply here.


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

firky said:


> Perhaps but they are more likely to have some understanding of what a woman must go through, they must have a bit of empathy in them which just doesn't write off a mother as unstable hormonal wench who needs a good slap in prison to sort her out.


You edited, but my answer still stands.  I'll just add that the sentencing comments don't read like "write off a mother as unstable hormonal wench who needs a good slap in prison to sort her out" that, at all.


----------



## Firky (Sep 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> Not necessarily. On that basis you should have said women-that-have-had-children, only court. And I'd still disagree.


 

I have edited my post 

Edit, ah you saw, hang on, i'll edit an edit.


I wasn't on about this case in particular, ces, I was thinking of cases that are confirmed (accused rather) infanticide by the mother. I don't think a man can even begin to understand what it must feel like to be pregnant and everything that it entails, I know I can't. Quite frankly the thought scares the shit out of me.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> Not necessarily. On that basis you should have said women-that-have-had-children, only court. And I'd still disagree.


 
The 'speaking as a parent' brigade are the most enthusiastic adherents of capital punishment ime.


----------



## love detective (Sep 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> Not necessarily. On that basis you should have said women-that-have-had-children, only court. And I'd still disagree.


 
only woman-that-have-had-children-then-sneakily-offed-them-and-hid-the-body, only court


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 17, 2012)

firky said:


> Perhaps but they are more likely to have some understanding of what a woman must go through, they must have a bit of empathy in them which just doesn't write off a mother as unstable hormonal wench who needs a good slap in prison to sort her out.


She couldve ended up with longer women can be pro life too


----------



## love detective (Sep 17, 2012)

the bitches


----------



## Thora (Sep 17, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Are babies independent?


Independent of your blood supply then, to clarify.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 17, 2012)

Idaho said:


> It's the fundamental question relating to abortion.
> 
> I'm pretty extreme in my views. In my opinion, after it's a week old, can survive 12 hours unaided and there are other people around to help. Before that, it's up to the mother whether the child lives or dies.


 
What the fuck? You're taking the piss. Right?


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

Athos said:


> I agree. Though I appreciate how others can make an argument that they can be deterrent, or protect the public by removing a risk from society, or even that they are necessary to facilitate rehabilitation. However, I can't see how anyone could say those arguments apply here.


 
I agree. They may also be intended to remove her from that possibility (for four years less remand) of it being repeated, I suppose. My view is that the Judge didn't believe her, and went for loading up the punitive element.


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

firky said:


> I have edited my post
> 
> Edit, ah you saw, hang on, i'll edit an edit.
> 
> ...


 
But a man can understand how it feels (or potentially feels) for a mother to kill what is a father's baby too, no?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> What the fuck? You're taking the piss. Right?


 
I don't think, objectively speaking, it's much stranger than putting the marker at birth.
Though whether it's a 'devil's advocate' position remains to be seen.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> But a man can understand how it feels (or potentially feels) for a mother to kill what is a father's baby too, no?


 
Men _can_ empathise with women too.


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

8ball said:


> Men _can_ empathise with women too.


I didn't mean to imply that they can't! But firks was going down the "only if you're able to experience it" route, which I was primarily responding to.


----------



## Firky (Sep 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> But a man can understand how it feels (or potentially feels) for a mother to kill what is a father's baby too, no?


 
Yes but I don't think men can understand what it means to be pregnant, to carry a baby, to have all those pressures and expectations on you. They maybe aware of them and understanding but ignorant of their power. If that makes sense.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 17, 2012)

8ball said:


> I don't think, objectively speaking, it's much stranger than putting the marker at birth.
> Though whether it's a 'devil's advocate' position remains to be seen.


 
Devil's advocate maybe. Then again I don't think the marker should be birth unless it is for medical reasons. Not that this is a resolvable debate on an internet forum. I predict 20 pages and no happy ending.



8ball said:


> Men _can_ empathise with women too.


 
Men can also love their unborn child.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> I didn't mean to imply that they can't! But firks was going down the "only if you're able to experience it" route, which I was primarily responding to.


 
Fair enough. 

Weeps - soz if I offended with the 'human grow bag' comment - was trying to head firky off at the pass if he was about to go on a vomit-inducing 'women..they're like so connected to the _earth_, man' kick.

And apologies to firky if you really weren't about to do that.


----------



## Firky (Sep 17, 2012)

8ball said:


> if he was about to go on a vomit-inducing 'women..they're like so connected to the _earth_, man' kick.
> 
> And apologies to firky if you really weren't about to do that.


 
My Gaia comment was entirely serious.


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

firky said:


> Yes but I don't think men can understand what it means to be pregnant, to carry a baby, to have all those pressures and expectations on you. They maybe aware of them and understanding but ignorant of their power. If that makes sense.


 
Men have different pressures and expectations on them. Different. I wouldn't really like to take any kind of moral stance as to whether those pressures/expectations aren't as great.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2012)

firky said:


> My Gaia comment was entirely serious.


 
Apology retracted.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 17, 2012)

Given the frankly terrifying atmosphere regarding pregnant women's rights in America just now the phrase 'human grow bag' got my hackles right the fuck up. There are people out there, people in positions of power, who actually believe that and are legislating accordingly.


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

weepiper said:


> Given the frankly terrifying atmosphere regarding pregnant women's rights in America just now the phrase 'human grow bag' got my hackles right the fuck up. There are people out there, people in positions of power, who actually believe that and are legislating accordingly.


Aye.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2012)

weepiper said:


> Given the frankly terrifying atmosphere regarding pregnant women's rights in America just now the phrase 'human grow bag' got my hackles right the fuck up. There are people out there, people in positions of power, who actually believe that and are legislating accordingly.


 
I've heard some scary shit from the Romney camp. 
I don't think he's going to get in, though <crosses fingers on drone-strike boy getting a second term>.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 17, 2012)

8ball said:


> I've heard some scary shit from the Romney camp.
> I don't think he's going to get in, though


Stranger things have happenned.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 17, 2012)

8ball said:


> Parasite is more applicable, in that there's no doubt the foetus, while a foetus, takes a lot while conveying no advantage. Though neither term is really applicable.


 
No advantage?  There's an emotional advantage (in most cases), surely?


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 17, 2012)

firky said:


> Are some adults?


 
I was tempted to append "is anyone" to my post.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> I didn't mean to imply that they can't! But firks was going down the "only if you're able to experience it" route, which I was primarily responding to.


 
which, technically, is sympathy, not empathy

</counselling>


----------



## shagnasty (Sep 17, 2012)

weepiper said:


> Given the frankly terrifying atmosphere regarding pregnant women's rights in America just now the phrase 'human grow bag' got my hackles right the fuck up. There are people out there, people in positions of power, who actually believe that and are legislating accordingly.


I googled the human grow bag ,and guess what you made it on to google,congrats but i am still puzzled by this human grow bag so will go through the posts


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> No advantage? There's an emotional advantage (in most cases), surely?


 
Would you say pregnant women were on average happier and more emotionally stable than non-pregnant women?


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 17, 2012)

8ball said:


> Would you say pregnant women were on average happier and more emotionally stable than non-pregnant women?


 
IME, yes.


----------



## shagnasty (Sep 17, 2012)

8ball said:


> Would you say pregnant women were on average happier and more emotionally stable than non-pregnant women?


I know that woman who can't  get pregnant go through a lot in regards to test etc.and if they can't get it by the NHS can cost quite a bit .All a bloke has is a sperm test and that's his lot


----------



## weepiper (Sep 17, 2012)

A little light reading on Republicans' attitude to women's bodies with respect to the 'human grow bag' thing

http://www.politicususa.com/marco-rubios-defense-gop-abortion-platform-suggests-women-humans.html

http://democrats.energycommerce.hou...112th-congress-identifies-55-anti-women-votes

http://hudsonjournalist.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/unborn-children-have-more-rights-than.html


----------



## Balbi (Sep 17, 2012)

Atwood's beginning to look like a bloody prophet


----------



## Idaho (Sep 17, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> What the fuck? You're taking the piss. Right?


I'm not sure. I think it's what I believe.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> IME, yes.


 
Then you've either got very lucky or very unlucky - it's hard to say.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 17, 2012)

8ball said:


> Would you say pregnant women were on average happier and more emotionally stable than non-pregnant women?


 
Frau Bahn's up the stick at the moment, she's not happy that she can't drink and she's a little loopier than usual.

But she is fairly serene. And looks more beautiful than usual.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2012)

weepiper said:


> A little light reading on Republicans' attitude to women's bodies with respect to the 'human grow bag' thing
> 
> http://www.politicususa.com/marco-rubios-defense-gop-abortion-platform-suggests-women-humans.html
> 
> ...


 
Given that I meant 'a grow bag that _is_ a human' it looks like I was taking some extreme feminazi stance compared to these fucknuts.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> But she is fairly serene. And looks more beautiful than usual.


 
Shameless brownie point fishing there.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 17, 2012)

8ball said:


> Shameless brownie point fishing there.


 
You knows it


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 17, 2012)

8ball said:


> Then you've either got very lucky or very unlucky - it's hard to say.



Why do people have kids?


----------



## Athos (Sep 17, 2012)

The judge's comments on sentencing make for interesting reading.


----------



## binka (Sep 17, 2012)

when i was in year ten a girl in my class at school had been secretly pregnant, gave birth in the bath on her own, drowned the baby then buried in the woods. when someone is that desperate i don't think it would be right for me to judge them and 8 years is obscene. the girl in my school was never charged with anything although i believe she went through quie a lot of counselling / mental heatlh care


----------



## equationgirl (Sep 17, 2012)

There was a similar case in Glasgow about a decade ago - that case involved the deaths of 3 babies, one of which was stillborn. Initially psychological treatment was given as the sentence, but the judge later thought that it wasn't working so she was sentenced to 3 years probation:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jan/12/gender.uk
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3806233.stm


----------



## 8ball (Sep 18, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Why do people have kids?


 
A whole bunch of reasons.

Why do _you_ think people have kids?


----------



## twentythreedom (Sep 18, 2012)

Idaho said:


> I'm not sure. I think it's what I believe.


 
I was expecting a shitstorm to erupt in response to your original comment Idaho! 

maybe there's still time


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 18, 2012)

firky said:


> , I was thinking of cases that are confirmed (accused rather) infanticide by the mother. I don't think a man can even begin to understand what it must feel like to be pregnant and everything that it entails, I know I can't. Quite frankly the thought scares the shit out of me.


 
It's heap big medicine, I'm sure. But most women don't go on and kill their babies, even after all the stress and discomfort.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 18, 2012)

love detective said:


> I don't think a bunch of privileged women are likely to be any more insightful than a bunch of privileged men


 
If a man commits spousal abuse, is he entitled to an all-male jury?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 18, 2012)

8ball said:


> 'parasite' is the more appropriate word.


 

No it's not.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 18, 2012)

8ball said:


> a human grow-bag.


 
Most offensive quote of the month!


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 18, 2012)

8ball said:


> A whole bunch of reasons.
> 
> Why do _you_ think people have kids?


I'm asking you.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 18, 2012)

Athos said:


> The judge's comments on sentencing make for interesting reading.


 
From point 15:


> There is no mitigation available by reference to the Abortion Act, whatever view one takes
> of its provisions which are, wrongly, liberally construed in practice so as to make abortion
> available essentially on demand prior to 24 weeks with the approval of registered medical
> practitioners.


 
Sounds like he's saying that the mainstream interpretation of the law is "too liberal" to me.

From point 18:


> I have had regard to the authority cited to me, namely the decision of Mr Justice McKinnon
> in 2007 in relation to the termination of a pregnancy at 7 ½ months. It is not comparable
> and *I take a different view of the criminality involved here*. I have had regard to Appleby
> and sentencing decisions in relation to manslaughter of a child but, as I have said, I see no
> ...


 
And this looks to me like a fancy way of saying I'm going to ignore the legal precedents because I don't agree with them. Or am I misreading it?


----------



## cesare (Sep 18, 2012)

No, he's saying that there isn't any analogous/comparable case law apart from possibly those two, one of which cited as an authority (which he's considered but also rejects because they aren't analogous /comparable enough). Therefore he's had to make a decision as he sees it.


----------



## Idaho (Sep 18, 2012)

twentythreedom said:


> I was expecting a shitstorm to erupt in response to your original comment Idaho!
> 
> maybe there's still time


 
Perhaps I should re-state my opinion using the most provocative and emotive example possible?

I don't believe in legislating morality, or using legislation to try and remove everything I don't like in the world. A woman's body is her own to do with as she pleases. The baby is a part of that body up to, and perhaps slightly beyond birth. I'm not suggesting a mother killing a newborn is ideal or desireable outcome, but I don't see the point in legislating against it.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 18, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> No it's not.


 
Yes it is.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 18, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> I'm asking you.


 
I did say 'a whole bunch of reasons' earlier.

The fact that you pegged the question onto a quote would suggest you had an answer in mind.
If I was being cynical I'd guess you have anoversimplistic and wrong answer in mind but I figured I might be being a bit harsh so I'd just see how things play out.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 18, 2012)

It's not a parasitic relationship because the 'parasite' and the 'host' are of the same species. Also, parasites just take, they don't give:

http://io9.com/5861990/fetuses-can-donate-their-stem-cells-to-help-heal-their-mothers-hearts


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 18, 2012)

weepiper said:


> It's not a parasitic relationship because the 'parasite' and the 'host' are of the same species. Also, parasites just take, they don't give:
> 
> http://io9.com/5861990/fetuses-can-donate-their-stem-cells-to-help-heal-their-mothers-hearts


Interesting stuff. Having a baby can also protect women against breast cancer and other things. A woman having a baby is doing a thing that her body has evolved to do.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Sep 18, 2012)

It's good that not everyone wants kids, especially those who hate them. But calling babies parasites to express that, is a bit off imo...but then I think that's the point right? Let's all express ourselves in the style of Frankie Boyle.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 18, 2012)

weepiper said:


> It's not a parasitic relationship because the 'parasite' and the 'host' are of the same species. Also, parasites just take, they don't give:
> 
> http://io9.com/5861990/fetuses-can-donate-their-stem-cells-to-help-heal-their-mothers-hearts


 
Ah, that's an interesting reference. 

You're right about the terms not being strictly appropriate, obv.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 18, 2012)

Clair De Lune said:


> It's good that not everyone wants kids, especially those who hate them. But calling babies parasites to express that, is a bit off imo...but then I think that's the point right? Let's all express ourselves in the style of Frankie Boyle.


 
I don't think anyone has called babies parasites - you're missing quite a bit of context.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Sep 18, 2012)

8ball said:


> I don't think anyone has called babies parasites - you're missing quite a bit of context.


possibly, I am still a few pages behind


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 18, 2012)

8ball said:


> I don't think anyone has called babies parasites - you're missing quite a bit of context.


It's a good point though. I must admit I hadn't quite thought about it like that before - it's a dependent relationship, but that doesn't necessarily make it parasitic.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 18, 2012)

Some more interesting benefits of pregnancy here

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/women_shealth/3314614/The-unexpected-benefits-of-pregnancy.html

None of this should be used by pro-lifers to justify restricting abortions though.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 18, 2012)

weepiper said:


> Some more interesting benefits of pregnancy here
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/women_shealth/3314614/The-unexpected-benefits-of-pregnancy.html
> 
> None of this should be used by pro-lifers to justify restricting abortions though.


 
Or contraception.  These benefits seem to point to the female body being adjusted to spending a certain proportion of fertile life being pregnant.  I remember seeing that woman from the Catholic Herald talking about this on the telly with a definite agenda.

Then again, there are certain health benefits to the contraceptive pill too.

I'm always very suspicious of people using biology to draw moral conclusions.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 18, 2012)

Clair De Lune said:


> It's good that not everyone wants kids, especially those who hate them. But calling babies parasites to express that, is a bit off imo...but then I think that's the point right? Let's all express ourselves in the style of Frankie Boyle.


read what's been written in context and then stop being such a sop as per ok...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 18, 2012)

8ball said:


> Or contraception. These benefits seem to point to the female body being adjusted to spending a certain proportion of fertile life being pregnant. I remember seeing that woman from the Catholic Herald talking about this on the telly with a definite agenda.
> 
> Then again, there are certain health benefits to the contraceptive pill too.
> 
> I'm always very suspicious of people using biology to draw moral conclusions.


Like you've been doing you mean...


----------



## RubyToogood (Sep 18, 2012)

There's an offence of infanticide, which is different from murder and I think carries a lesser sentence. I vaguely remember some British woman who killed her baby at birth and tried to smuggle it back from the USA in a suitcase. She was tried for murder, and there was some outcry because had she been tried in the UK it would have been for infanticide.

But it seems that to qualify as infanticide it has to be shown that the woman was mentally disturbed from giving birth or breastfeeding, which was ruled out in this case anyway as they seem to have decided she was sane.

(I'm bringing this up as I was a bit confused as to why the judge was comparing the offence with murder rather than infanticide so I looked it up.)


----------



## 8ball (Sep 18, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> Like you've been doing you mean...


 
Go on, find an example.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 18, 2012)

binka said:


> when i was in year ten a girl in my class at school had been secretly pregnant, gave birth in the bath on her own, drowned the baby then buried in the woods. when someone is that desperate i don't think it would be right for me to judge them and 8 years is obscene. the girl in my school was never charged with anything although i believe she went through quie a lot of counselling / mental heatlh care


That's totally different, to compare a confused and distressed girl acting in a panic with  someone who planned it all out and knew about abortions and adoptions.
I don't know why this woman didn't just have the baby and give it away either officially or unofficially (like leaving it somewhere safe).


----------



## weepiper (Sep 18, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> That's totally different, to compare a confused and distressed girl acting in a panic with someone who planned it all out and knew about abortions and adoptions.
> I don't know why this woman didn't just have the baby and give it away either officially or unofficially (like leaving it somewhere safe).


 
I don't know if anyone can prove she wasn't planning to do that. Misoprostol can be used to induce labour as well as to abort a pregnancy. It depends on the dose.


----------



## tommers (Sep 18, 2012)

I really get the feeling there's a lot more going on here than is in that report.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 18, 2012)

Pregnancy fucks up your head in so many ways. Who can say that she planned it all? Maybe she didn't even realise she was pregnant until after the abortion legal cutoff point. Maybe a condom failed. Maybe she got a tummy bug while on the Pill and it didn't work. If your periods are really irregular it's quite possible you might not know you were pregnant until you started feeling movements which can be well after 20 weeks. Maybe her husband was abusive and they weren't sleeping together so if he found out she was pregnant he would have known it wasn't his and she was frightened of what he would do.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 18, 2012)

weepiper said:


> I don't know if anyone can prove she wasn't planning to do that. Misoprostol can be used to induce labour as well as to abort a pregnancy. It depends on the dose.


The judge seems to think she may have killed the baby after the birth or at least casting doubt on it being an 'abortion'. Legally that makes a difference, but either way the end result is the same.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Sep 18, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> read what's been written in context and then stop being such a sop as per ok...


Enough context for you? Like I said, I was a few pages behind..
But since you asked it was this I was replying to. I can't be arsed to argue about what is and isn't deliberate and provocative language. So carry on ...



GarfieldLeChat said:


> no it's entirely the point. *until the usually welcome parasite* can live by itself with it's own air and blood *it's not a person it's a parasite*... frnakly in my book until it's old enough to text and have a mobile contract it's fair game... but that's me... blood and air is the line... it's not arbitrary it's a prerequisite of living... if we remove either from you entirely see how well you live on afterwards... I'm betting you'd be bad at it...
> 
> breathing in in essence marks the start of the ability to survive within and of oneself not doing so means you're not going to survive for long...
> 
> it's pretty much definitive...


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 18, 2012)

It feels a bit like if you criticise anyone for having a late abortion then it means you're criticizing abortion per se.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 18, 2012)

Clair De Lune said:


> Enough context for you? Like I said, I was a few pages behind..
> But since you asked it was this I was replying to. I can't be arsed to argue about what is and isn't deliberate and provacative language. So carry on ...


 
I'd forgotten that post when I mentioned context, but I think that was a side point in garf's argument about birth being the definitive marker of 'independent' human existence (whether you agree or not).

He also glosses over the fact that it is possible to be a person _and_ a parasite.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 18, 2012)

firky said:


> She's an ethicist who said new born babies could be justly killed because they didn't have the capacities yet that make us a person.


A eugenicist more like. Wants to off disabled babies too as well as merely unwanted ones. Sounds like she wants to get rid of the 'burden' they bring.
Especially when there's tons of people wanting to adopt newborns.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 18, 2012)

8ball said:


> I did say 'a whole bunch of reasons' earlier.
> 
> The fact that you pegged the question onto a quote would suggest you had an answer in mind.
> If I was being cynical I'd guess you have anoversimplistic and wrong answer in mind but I figured I might be being a bit harsh so I'd just see how things play out.


 
You originally said

"Parasite is more applicable, in that there's no doubt the foetus, while a foetus, takes a lot while conveying no advantage. Though neither term is really applicable."

I then said

"No advantage? There's an emotional advantage (in most cases), surely?"

Which you don't appear to agree with.  So why do you think people have kids?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 18, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> So why do you think people have kids?


 
Social convention.
Security in old age (much more common in other countries than here).
Accidental pregnancies (not necessarily the same as 'unwanted' pregnancies).
Having had plans about having a family since childhood (maybe overlaps with 'social convention' but comes under the broad 'cultural reasons').
Because they think it will fill some kind of gap in their life (the gap varies).
Because they think it will 'make them happy' (the research suggests this is misguided for most measurable conceptions of 'happiness').
Loving someone and wanting to raise a child with them (especially if raised in a loving family themselves).
I could go on...

But we were talking about viewing a foetus as a symbiont/parasite (which only works as a kind of analogy anyway), so the argument was limited to pregnancy at that point as far as I was aware.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 18, 2012)

Emotions don't come into any of that? Are you sure?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 18, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Emotions don't come into any of that? Are you sure?


 
Did you read the whole post?


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 18, 2012)

Yes. Presumably you're referring to the only in pregnancy bit. Does being pregnant stop one thinking and feeling about the future? Do women not feel bonds towards their unborn child?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 18, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Yes. Presumably you're referring to the only in pregnancy bit. Does being pregnant stop one thinking and feeling about the future? Do women not feel bonds towards their unborn child?


 
If you want to bring that into a 'symbiont/parasite' argument you can, if you want, but it's just further abusing the terms, really.  You might as well say a tapeworm becomes a symbiont if someone deliberately eats one in a misguided attempt to lose weight.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 18, 2012)

What?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 18, 2012)

Clair De Lune said:


> Enough context for you? Like I said, I was a few pages behind..
> But since you asked it was this I was replying to. I can't be arsed to argue about what is and isn't deliberate and provocative language. So carry on ...


funny isn't it everyone else took it in the way it was meant but you with your consistent think of the children wailing didn't... why is that... is it because your a precious, overbearing, proud, speaking as a mother type.... it is isn't it... 

can't be arsed to argue then why even fecking mention it you daft apeth... no one else felt the need, you know in the adult conversation to bother with the mindless pedantry ... no-one... ffs...

think of the children... really think of the adults and converse like one...


----------



## 8ball (Sep 18, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> What?


 
I mean if you take a broken analogy and stretch it further things get absurd pretty quickly.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 18, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> funny isn't it everyone else took it in the way it was meant but you with your consistent think of the children wailing didn't... why is that... is it because your a precious, overbearing, proud, speaking as a mother type.... it is isn't it...
> 
> can't be arsed to argue then why even fecking mention it you daft apeth... no one else felt the need, you know in the adult conversation to bother with the mindless pedantry ... no-one... ffs...
> 
> think of the children... really think of the adults and converse like one...


----------



## 8ball (Sep 18, 2012)

Yeah, bit of a rant with seemingly little provocation, Garf.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Sep 18, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> funny isn't it everyone else took it in the way it was meant but you with your consistent think of the children wailing didn't... why is that... is it because your a precious, overbearing, proud, speaking as a mother type.... it is isn't it...
> 
> can't be arsed to argue then why even fecking mention it you daft apeth... no one else felt the need, you know in the adult conversation to bother with the mindless pedantry ... no-one... ffs...
> 
> think of the children... *really think of the adults and converse like one*...


Oh more insults and lazy generalisations, goody. You really don't know me if that's what you think 

I can't be arsed to argue with you, because it is clear you enjoy the friction you create more than the discussion. It's as tiresome and predictable as your chosen pejoratives.

I will leave the thread for you adults to enjoy


----------



## trashpony (Sep 18, 2012)

I read  the judge's statement. She doesn't sound like she has a very normal relationship with pregnancy and childbirth, no matter what the psychiatric assessment says.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 18, 2012)

8ball said:


> If you want to bring that into a 'symbiont/parasite' argument you can, if you want, but it's just further abusing the terms, really. You might as well say a tapeworm becomes a symbiont if someone deliberately eats one in a misguided attempt to lose weight.


The problem here is with our categories, I think. We have this category 'individual'. But is a pregnant woman two individuals or one? I'd say it's blurry. In some senses there are two lifeforms there, in others there's really just the one.


----------



## spring-peeper (Sep 18, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The problem here is with our categories, I think. We have this category 'individual'. But is a pregnant woman two individuals or one? I'd say it's blurry. In some senses there are two lifeforms there, in others there's really just the one.



I think it depends on whether or not the mother wants the child.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 18, 2012)

trashpony said:


> I read the judge's statement. She doesn't sound like she has a very normal relationship with pregnancy and childbirth, no matter what the psychiatric assessment says.


or parenting or relationships in general...


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 18, 2012)

I've just realised she lives in the same street I grew up in and is the same age as me. If she's lived there all her life (can't find this out) I almost certainly went to junior school with her


----------



## trashpony (Sep 18, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> or parenting or relationships in general...


 
No


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 18, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The problem here is with our categories, I think. We have this category 'individual'. But is a pregnant woman two individuals or one? I'd say it's blurry. In some senses there are two lifeforms there, in others there's really just the one.


until birth 1 with another potential life inside her but it's still one person.  

This isn't a case of co-joined twins where they can be described as having their own personality or degrees of independence etc... 

The moment you start going down the route of saying it's two individuals is the moment you have to start making choices as to which of those individuals ultimately has control of the body they inhabit which is where all the issues come into it... and the sentient one, the original owner from new as it were.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 18, 2012)

8ball said:


> I mean if you take a broken analogy and stretch it further things get absurd pretty quickly.


You're the only one doing any stretching!


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 18, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The problem here is with our categories, I think. We have this category 'individual'. But is a pregnant woman two individuals or one? I'd say it's blurry. In some senses there are two lifeforms there, in others there's really just the one.



The mother/child relationship is often called a "dyad" in psychotherapy theory, for this reason.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 18, 2012)

Clair De Lune said:


> Oh more insults and lazy generalisations, goody. You really don't know me if that's what you think
> 
> I can't be arsed to argue with you, because it is clear you enjoy the friction you create more than the discussion. It's as tiresome and predictable as your chosen pejoratives.
> 
> I will leave the thread for you adults to enjoy


i'm not th eone who blundered into a thread once again made comments without reading and pronouncements on the people making those comments... 

if you wanted friction then that'd be the way to get it for sure...


----------



## 8ball (Sep 18, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> You're the only one doing any stretching!


 
You have a little further to go.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 18, 2012)

8ball said:


> You have a little further to go.


You seem determined to have an argument despite agreeing with me.

Have fun!


----------



## 8ball (Sep 18, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> You seem determined to have an argument despite agreeing with me.
> 
> Have fun!


 
I just meant you were stretching the already broken symbiont/parasite analogy by extending the definition of advantage to the host's feelings about it.  So I applied it to tapeworms since we were already in Absurdsville.  

Can we end the derail if I admit it was all my fault?


----------



## weepiper (Sep 18, 2012)

Clair De Lune said:


> Oh more insults and lazy generalisations, goody. You really don't know me if that's what you think
> 
> I can't be arsed to argue with you, because it is clear you enjoy the friction you create more than the discussion. It's as tiresome and predictable as your chosen pejoratives.
> 
> I will leave the thread for you adults to enjoy


 
nah just stick him on ignore, it's bliss. Given his previous pronouncements on 'breeders' I'm not sure what interest he has in a thread like this anyway other than to make nasty digs at people


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 18, 2012)

weepiper said:


> nah just stick him on ignore, it's bliss. Given his previous pronouncements on 'breeders' I'm not sure what interest he has in a thread like this anyway other than to make nasty digs at people


and yet another none reader... tsk tsk...

if I'm on ignore then perhaps you should do just that eh...


----------



## Plumdaff (Sep 18, 2012)

trashpony said:


> I read the judge's statement. She doesn't sound like she has a very normal relationship with pregnancy and childbirth, no matter what the psychiatric assessment says.


 
It all sounds very odd. It looks like she knew she was pregnant early on and within the time limits for legal abortion but didn't seek one until she was about 29 weeks, and that similar had happened with at least one of her previous pregnancies. For whatever reason she doesn't seem to have able to come to terms with nor make a decision to end pregnancies. Tragic for all involved.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 18, 2012)

8ball said:


> I don't think anyone has called babies parasites - you're missing quite a bit of context.


 


> 8ball said: ↑
> 'parasite' is the more appropriate word.​


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 18, 2012)

8ball said:


> Then again, there are certain health benefits to the contraceptive pill too.
> 
> .


 
The difference being, pregnancy isn't something that got brewed up in a chemist's lab.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 18, 2012)

weepiper said:


> Pregnancy fucks up your head in so many ways. Who can say that she planned it all? Maybe she didn't even realise she was pregnant until after the abortion legal cutoff point. Maybe a condom failed. Maybe she got a tummy bug while on the Pill and it didn't work. If your periods are really irregular it's quite possible you might not know you were pregnant until you started feeling movements which can be well after 20 weeks. Maybe her husband was abusive and they weren't sleeping together so if he found out she was pregnant he would have known it wasn't his and she was frightened of what he would do.


 
And the answer to these problems is, kill the end-of-term fetus?


----------



## weepiper (Sep 18, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> And the answer to these problems is, kill the end-of-term fetus?


 
It was her answer. I passed no judgement on whether it was the right answer.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 18, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The problem here is with our categories, I think. We have this category 'individual'. But is a pregnant woman two individuals or one? I'd say it's blurry. In some senses there are two lifeforms there, in others there's really just the one.


 
Two hearts, two brains.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 18, 2012)

weepiper said:


> It was her answer. I passed no judgement on whether it was the right answer.


 
Yeah. I think that if the factors you mentioned were present, they should go to mitigation of sentencing, not to proof of guilt or innocence.


----------



## Thora (Sep 18, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> And the answer to these problems is, kill the end-of-term fetus?


Aborting your own pregnancy shouldn't be a crime, regardless of the circumstances.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 18, 2012)

Thora said:


> Aborting your own pregnancy shouldn't be a crime, regardless of the circumstances.


 
Probably not; but aborting a fetus at 39 weeks, when it's likely out at the 40 week term mark, is distasteful to say the least.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 18, 2012)

Thora said:


> Aborting your own pregnancy shouldn't be a crime, regardless of the circumstances.


sometimes not aborting should be an offence. for instance, would you really want your child to be a liberal democrat?


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Sep 18, 2012)

Thora said:


> Aborting your own pregnancy shouldn't be a crime, regardless of the circumstances.


An abortion that close to term will involve inducing labour or having a Caesarian; there is no justification for killing the child beforehand.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 18, 2012)

Thora said:


> Aborting your own pregnancy shouldn't be a crime, regardless of the circumstances.


 
Why?


----------



## Thora (Sep 19, 2012)

Damarr said:


> An abortion that close to term will involve inducing labour or having a Caesarian; there is no justification for killing the child beforehand.


Well yes, any abortion after what, 20 weeks? is going to involve delivering the foetus.  I don't see the relevance.


----------



## Idaho (Sep 19, 2012)

Damarr said:


> An abortion that close to term will involve inducing labour or having a Caesarian; there is no justification for killing the child beforehand.


 
They may be little moral justification for all kinds of things, but I wouldn't reccommend trying to legislate against them.

There is no moral justification for having a string of affairs with married women/men - but it's not worth criminalising.


----------



## Thora (Sep 19, 2012)

8ball said:


> Why?


Because the only person with a right to make decisions over what happens in her own body is he woman concerned.  Seeing as abortion to term is already legal in this country if you can get a doctor to do it I don't see why a woman shouldn't be free to choose.


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> Because the only person with a right to make decisions over what happens in her own body is he woman concerned. Seeing as abortion to term is already legal in this country if you can get a doctor to do it I don't see why a woman shouldn't be free to choose.


 

That's a pretty big if though isn't it? In what circumstances do you think that 2 doctors would permit/carry out an abortion at 38 weeks?


----------



## Left (Sep 19, 2012)

So this woman is being punished for a decision she made regarding her own body. Who exactly benefits from locking her up for 8 years?


----------



## trashpony (Sep 19, 2012)

Red Cat said:


> That's a pretty big if though isn't it? In what circumstances do you think that 2 doctors would permit/carry out an abortion at 38 weeks?


if the baby had a disability


----------



## cesare (Sep 19, 2012)

What's the difference between abortion and inducing labour, at 38 weeks?


----------



## trashpony (Sep 19, 2012)

cesare said:


> What's the difference between abortion and inducing labour, at 38 weeks?


None really except that in a late term abortion, I believe they usually kill the foetus inside the womb


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 19, 2012)

That would be an _extremely_ rare case though wouldn't it? 

We don't have abortion on demand, women aren't free to choose, we have to gain permission from 2 doctors who decide whether the continued existence of the fetus is detrimental to the health of the mother (not sure of exact wording or law).


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 19, 2012)

Left said:


> So this woman is being punished for a decision she made regarding her own body. Who exactly benefits from locking her up for 8 years?


 
Errr, no, there was a near term fetus involved too.

ETA: I don't support the sentence btw in case that was the impression I gave.


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 19, 2012)

trashpony said:


> None really except that in a late term abortion, I believe they usually kill the foetus inside the womb


 
That's a pretty big difference though isn't it? If you induce labour at 38 weeks the baby will likely survive - in order for it to be abortion the fetus would have to be killed in utero.


----------



## cesare (Sep 19, 2012)

Red Cat said:


> That's a pretty big difference though isn't it? If you induce labour at 38 weeks the baby will likely survive - in order for it to be abortion the fetus would have to be killed in utero.


 The drug used in this case does both, doesn't it? It ripens the cervix so gets used for abortion at an earlier stage or to induce labour later. If an abortion was needed at 38 weeks there would probably have to be another drug used as well to kill it in utero before delivery.


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 19, 2012)

oops meant to edit but hit reply instead


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> Aborting your own pregnancy shouldn't be a crime, regardless of the circumstances.


No not at 39 weeks. It gets closer and closer to the "it's ok to kill a newborn baby if the mother doesn't want it" line expressed on this thread numerous times. Look where it's heading.
Why carry a baby for 39 weeks then decide to kill it? (Don't try and tell me she didn't know she was pregnant, she did).


----------



## Thora (Sep 19, 2012)

Red Cat said:


> That's a pretty big difference though isn't it? If you induce labour at 38 weeks the baby will likely survive - in order for it to be abortion the fetus would have to be killed in utero.


Well yes, any abortion involves killing a foetus before birth.  If there is a live birth it isn't abortion.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> Well yes, any abortion involves killing a foetus before birth. If there is a live birth it isn't abortion.


 
How about if you kill it before severing the umbilical cord, what side of the line does that put you on?


----------



## Thora (Sep 19, 2012)

Red Cat said:


> That would be an _extremely_ rare case though wouldn't it?
> 
> We don't have abortion on demand, women aren't free to choose, we have to gain permission from 2 doctors who decide whether the continued existence of the fetus is detrimental to the health of the mother (not sure of exact wording or law).


I believe less than 0.1% of abortions are carried out after 24 weeks, and can only happen if the foetus is disabled or the mother's life is at risk.  I doubt that that number would rise much if at all if we had abortion on demand up til term, it's the principle.  Why should a non-disabled foetus have a right to life but a disabled foetus doesn't?


----------



## Thora (Sep 19, 2012)

8ball said:


> How about if you kill it before severing the umbilical cord, what side of the line does that put you on?


I think actually I would draw the line at whether any part of the foetus's body was outside the mother.  Cutting the cord isn't a good line as many people don't cut the cord until well after birth and well after the placenta is delivered.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> I think actually I would draw the line at whether any part of the foetus's body was outside the mother. Cutting the cord isn't a good line as many people don't cut the cord until well after birth and well after the placenta is delivered.


 
So one toe and it's murder, no toes and it's abortion?
Or would you maybe have an 'infanticide' charge for a period of time too?

It's neat, I suppose...


----------



## Thora (Sep 19, 2012)

8ball said:


> So one toe and it's murder, no toes and it's abortion?
> Or would you maybe have an 'infanticide' charge for a period of time too?
> 
> It's neat, I suppose...


Infanticide, but only if committed by the mother.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 19, 2012)

If the mother's life was at risk by not having an abortion in this case (which it wasn't) there still has to be a delivery anyway, at which point surely the risk of a live birth is the same as a non live one?


----------



## Left (Sep 19, 2012)

Red Cat said:


> Errr, no, there was a near term fetus involved too.


 
It's still her body, it's no one's business what she does with it. Unless you believe in some sanctity of life bollocks I can't see how you can condemn her.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 19, 2012)

No I can't go with this "the baby ceases to matter even if it's seconds away from being born" stuff. There's no reason why at that stage not to go along with having the baby and getting it adopted, she'd done it before after all.              
I think the implication here is she was jailed for concealing the burial - that is suspicious because the suspicion seems to be that she killed the baby after being born and is trying to hide that.


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 19, 2012)

Left said:


> It's still her body, it's no one's business what she does with it. Unless you believe in some sanctity of life bollocks I can't see how you can condemn her.


 
I didn't condemn her, I just said it wasn't just her body because it's not just her body, it's the body of her baby.

But I think she must have been in very desperate circumstances to do such a thing.


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> Well yes, any abortion involves killing a foetus before birth. If there is a live birth it isn't abortion.


 
My response made sense in the context of the two posts preceding it - it wasn't a stupid comment.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 19, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> No I can't go with this "the baby ceases to matter even if it's seconds away from being born" stuff. There's no reason why at that stage not to go along with having the baby and getting it adopted, she'd done it before after all.


 
TBF, for all we know, it could have been her experience of previously having had a child adopted that made it feel impossible for her to do so this time round.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 19, 2012)

Speculation. Left in a shop doorway or summat.....


----------



## smmudge (Sep 19, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> No I can't go with this "the baby ceases to matter even if it's seconds away from being born" stuff. There's no reason why at that stage not to go along with having the baby and getting it adopted, she'd done it before after all.


 
Before birth it's not a baby, it's a foetus.  If the mother decides it's a potential baby then that's up to her and her alone to decide.


----------



## smmudge (Sep 19, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Interesting stuff. Having a baby can also protect women against breast cancer and other things. A woman having a baby is doing a thing that her body has evolved to do.


 
Hmm I would have thought that before modern medicine a woman was at much greater risk of early death if she had a baby than if she didn't given the rates of maternal death.


----------



## equationgirl (Sep 19, 2012)

trashpony said:


> if the baby had a disability


Disability isn't strictly correct, it's usually for severe congenital brain or cardiac abnormalities which can't be detected earlier.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 19, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Disability isn't strictly correct, it's usually for severe congenital brain or cardiac abnormalities which can't be detected earlier.


That's not strictly true - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14015096

Although we are getting into distasteful anti-abortion territory here. I was just pointing out that abortion is legal until birth for some disabilities. Most people will obviously try and abort earlier rather than later because it must be absolutely horrific to go through


----------



## equationgirl (Sep 19, 2012)

trashpony said:


> That's not strictly true - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14015096
> 
> Although we are getting into distasteful anti-abortion territory here. I was just pointing out that abortion is legal until birth for some disabilities. Most people will obviously try and abort earlier rather than later because it must be absolutely horrific to go through


Oh absolutely - I felt so terrible for the couple who were having a late term abortion a few years back and some vicar went for an injunction to stop them. The foetus was diagnosed with extremely severe cleft palate problems - I think there were massive deformities and reconstructive surgery after birth just wasn't an option - and this vicar was making out the abortion was being done on cosmetic grounds because the baby wasn't perfect. Luckily it was thrown out by the court but it must have hugely distressing for the couple involved.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 19, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Oh absolutely - I felt so terrible for the couple who were having a late term abortion a few years back and some vicar went for an injunction to stop them. The foetus was diagnosed with extremely severe cleft palate problems - I think there were massive deformities and reconstructive surgery after birth just wasn't an option - and this vicar was making out the abortion was being done on cosmetic grounds because the baby wasn't perfect. Luckily it was thrown out by the court but it must have hugely distressing for the couple involved.


Cleft palate is one of those terms which sounds just like it's a really minor thing but actually can be a huge gaping hole in the middle of the face


----------



## equationgirl (Sep 19, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Cleft palate is one of those terms which sounds just like it's a really minor thing but actually can be a huge gaping hole in the middle of the face


Yes, it's really quite horrendous the more severe it is


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 19, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Although we are getting into distasteful anti-abortion territory here. I was just pointing out that abortion is legal until birth for some disabilities. Most people will obviously try and abort earlier rather than later because it must be absolutely horrific to go through


 
No, it's not, it's pointing out that the law allows for an abortion to be carried out at this stage in extreme circumstances (which is what I was suggesting with my initial question) whereas some posts seem to be implying that it's a perfectly acceptable thing to do regardless of the context.

I have to say I find this thread really disturbing and I'm not going to post on it again.


----------



## toggle (Sep 19, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Disability isn't strictly correct, it's usually for severe congenital brain or cardiac abnormalities which can't be detected earlier.


 
i was offered at 26 weeks for potential varicella syndrome. the consultant i spoke to said late abortions are usually only offered in cases where it is 'unfortunate' that the condition is not quite severe enough to cause miscarriage. in my case, even a very, very small risk of an abnormality not detected by the scans led them to the offer. there was certainly no judgement from the medical staff, no hint of their opinion until aftr i had decided.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 19, 2012)

smmudge said:


> Before birth it's not a baby, it's a foetus. If the mother decides it's a potential baby then that's up to her and her alone to decide.


 
Come on, this "foetus" was 39 weeks.  Indistuinguishable from a baby when born.


----------



## Thora (Sep 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Come on, this "foetus" was 39 weeks. Indistuinguishable from a baby when born.


They look pretty baby like at 37 weeks too.  And 23 weeks.


----------



## kenny g (Sep 19, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Cleft palate is one of those terms which sounds just like it's a really minor thing but actually can be a huge gaping hole in the middle of the face


 
Not sure it is a good enough reason to take a life for though. At the end of the day we all have holes in our faces- mouths. 

I have not posted the full picture in case it upsets but this scan






relates to this story:-



> His name is Rey. An 11 year old kid from a distant village in Baybay, Leyte. He ha an extreme case of cleft palate. We took him to Cebu Doctors' Hospital for a high resolution CT scan of his face and the data will be sent to Melbourne to be made into a biomodel that his doctors can study how to operate him. We sent off Tony Nueva the previous Saturday to his home town to fetch him up with her mother. Doc Gay and I took the Tuesday morning flight of Philippine Airlines and we met up with Rey already waiting at the Cebu Doctors' Hospital with his mother and Tony Nueva. They took the Monday afternoon ferry  from Ormoc, Leyte.  He immediately underwent the procedure and without fear or hesitation, Rey obliged. He was not shy or introverted and speaks when spoken to with quite understandable sound. He is a bright boy and was second honors in his class before he was always being absent because of medical exams. We brought him to the mall for a treat and he showed nosign of being inferior or embarrassed.


 
http://jongandjuvie.multiply.com/journal/item/9/Another-ROMAC-assisted-patient

It seems disgusting to me to say that a late pregnancy birth can be extinguished on cosmetic reasons.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> They look pretty baby like at 37 weeks too. And 23 weeks.


 
Yes.  So?  39 weeks is 1 week before term.  Totally viable without medical intervention.  To dismiss as "just a foetus" appears to me, to be an intellectualisation.


----------



## Thora (Sep 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Yes. So? 39 weeks is 1 week before term. Totally viable without medical intervention. To dismiss as "just a foetus" appears to me, to be an intellectualisation.


Personally, I don't think how many weeks before term it relevant, or how viable it is.  It isn't a baby til it is born, and while it is inside someone else's body they should get to decide what happens.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> Personally, I don't think how many weeks before term it relevant, or how viable it is. It isn't a baby til it is born, and while it is inside someone else's body they should get to decide what happens.


 
Imagine back to when you were 39 weeks.  Did you have an emotional connection?  Or was it just an abstract idea?


----------



## trashpony (Sep 19, 2012)

kenny g said:


> Not sure it is a good enough reason to take a life for though. At the end of the day we all have holes in our faces- mouths.
> 
> I have not posted the full picture in case it upsets but this scan
> 
> ...


I'm not going to get into a debate with you over what qualifies as 'bad enough' but there are a host of problems associated with the condition which aren't cosmetic.

I believe that terminations should be allowed until term. I don't think this would lead to a rush of women seeking late abortions but I think the cut off for 'normal' is artificial and linked to how we view disabled people in our society.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 19, 2012)

[


> quote="Thora, post: 11531103, member: 30329"]They look pretty baby like at 37 weeks too. And 23 weeks.


 


> *Gestational Age* *Chances of Survival*
> Less than 23 weeks Not mature enough to survive
> 24 to 25 weeks Have chances of survival - but need prolonged neonatal care
> 26 to 29 weeks Have better chance of surviving and growing up normal with or without mild or moderate problems
> ...


[/QUOTE]


http://www.mothersspace.in/giving-birth/pre-term-labour/premature-baby/97






Baby on the left at 37 weeks, when it was delivered.

http://www.growingyourbaby.com/2011/11/30/37-week-baby-girl-weighs-in-at-12-8lbs/


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> It isn't a baby til it is born, and while it is inside someone else's body they should get to decide what happens.


Bit of a contradiction there.
What if the mother decides it's a baby before it is born?


----------



## trashpony (Sep 19, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Bit of a contradiction there.
> What if the mother decides it's a baby before it is born?


It's technically a foetus before its born. You can call it anything you like obviously


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 19, 2012)

trashpony said:


> It's technically a foetus before its born. You can call it anything you like obviously


 
What does that mean, "technically"?  Yes, its medical terminology, but what does it mean?  Did you think your son was just a foetus at 39 weeks?  I know that I didn't think that way about my children.  There seems to be an awful lot of intellectualisation going on here, as defence against actually feeling anything.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 19, 2012)

This is all very complicated and horrible and it is making my head exploded.


----------



## Thora (Sep 19, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Bit of a contradiction there.
> What if the mother decides it's a baby before it is born?


Then presumably she won't want to abort it.


----------



## Thora (Sep 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> What does that mean, "technically"? Yes, its medical terminology, but what does it mean? Did you think your son was just a foetus at 39 weeks? I know that I didn't think that way about my children. There seems to be an awful lot of intellectualisation going on here, as defence against actually feeling anything.


My feelings about my child aren't relevant to anyone else's feelings about what is happening in their body.  How can I tell another woman what they should feel or do?


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> My feelings about my child aren't relevant to anyone else's feelings about what is happening in their body. How can I tell another woman what they should feel or do?


 
How are your feelings not relevant?  Do you think they were unique?  And who is telling anyone what to feel or do?


----------



## Thora (Sep 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> How are your feelings not relevant? Do you think they were unique? And who is telling anyone what to feel or do?


In what way are my feelings about my pregnancy in any way relevant to whether another woman should be able to end hers?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> How are your feelings not relevant? Do you think they were unique? * And who is telling anyone what to feel or do?*


Isn't that what the thread is about?  I understand Thora as saying that what she felt about her baby when she was pregnant isn't relevant when it comes to telling (or not) another woman what she can or can't do. The question isn't 'would I do that?' but 'what can or should I say about another doing that?'


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> In what way are my feelings about my pregnancy in any way relevant to whether another woman should be able to end hers?


 
You're ignoring the question. Interesting.

I think you're intellectualising.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 19, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Isn't that what the thread is about? I understand Thora as saying that what she felt about her baby when she was pregnant isn't relevant when it comes to telling (or not) another woman what she can or can't do. The question isn't 'would I do that?' but 'what can or should I say about another doing that?'


 
Is it not OK to discuss the issues around this without "telling people what to do"?

I think that people saying "its only a foetus at 39 weeks" are intellectually defending against the emotions involved.  I'm not telling anyone what to do.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Is it not OK to discuss the issues around this without "telling people what to do"?


 
Yeah, of course. And I have a lot of sympathy for what you're saying, tbh.

I don't have any easy answer about what we - society - should have the right to say to women about their pregnancy. I would have said not so long ago that only granting rights to the baby once it is born is the right thing to do. But I'm not so sure it's that simple. That said, I feel terribly sad about this case, and I see no purpose whatever in sending this woman to prison. It simply makes everything even worse.


----------



## Thora (Sep 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Is it not OK to discuss the issues around this without "telling people what to do"?
> 
> I think that people saying "its only a foetus at 39 weeks" are intellectually defending against the emotions involved. I'm not telling anyone what to do.


Because your emotions don't have any place in other women's autonomy over their own bodies.  If you want to gush over how lovely unborn babies are there's the Up the Duff thread.

Saying "it's a foetus" isn't saying it is nothing, it's saying it is not a person with rights, it's not a baby, it (imo) doesn't have any rights that trump the mother's rights over her body.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 19, 2012)

Its very complicated.  People saying "its only a foetus" seem to me to be looking for a clear cut answer when there isn't one IMO.


----------



## Thora (Sep 19, 2012)

There is a really clear answer for me I'm afraid.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> Because your emotions don't have any place in other women's autonomy over their own bodies. If you want to gush over how lovely unborn babies are there's the Up the Duff thread.
> 
> Saying "it's a foetus" isn't saying it is nothing, it's saying it is not a person with rights, it's not a baby, it (imo) doesn't have any rights that trump the mother's rights over her body.


 
Emotions are irrelevant when it comes to pregnancy?  Really?  If you say so Thora.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> There is a really clear answer for me I'm afraid.


 
And I think you're intellectualising.


----------



## kenny g (Sep 19, 2012)

A moral argument based on a rejection of empathy is pretty unconvincing.


----------



## Thora (Sep 19, 2012)

My emotions are only relevant in my pregnancy, and they shouldn't interfere with anyone else's.


----------



## Thora (Sep 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> And I think you're intellectualising.


Sorry, what do you think the alternative is


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> My emotions are only relevant in my pregnancy, and they shouldn't interfere with anyone else's.


 
Who is interfering in anything?  Strawmen ahoy here.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 19, 2012)

Blagsta - you've never been pregnant. I have, 3 times. I felt utterly different about the foetus I aborted than I did about the one that I miscarried and my one live birth.

If you don't believe in abortion, fine. Just say so, that's your prerogative.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> Sorry, what do you think the alternative is


 
I don't know.  Is it OK to discuss things without having all the answers?


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 19, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Blagsta - you've never been pregnant. I have, 3 times. I felt utterly different about the foetus I aborted than I did about the one that I miscarried and my one live birth.
> 
> If you don't believe in abortion, fine. Just say so, that's your prerogative.


 
all the straw men are out tonight!


----------



## smmudge (Sep 19, 2012)

I didn't say "just" or "only" a foetus, I said it's a foetus because that's what it is.


Trying to set any point between conception and birth, where before it to abort is moral and after to abort is immoral, will always be set arbitrarily. Even viability is not clear cut. And emotions can be involved in any stage of the pregnancy - if they become relevant at 39 weeks why not 30, 20, 10? Why is it moral for women to have an abortion at 15 weeks when many other women have deep emotional connections to their foetus at that stage? What about women who abort within the limit and still have deep emotional connections? Are they being immoral?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 19, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Blagsta - you've never been pregnant. I have, 3 times. I felt utterly different about the foetus I aborted than I did about the one that I miscarried and my one live birth.
> 
> If you don't believe in abortion, fine. Just say so, that's your prerogative.


 
It's possible to support abortion, but still be uncomfortable with late-term abortion.


----------



## Thora (Sep 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Who is interfering in anything? Strawmen ahoy here.


What on earth is your question then?  Would I have an abortion?  Would I have a late term abortion?  Do I think killing a 39 week foetus is a horrible thing?  Or do I think women should legally have that option?


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 19, 2012)

it seems to be impossible to actually have a discussion on here


----------



## trashpony (Sep 19, 2012)

smmudge said:


> I didn't say "just" or "only" a foetus, I said it's a foetus because that's what it is.
> 
> 
> Trying to set any point between conception and birth, where before it to abort is moral and after to abort is immoral, will always be set arbitrarily. Even viability is not clear cut. And emotions can be involved in any stage of the pregnancy - if they become relevant at 39 weeks why not 30, 20, 10? Why is it moral for women to have an abortion at 15 weeks when many other women have deep emotional connections to their foetus at that stage?


Quite. It's really not that simple.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> it seems to be impossible to actually have a discussion on here


I thought we were discussing it


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> What on earth is your question then? Would I have an abortion? Would I have a late term abortion? Do I think killing a 39 week foetus is a horrible thing? Or do I think women should legally have that option?


 
strawmen abound


----------



## toggle (Sep 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Is it not OK to discuss the issues around this without "telling people what to do"?
> 
> I think that people saying "its only a foetus at 39 weeks" are intellectually defending against the emotions involved. I'm not telling anyone what to do.


 
my emotions don't have any bearing on the decision or feelings of any other pregnant woman. therefore i'll leave my emotions towards my own pregnancies out of my decisions/opinions on subjects like this as much as i can.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 19, 2012)

trashpony said:


> I thought we were discussing it


 
No, you're putting words in my mouth.  Stop it please.


----------



## Thora (Sep 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> strawmen abound


Bizarre   I can't follow what you actually want to discuss at all.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 19, 2012)

It is so very far from simple


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> Bizarre  I can't follow what you actually want to discuss at all.


 
Stop putting words in my mouth.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> And I think you're intellectualising.


This is the problem, though. When you're talking about the _law_, you have to intellectualise. Law is an attempt to set out rules through intellectualisation. I find late-term abortion deeply disturbing, tbh, but thankfully it's very rare, and on balance, I'd support a woman's right to have one. The law can't fix the world or stop some bad things from happening, and sometimes it shouldn't even try - I think this is one of those times.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 19, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It's possible to support abortion, but still be uncomfortable with late-term abortion.


I am deeply uncomfortable with it. I don't think I could do it and if I was carrying a foetus who had a condition that was incompatible with life, then I would struggle enormously with what decision to make. But I also feel I don't have the right to dictate to others what they can and cannot do and to me, forcing a woman to give birth to a live baby when she does not want to is obscene.

Abortion rights are being gradually eroded in many countries and I find that utterly terrifying.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> No, you're putting words in my mouth. Stop it please.


 
That wasn't my intention at all.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 19, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is the problem, though. When you're talking about the _law_, you have to intellectualise. Law is an attempt to set out rules through intellectualisation. I find late-term abortion deeply disturbing, tbh, but thankfully it's very rare, and on balance, I'd support a woman's right to have one. The law can't fix the world or stop some bad things from happening, and sometimes it shouldn't even try - I think this is one of those times.


 
I'm not on about the law.  I was making an observation about the language used by some on here and what I believed to be the reasons for that.  Apparently that makes me anti-abortion.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 19, 2012)

trashpony said:


> That wasn't my intention at all.


 
So why did you?


----------



## Thora (Sep 19, 2012)

trashpony said:


> I am deeply uncomfortable with it. I don't think I could do it and if I was carrying a foetus who had a condition that was incompatible with life, then I would struggle enormously with what decision to make. But I also feel I don't have the right to dictate to others what they can and cannot do and to me, forcing a woman to give birth to a live baby when she does not want to is obscene.
> 
> Abortion rights are being gradually eroded in many countries and I find that utterly terrifying.


I'm personally uncomfortable with abortion at any stage to be honest, in that I don't think I could do it myself in anything other than extreme circumstances.  However than doesn't make me want to curtail anyone else's right to do so.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> So why did you?


I didn't think I did and I'm sorry if you think I did. I was just trying to understand your point of view


----------



## Thora (Sep 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> So why did you?


You sound like you are stamping your feet and throwing a tantrum.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 19, 2012)

trashpony said:


> I didn't think I did and I'm sorry if you think I did. I was just trying to understand your point of view


 
No you weren't.

What was this

"If you don't believe in abortion, fine. Just say so, that's your prerogative."

fuck off


----------



## smmudge (Sep 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Stop putting words in my mouth.


 

You were doing that with the "just a foetus" stuff which no one on here has said.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> You sound like you are stamping your feet and throwing a tantrum.


 
I'm a bit annoyed at the bullshit strawman arguments thrown my way, yes, in fact I'm questioning why I came back to urban if this is the standard of debate - dishonest bullshit.


----------



## Thora (Sep 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> I'm a bit annoyed at the bullshit strawman arguments thrown my way, yes, in fact I'm questioning why I came back to urban if this is the standard of debate - dishonest bullshit.


Interesting.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 19, 2012)

smmudge said:


> You were doing that with the "just a foetus" stuff which no one on here has said.


 
Really?

"Before birth it's not a baby, it's a foetus."


bullshit abounds


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 19, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Quite. It's really not that simple.


 
There are people here who would allow a mother to kill the baby for a week or two after it's born. It shouldn't be surprising if there are others who are quite disturbed with the idea of killing it in the week or two before birth would occur.


----------



## toggle (Sep 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Really?
> 
> "Before birth it's not a baby, it's a foetus."
> 
> ...


 
yes, but only from you.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 19, 2012)

trashpony said:


> I am deeply uncomfortable with it. I don't think I could do it and if I was carrying a foetus who had a condition that was incompatible with life, then I would struggle enormously with what decision to make. But I also feel I don't have the right to dictate to others what they can and cannot do and to me, forcing a woman to give birth to a live baby when she does not want to is obscene.
> 
> Abortion rights are being gradually eroded in many countries and I find that utterly terrifying.


 
I agree that the religious right is making a renewed attack on abortion rights in a number of countries, including the US and Canada. It just goes to show that rights that are hard-fought for must be closely and carefully guarded, always. We're also seeing the attack and erosion in the area of speech rights.

I think that if one had a fetus that had a condition incompatible to life, that condition would become evident quite a while before the 38th or 39th week.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 19, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> There are people here who would allow a mother to kill the baby for a week or two after it's born. It shouldn't be surprising if there are others who are quite disturbed with the idea of killing it in the week or two before birth would occur.


Are there people who would allow killing a baby after its been born?

It's a really difficult thing to consider but as a woman I cannot support the notion that it is forbidden to terminate your own pregnancy whenever you wish.


----------



## toggle (Sep 19, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> There are people here who would allow a mother to kill the baby for a week or two after it's born. It shouldn't be surprising if there are others who are quite disturbed with the idea of killing it in the week or two before birth would occur.


 
there are people out there that would kill the 'mother' for a foetus that could never survive. i find that far more disturbing tbh


----------



## love detective (Sep 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Its very complicated. People saying "its only a foetus" seem to me to be looking for a clear cut answer when there isn't one IMO.


 
What people are saying (Thora, myself, others) is that to them it is clear cut in their mind as to whether the rights of the woman over her own body trumps that of the rights of an unborn baby/foetus as dictated to her by others external to her. And that's all it can ever be, just like things like 'human rights' and 'fairness' there's no 'right' answer to things like this, no objective truth that is given to us from outwith our own collective opinions on and experience off it. It's just something that is determined and redetermined over time based on the balance of forces and experiences pulling and tugging it in different directions, which in turn reflect back on and shape our opinions on it

Saying this doesn't mean that people aren't actually 'feeling anything' or have no sympathy, emotional attachment or engagement with the unborn child - it's just saying that as far as order of priorities are concerned, if a choice has to be made between one and the other, then the right of a woman over her own body trumps everything else. From my perspective coming to that point of view is a mixture of politics, intellectualising, moralising and emotionalising (if that's a word) - so i don't think you can say that those who have this opinion are purely intellectualising, there's intellectualising involved on both sides of the argument.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 19, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I agree that the religious right is making a renewed attack on abortion rights in a number of countries, including the US and Canada. It just goes to show that rights that are hard-fought for must be closely and carefully guarded, always. We're also seeing the attack and erosion in the area of speech rights.
> 
> I think that if one had a fetus that had a condition incompatible to life, that condition would become evident quite a while before the 38th or 39th week.


In most cases yes. But some women don't realise they're pregnant until very late in the pregnancy and that's when those late terminations tend to occur. There are about 150 late abortions in the UK every year. Very, very few basically


----------



## smmudge (Sep 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Really?
> 
> "Before birth it's not a baby, it's a foetus."
> 
> ...


 

Yeah? And what did you say I said?


----------



## weltweit (Sep 19, 2012)

I have been following the debate. Thought I would chip in, I am uncomfortable with late term abortions.

There was an anti-abortionist who used to post on here, forget his name, his suggested solution to unwanted babies was immediate adoption.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 19, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Are there people who would allow killing a baby after its been born?
> 
> It's a really difficult thing to consider but as a woman I cannot support the notion that it is forbidden to terminate your own pregnancy whenever you wish.


 
A couple of posters threw out the idea, as part of the whole 'parasite' discussion.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 19, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> A couple of posters threw out the idea, as part of the whole 'parasite' discussion.


I didn't see those thankfully!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 19, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I agree that the religious right is making a renewed attack on abortion rights in a number of countries, including the US and Canada. It just goes to show that rights that are hard-fought for must be closely and carefully guarded, always. .


 
You have to be careful about how you guard them, too. For instance, the argument that the baby/foetus might be viable after x weeks is no good as a way of determining legal limits. Premature babies need intensive care, or they die. What if technology improves and a foetus of 15 weeks, or 10 weeks, or 5 days, can be kept alive?

This was the way the discussion was framed last time it came up in the British parliament, and iirc, it led to the legal limit for 'on demand-style' abortion being brought down to 22 weeks. Normally I don't like slippery slope arguments, but in this case, I think it is a clear case, as those campaigning for a reduction in the limit _actually_ want all abortion made illegal. This is just one step down the slope for them.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 19, 2012)

trashpony said:


> It's a really difficult thing to consider but as a woman I cannot support the notion that it is forbidden to terminate your own pregnancy whenever you wish.


 
I'm a strong supporter of a woman's right to abortion. Whether that right should exist without qualification right up to delivery, I'm still wrestling with.

I look at it in terms of where we are as a caring species. We're at the point where many countries have passed animal cruelty legislation, where people can be fined and jailed. We have become much more concerned for and about the rights of animals to survive, to not be hunted, etc. We work hard to stop seals from being killed, or whales, or owls.

A human fetus in the overwhelming percentage, if left to term, will become a living, viable human being. There are many many cogent reasons why a woman should have an unfettered right  to terminate a pregnancy, especially early on. But as we get later and later in the term, the 'fetus' continues to develop into at least a near-human. A near-human that will become a full human, within weeks.

We have learned to extend charity and sensitivity to the organisms of the world, from whales to frogs: do we not regard our own living precursors with the same sensitivity and charity?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 19, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You have to be careful about how you guard them, too. For instance, the argument that the baby/foetus might be viable after x weeks is no good as a way of determining legal limits. Premature babies need intensive care, or they die. What if technology improves and a foetus of 15 weeks, or 10 weeks, or 5 days, can be kept alive?
> 
> This was the way the discussion was framed last time it came up in the British parliament, and iirc, it led to the legal limit for 'on demand-style' abortion being brought down to 22 weeks. Normally I don't like slippery slope arguments, but in this case, I think it is a clear case, as those campaigning for a reduction in the limit _actually_ want all abortion made illegal. This is just one step down the slope for them.


 
To the extent that abortion must be 'sold' to a voting public, [and the time might be coming when it must once again be 'resold' to voters], early or mid term abortion will be much more palatable than an unfettered right to late term abortion.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 19, 2012)

toggle said:


> there are people out there that would kill the 'mother' for a foetus that could never survive. i find that far more disturbing tbh


 
Disturbing viewpoints on either side remain disturbing.


----------



## equationgirl (Sep 19, 2012)

kenny g said:


> Not sure it is a good enough reason to take a life for though. At the end of the day we all have holes in our faces- mouths.
> 
> I have not posted the full picture in case it upsets but this scan
> 
> ...


In the case in question, it was much much worse than this scan. It was not performed on cosmetic grounds - the vicar bringing the court injunction tried to say it was, having had similar problems herself as a child.


----------



## toggle (Sep 19, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> In the case in question, it was much much worse than this scan. It was not performed on cosmetic grounds - the vicar bringing the court injunction tried to say it was, having had similar problems herself as a child.


 
which begs the question.

if the vicar knew about the planned termination before it happened, who in the fuck told her? if it was the couple, she broke confidentiality to them. or someone else did.


----------



## equationgirl (Sep 19, 2012)

toggle said:


> which begs the question.
> 
> if the vicar knew about the planned termination before it happened, who in the fuck told her? if it was the couple, she broke confidentiality to them. or someone else did.


I have no idea how she found out - the couple have retained their right to anonymity throughout and there are few details available on the case, presumably because the details are so unique the couple in question could be identified from them.

You are quite possibly right though, confidentiality could have been broken.


----------



## shagnasty (Sep 19, 2012)

My son knew my grandson would be born with a cleft palette and an hare lip,he had two operations one at three months to correct his cleft palette one at six months to sort out his lip.This week he started secondary school,he has a bit of trouble with his speech .He is a great kid who will with luck live a long happy life


----------



## purenarcotic (Sep 19, 2012)

Craniofacial difficulties can often be far more than 'cosmetic problems'.

Sometimes it is relevant to consider the quality of life after birth. Medical science can do some wonderful and amazing things, but it can't solve everything.


----------



## toggle (Sep 19, 2012)

shagnasty said:


> My son knew my grandson would be born with a cleft palette and an hare lip,he had two operations one at three months to correct his cleft palette one at six months to sort out his lip.This week he started secondary school,he has a bit of trouble with his speech .He is a great kid who will with luck live a long happy life


from the sounds of it, i don't think the case in question had any real potential of a happy outcome.


----------



## shagnasty (Sep 19, 2012)

toggle said:


> from the sounds of it, i don't think the case in question had any real potential of a happy outcome.


I agree some times it is just to much against the odds for an happy outcome.and letting the pregnancy go to full term is not to the benefit of mother or baby


----------



## RubyBlue (Sep 19, 2012)

I'm pro abortion but from this womans history and refusal to reveal where her baby is buried? I don't believe her but I'm not sure if prison is the answer but judging from her past she sure needs some help mentally.  Something has gone wrong, I would put it down to desperation but from her history and the fact that she knew she was pregnant way earlier - she needs real help.


----------



## panpete (Sep 19, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Same could be said of most prisoners of course.


Punishment is the new help nowadays.


----------



## RubyBlue (Sep 19, 2012)

panpete said:


> Punishment is the new help nowadays.


 
In every form :-(


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Sep 20, 2012)

Thora said:


> Well yes, any abortion after what, 20 weeks? is going to involve delivering the foetus. I don't see the relevance.


A child born at 20 weeks won't survive outside the womb and should be killed before it is delivered; one born at 39 weeks undoubtedly will survive if provided with the care that would be given to any child born a few weeks later.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 20, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Are there people who would allow killing a baby after its been born?
> 
> It's a really difficult thing to consider but as a woman I cannot support the notion that it is forbidden to terminate your own pregnancy whenever you wish.


yes one or two have posted that this is okay.... in fact, it's what is suspected in this case. Sorry, I don't take "abortion" at 39 weeks as just the same as an abortion at a few weeks....


toggle said:


> there are people out there that would kill the 'mother' for a foetus that could never survive. i find that far more disturbing tbh


yes there are, but none on this thread


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 20, 2012)

RubyBlue said:


> I'm pro abortion but from this womans history and refusal to reveal where her baby is buried? I don't believe her but I'm not sure if prison is the answer but judging from her past she sure needs some help mentally. Something
> has gone wrong, I would put it down to desperation but from her history and the fact that she knew she was pregnant way earlier - she needs real help.


 
Thing is I don't think _anyone_ is pro-life on this thread nor is anyone talking about curtailment of existing rights. What was pointed out by me was that we don't have abortion on demand currently, a woman doesn't have those rights from conception until birth, so to say that this woman should have been treated the same as a doctor would have been when a doctor wouldn't have performed an abortion in these circumstances strikes me as confused.

If we _did_ have abortion on demand to a greater degree than we do currently, I can't see that being enacted without consideration of the woman's capacity for making decisions...so this grey area doesn't go away just because women's rights over her body are a matter of principle, there would still be questions about how human the fetus is, how mentally healthy the woman is, all taking place in a society with complex and unequal power relations. The current reality is that if the health of the fetus is endangered due to the actions of the mother (e.g. chronic drug use), then there's intervention from social services/mental health services, again all taking place in an unequal society, and where these services have a contradictory relationship with the client/patient and the state. 

As for you shouldn't bring emotions into it and the stage of pregnancy being arbitary....I think our emotional reaction is based on how close to human the fetus is, that's the reason for the discomfort. I don't think it's helpful to equate thinking of our emotions about this with sentimentality, they're part of how we think, how we assess situations, how we judge what we consider moral. If we say we need to think about our emotions in these situations, it's saying we need to think about how they may guide us, or misguide us. 

Anyway, I wasn't going to post again because it was doing my head in, but I'm not really happy about the idea that anyone who expresses upset at the thought of aborting a healthy 39 week old fetus is anti-abortion.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 20, 2012)

not anti abortion so much as anti woman's rights.  without accusation 

the law should be that it's a woman's right to chose as they have to give birth to the child and it's her right to chose until the birth (no one would argue that once labours started termination was an option).

the fact that we force women after a time period to in effect give birth is anti women's rights.

I accept that there are questions, elements, associated rights issues regarding the unborn child but these traditionally and within a patriarchal society have always due to lines of succession come and been placed before the rights of the woman having the child...

nothing must prevent the continuation of the linage not even a woman who has no interest in being or no wish in being a mother.  

This established hierarchy ultimately needs to be removed and all women need to not be stigmatised for not wanting children or wishing to control their own bodies and pregnancies.

Whatever the reasons within this case and we can all agree she needs some serious help and counselling in regards to her experience, her subsequent trial and also her relationship between sex and her personal associations to it.   

we can also see at work within this judgement the patriarchal doubles standards which still exists in society, no man has ever been locked up for disowning or denying their child prior to birth because it didn't fit in with their life choices...


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 20, 2012)

Denying the existence of a child ain't the same as killing it (possibly post birth) and burying it without telling anyone where it is.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 20, 2012)

> the fact that we force women after a time period to in effect give birth is anti women's rights.


Well clearly it can only affect women, so it's only 'anti-' women's rights and not men's, but I'm not sure I go along with the idea that any of us are _necessarily_ entitled to entirely free reign when it comes to our bodies. That's an extreme individualism - and I'm not sure I would go so far as to set it up as a moral absolute. Take the case of conjoined twins, for instance - where is the absolute right to sovereignty over your own body there? Life's messier than that, imho.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 20, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Denying the existence of a child ain't the same as killing it (possibly post birth) and burying it without telling anyone where it is.


it's not denial so much as rights of precedence.


but yes the whole burial aspect of it and the refusal to say where the body is strikes me as she's given the child up for adoption and won't say to who, rather than anything else... sold it maybe?  

that's the bit I really don't get, either digging up the body would reveal that the child had in fact died from horrific injuries sustained by a brutal killing, the child had been born as a still birth, as a direct or indirect consequence of the drugs, or that the child had been born and wasn't dead.  

I can't see why when being aware of the fact she was likely to be facing murder or similar charges for the death of the child she wouldn't then reveal where the body was, unless she couldn't...


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 20, 2012)

God it didn't even occur to me that she might have sold the baby!That's interesting (probably didn't happen but..)


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 20, 2012)

smmudge said:


> Before birth it's not a baby, it's a foetus. If the mother decides it's a potential baby then that's up to her and her alone to decide.


Not at 39 weeks.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 20, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> God it didn't even occur to me that she might have sold the baby!That's interesting (probably didn't happen but..)


I mean I'm using cold hard logical and these things rarely are but it's the only reasonable explanation for why you wouldn't say where it was (and for why nobody has ever been found I mean I'm assuming here they've dug up the patio garden basement etc and traced her whereabouts during that period you know all the usual police type things...).

But the only reason you'd not say is if the baby wasn't dead but alive and you wanted to make sure that it was never traced back to you...

or that the baby was neither of her known partners (lover or husband) but a third and was so distinguishable as to reveal further infidelity however as this has all come out in the trial anyway's... you'd think that wouldn't really be cause to hide it... (white husband, black lover, Chinese baby for example)...

so again I'm assuming sold...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 20, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Not at 39 weeks.


until labour I'd say... I get that it's possible that the baby can survive at this point without  the mother, but whilst its inside her body then it can't if you get what I mean, without it being removed from her body somehow...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 20, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> (no one would argue that once labours started termination was an option).
> 
> .


 
Why not? The fetus is still inside her body. Maybe she changes her mind about wanting to go through labor, and doesn't want to be operated on via C section.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 20, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Why not? The fetus is still inside her body. Maybe she changes her mind about wanting to go through labor, and doesn't want to be operated on via C section.


because at that point biologically speaking it's coming out regardless of personal wishes, the body has made the decision, even if the mind has not...

as I said no one sane would suggest it.... and then look who did.... well done...


----------



## Thora (Sep 20, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Why not? The fetus is still inside her body. Maybe she changes her mind about wanting to go through labor, and doesn't want to be operated on via C section.


What do you think the alternative to vaginal birth or c-section is


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 20, 2012)

Thora said:


> What do you think the alternative to vaginal birth or c-section is


barbecue  mmmm ribs...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 20, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> because at that point biologically speaking it's coming out regardless of personal wishes, the body has made the decision, even if the mind has not...
> 
> as I said no one sane would suggest it.... and then look who did.... well done...


 
The vast majority of pregnancies will result in a live healthy birth: that's the biology of it.

We're discussing the politics of it.

Any restriction on a woman's right to deal with a fetus while it's in her body is a restriction on her rights over her own body. Taking those rights away at twenty weeks, or when labor begins, is just a disagreement over timing.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 20, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The vast majority of pregnancies will result in a live healthy birth: that's the biology of it.
> 
> We're discussing the politics of it.
> 
> Any restriction on a woman's right to deal with a fetus while it's in her body is a restriction on her rights over her own body. Taking those rights away at twenty weeks, or when labor begins, is just a disagreement over timing.


no it really isn't.... 

and it doesn't for a second surprise me that you would think it is...

the foetus at the point of labour is no longer inside the body per-say but the body is rejecting it the separation process has begun... you'd no longer call to use a crude analogy a turd part of your food system when you're on the toilet although arguably part of that movement may still be inside you... 

can you maybe rather than going on your usual pro-life moronicy try and discuss the thread topic rather than you're stupid dogmatic republican anti women drum??


----------



## Louloubelle (Sep 20, 2012)

This case seems very complex to me and I get the impression that there is a lot that we do not know about.

It is not unusual for some women to present for multiple TOPs and sometimes for very late TOPs as a way of acting out internal trauma / dysfunction in a dramatic way.  Sometimes it is a cry for help, sometimes a communication of unbearable feelings and unthinkable thoughts.

For anyone interested in reading more about this there is an excellet book titled "A Woman's Unconscious Use of her Body" by Dinora Pines that explores these issues in great depth.


----------



## Thora (Sep 20, 2012)

Of course the foetus is still in your body during labour - you know labours can last for several days, right?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 20, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> the foetus at the point of labour is no longer inside the body per-say


 
Then where is it?

If I have my coat on, my hand on the doorknob ready to leave the house, where am I: inside the house, or outside?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 20, 2012)

Thora said:


> Of course the foetus is still in your body during labour - you know labours can last for several days, right?


hercules' labours lasted bloody years.


----------



## Louloubelle (Sep 20, 2012)

Also a doctor friend of mine was asked to help with a late TOP although many years ago, the event helped her to decide that, while committed to being pro choice, that she did not want to work in the surgery side of things.  Apparently the baby or "product of conception" as it is euphemistically known was supposed to be born dead, but was still alive.  My friend's job was to inject it with salt, which she did.  She feels bad about it to this day.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 20, 2012)

Thora said:


> Of course the foetus is still in your body during labour - you know labours can last for several days, right?


you know what I mean, labour once started can't really be stopped short of a bullet to the head... at which time it's rather impractical as well as too late (not to mention potentially dangerous to the mother) to attempt to abort the imminently to be born child... at that point live or dead she'd still have to give birth and go through process c section or otherwise to get it out of her... so yes labour is as a convenient cut off point as any as it no longer becomes an option to do anything else (tbf termination at 36 weeks would still require birth to get it out or c section)...


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 20, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> until labour I'd say... I get that it's possible that the baby can survive at this point without the mother, but whilst its inside her body then it can't if you get what I mean, without it being removed from her body somehow...


What's the _point_ of an abortion at 39 weeks (of a healthy baby as well)? Either way the mother has to go thru either labour or a c section. Why decide to remove the life of the baby at that point. Btw it looks more likely she killed the child after birth otherwise why refuse to disclose where the body is.
The idea she maybe sold the baby is probably fantasy but one that's preferable to what most likely happened.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 20, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> hercules' labours lasted bloody years.


the last labour we all had lasted 12 years and resulted in not one but two shits being born as well as a series of afterbirths who should have been abort tbf...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 20, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> What's the _point_ of an abortion at 39 weeks (of a healthy baby as well)? Either way the mother has to go thru either labour or a c section. Why decide to remove the life of the baby at that point. Btw it looks more likely she killed the child after birth otherwise why refuse to disclose where the body is.
> The idea she maybe sold the baby is probably fantasy but one that's preferable to what most likely happened.


but if you're already being done for the death and killing of the child by self administered labour then you'd still be done for the death of the child for killing it post birth... the legal consiquences would be the same and saying well it's here and I panaics because I thought it was supposed to be dead but after I took these drugs it made some funny noises and I thought I'd caused it agony or whatever excuse would show remorse and mitigation within her case.  The only reason to not say is because that verison of events never happened at all... 

which means either the babies alive and been sold or brutally murdered in some other fashion... 

Clearly the still birth is looking less and less likely although I guess might be the truth but again not saying where it is is for me the issue not when she terminated or why or what reasons.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 20, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> you know what I mean, labour once started can't really be stopped short of a bullet to the head... at which time it's rather impractical as well as too late (not to mention potentially dangerous to the mother) to attempt to abort the imminently to be born child... at that point live or dead she'd still have to give birth and go through process c section or otherwise to get it out of her... so yes labour is as a convenient cut off point as any as it no longer becomes an option to do anything else (tbf termination at 36 weeks would still require birth to get it out or c section)...


 
The fetus is either inside or out.

You might see this as some sort of anti-woman diatribe, but arguments for when abortion should or should not be available, often bring up various gestational landmarks, which is how we end up with cutoffs like 20 weeks etc.

You're positing a different landmark, but it is still a fettering on the woman's right to choose.


----------



## Thora (Sep 20, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> you know what I mean, labour once started can't really be stopped short of a bullet to the head... at which time it's rather impractical as well as too late (not to mention potentially dangerous to the mother) to attempt to abort the imminently to be born child... at that point live or dead she'd still have to give birth and go through process c section or otherwise to get it out of her... so yes labour is as a convenient cut off point as any as it no longer becomes an option to do anything else (tbf termination at 36 weeks would still require birth to get it out or c section)...


I disagree - the start of labour is difficult to pin down to a specific moment anyway, they can stop and start and go on for days.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 20, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The fetus is either inside or out.
> 
> You might see this as some sort of anti-woman diatribe, but arguments for when abortion should or should not be available, often bring up various gestational landmarks, which is how we end up with cutoffs like 20 weeks etc.
> 
> You're positing a different landmark, but it is still a fettering on the woman's right to choose.


she actually can't chose not to go into labour... idiot...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 20, 2012)

Thora said:


> I disagree - the start of labour is difficult to pin down to a specific moment anyway, they can stop and start and go on for days.


but once started you can't stop it in terms of it's a biological imperative at this point birth will follow one way or the other....


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 20, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> she actually can't chose not to go into labour... idiot...


if you're pregnant and you go to term then you really don't have a great deal of choice i would have thought.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 20, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> she actually can't chose not to go into labour... idiot...


 
The fetus could still be killed in utero, though.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 20, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> if you're pregnant and you go to term then you really don't have a great deal of choice i would have thought.


thus no longer violated any right to chose as the decision isn't being made by a third party independently of you but by your own body because of biological imperative.... 

next week we're going to teach jc2 the alphabet and then afterwards how to shit on the big toilet.... jesus...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 20, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> but once started you can't stop it in terms of it's a biological imperative at this point birth will follow one way or the other....


 
Once conception occurs, barring termination, a healthy live birth will occur in most cases. It's a biological imperative.

This isn't about biology.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 20, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The fetus could still be killed in utero, though.


sorry can you point to where this is the relevant or salient point to your original comment violates a womans right to choose... no well then STFU you prolife twat...


----------



## Firky (Sep 20, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> the foetus at the point of labour is no longer inside the body


 
Incorrect. 



GarfieldLeChat said:


> you know what I mean, labour once started can't really be stopped short of a bullet to the head...


 
Incorrect.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 20, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Once conception occurs, barring termination, a healthy live birth will occur in most cases. It's a biological imperative.
> 
> This isn't about biology.


so you claim, in the western world...


----------



## Firky (Sep 20, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> God it didn't even occur to me that she might have sold the baby!That's interesting (probably didn't happen but..)


 
It's the first thing that my mum suspected so I was wondering if she thought of selling me 

It's good point though. Sold to the circus.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 20, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> sorry can you point to where this is the relevant or salient point to your original comment violates a womans right to choose... no well then STFU you prolife twat...


 
You said, once labor started, it's a 'biological imperative' or some such, that there's no other option.

Yes there is. Kill the fetus in utero, is another option.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 20, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> thus no longer violated any right to chose as the decision isn't being made by a third party independently of you but by your own body because of biological imperative....
> 
> next week we're going to teach jc2 the alphabet and then afterwards how to shit on the big toilet.... jesus...


when will you get taught remedial courtesy?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 20, 2012)

firky said:


> It's the first thing that my mum suspected so I was wondering if she thought of selling me
> 
> It's good point though. Sold to the circus.


who the fuck would have bought you... they'd have been back in days demanding a refund and compensation...


----------



## Firky (Sep 20, 2012)

Swapped me for a jack russel.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 20, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> You said, once labor started, it's a 'biological imperative' or some such, that there's no other option.
> 
> Yes there is. Kill the fetus in utero, is another option.


how do you then get it out JC2?

or do you just leave it there????

you've had kids right, been at their birth know where they come from...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 20, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> when will you get taught remedial courtesy?


oh I have it, but not for most on here, particularly not for that poster... in the same way you don't... glass houses etc...


----------



## Athos (Sep 20, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> but if you're already being done for the death and killing of the child by self administered labour then you'd still be done for the death of the child for killing it post birth... the legal consiquences would be the same and saying well it's here and I panaics because I thought it was supposed to be dead but after I took these drugs it made some funny noises and I thought I'd caused it agony or whatever excuse would show remorse and mitigation within her case.  The only reason to not say is because that verison of events never happened at all...



Completely wrong. Killing the newborn could result in a conviction for murder; that would mean a mandatory life sentence. Why comment on things about which you know very little? It detracts from any sensible arguments you do make.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 20, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> how do you then get it out JC2?
> 
> or do you just leave it there????
> 
> you've had kids right, been at their birth know where they come from...


 
My kids?

Well, they were inside my wife's body, and then...... they ended up out of it.

The process whereby that happened? It starts with something called cervical dilation and effacement; and ends up with a crying baby, covered in blood and fluids and all that, and a nurse suctioning out its nasal passages.

Took different amounts of time for each one, everywhere from about 6 hours, to three days.

The last one, we barely got to the hospital before, pop!


----------



## Athos (Sep 20, 2012)

Garf, your position appears inconsistent.

On the one hand, you seem to suggest that until a baby is born a woman should have the right to abort, based upon the primacy of her right to bodily integrity over any right to life of a foetus (if such a right exists). This is an entirely logical contention.

Yet, on the other hand, you claim that, once labour has started (in itself a concept fraught with uncertainty) a woman ought to no longer have the right to say what happens to her own body i.e. you seem to suggest that it would be too late to abort.

But you haven't set out the basis for that contention. The idea that, the fact that by that stage a delivery is inevitable (whether it be a live baby or a dead foetus), should be the determinative factor is unconvincing. Why shouldn't a woman be able to choose to use her body to push out a dead foetus rather than a live baby? What is special about that point in time that means she ought not to have that choice?

As soon as you give ground on your absolutist position, it becomes an issue of timing. And when you have a sliding scale on a moral question you're going to get differing opinions. But you should have the honesty to accept that that is the basis of your position.


----------



## smmudge (Sep 20, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Not at 39 weeks.


 
A full-term foetus is still a foetus.


----------



## Thora (Sep 20, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> how do you then get it out JC2?
> 
> or do you just leave it there????
> 
> you've had kids right, been at their birth know where they come from...


You seem confused about labour and birth.  if you terminate a pregnancy at any stage the foetus still has to come out.  There's no moral or biological reason to say you can stop its heart just before labour starts but not after but before birth.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 20, 2012)

Thora said:


> You seem confused about labour and birth. if you terminate a pregnancy at any stage the foetus still has to come out. There's no moral or biological reason to say you can stop its heart just before labour starts but not after but before birth.


 
But if you induce labour with the intention of killing whatever comes out, then that's not birth and infanticide but is then late abortion.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 20, 2012)

Thora said:


> You seem confused about labour and birth. if you terminate a pregnancy at any stage the foetus still has to come out. There's no moral or biological reason to say you can stop its heart just before labour starts but not after but before birth.


labour is the bodies way of giving birth is it not... at that point the woman at least on a biological level has decided or rather her bodies deciding for her to have the child in terms of giving birth to it.  post birth then the child if unwanted needs to be adopted not killed.  so at the point of labour as is sensible the the woman gets to chose after which point she's chosen either biologically as her physical bodies made the choice or logicically because she wants the child. 

hence upto the point of labour...  

clear enough although it's fucking quite obvious when you think about it for 2 seconds...


----------



## Athos (Sep 20, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> labour is the bodies way of giving birth is it not... at that point the woman at least on a biological level has decided or rather her bodies deciding for her to have the child in terms of giving birth to it. post birth then the child if unwanted needs to be adopted not killed. so at the point of labour as is sensible the the woman gets to chose after which point she's chosen either biologically as her physical bodies made the choice or logicically because she wants the child.
> 
> hence upto the point of labour...
> 
> clear enough although it's fucking quite obvious when you think about it for 2 seconds...


 Even if we accept the idea that her body has chosen to give birth, what is the basis on which you would deprive her of the choice of whether her body expels baby or a dead foetus?  Isn't it an infringement of her rights to choose what happens to her body?

By saying that the right to destroy the foetus ceases when labour begins, you are acknowledging that there is a point at which a woman's right to choose what goes on inside her body comes second to some other consideration. It's hard to see what that other consideration could be other than the right of the foetus to life. When you've accepted that there is a point where the foetus' right to life trumps the woman's right to her body then the question of where you draw the line is only one of timing. In which regard, your position and JC3's aren't that dissimilar.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 20, 2012)

I thought sometimes an oxytocin release by the foetus starts labour off.


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 20, 2012)

Louloubelle said:


> This case seems very complex to me and I get the impression that there is a lot that we do not know about.
> 
> It is not unusual for some women to present for multiple TOPs and sometimes for very late TOPs as a way of acting out internal trauma / dysfunction in a dramatic way. Sometimes it is a cry for help, sometimes a communication of unbearable feelings and unthinkable thoughts.
> 
> For anyone interested in reading more about this there is an excellet book titled "A Woman's Unconscious Use of her Body" by Dinora Pines that explores these issues in great depth.


 
I'm aware of that book...I think I've read some of it re. eating disorders? Thanks for that.


----------



## Thora (Sep 20, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> labour is the bodies way of giving birth is it not... at that point the woman at least on a biological level has decided or rather her bodies deciding for her to have the child in terms of giving birth to it. post birth then the child if unwanted needs to be adopted not killed. so at the point of labour as is sensible the the woman gets to chose after which point she's chosen either biologically as her physical bodies made the choice or logicically because she wants the child.
> 
> hence upto the point of labour...
> 
> clear enough although it's fucking quite obvious when you think about it for 2 seconds...


Not clear or obvious.  What are you counting as "the start of labour"?  Contractions, dilation, waters breaking, a show?  What if someone goes into labour at 30 weeks, then it starts and doesn't start again for a week - could they terminate in the mean time?  What about when labour stalls or is delayed with drugs?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 20, 2012)

Thora said:


> Not clear or obvious. What are you counting as "the start of labour"? Contractions, dilation, waters breaking, a show? What if someone goes into labour at 30 weeks, then it starts and doesn't start again for a week - could they terminate in the mean time? What about when labour stalls or is delayed with drugs?


 
So you're saying it's worth than birth as a marker.

How about 6 months and 1 day after first seeing a doctor?
It's just as arbitrary but you'll have something written down to compare it against.


----------



## Thora (Sep 20, 2012)

8ball said:


> So you're saying it's worth than birth as a marker.
> 
> How about 6 months and 1 day after first seeing a doctor?
> It's just as arbitrary but you'll have something written down to compare it against.


How about birth seeing as it is a really clear change in situation from foetus inside you to baby outside you.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 20, 2012)

Thora said:


> How about birth seeing as it is a really clear change in situation from foetus inside you to baby outside you.


I think birth is the sensible place to put it, legally. But I also think it's right to acknowledge that the law often isn't very good at capturing the real complexity of a situation. Just as on another thread, I'm arguing that nothing magic happens on your 16th birthday to make you capable of consent, nothing magic happens to the baby/foetus at birth really, except that it has to start breathing. And late-term abortions do bring complexity to the situation, a complexity which imo means that it really should only be considered in special circumstances, even if that violates a woman's absolute right to sovereignty over her own body (I dislike the idea of absolute rights generally, for that reason, because I don't think life lends itself well to them).


----------



## 8ball (Sep 20, 2012)

Thora said:


> How about birth seeing as it is a really clear change in situation from foetus inside you to baby outside you.


 
Yeah, that'll do for me.  The whole thing makes me uncomfortable, though.  There's a thing going on on another thread about age and informed consent which involves drawing a similarly sharp line between consensual sex and rape, even when both parties claim to be consenting.

I'm always a bit suspicious about lines drawn in the sand where one extreme suddenly becomes another.


----------



## Athos (Sep 20, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:
			
		

> I think birth is the sensible place to put it, legally. But I also think it's right to acknowledge that the law often isn't very good at capturing the real complexity of a situation. Just as on another thread, I'm arguing that nothing magic happens on your 16th birthday to make you capable of consent, nothing magic happens to the baby/foetus at birth really, except that it has to start breathing. And late-term abortions do bring complexity to the situation, a complexity which imo means that it really should only be considered in special circumstances, even if that violates a woman's absolute right to sovereignty over her own body (I dislike the idea of absolute rights generally, for that reason, because I don't think life lends itself well to them).



The comparison between turning 16 and being born does not bear scrutiny.

Leaving aside the legal implications of both transitions, there is a big qualitative difference between being unborn and being born (i.e. in the former your existence is potentially an infringement of another's right to sovereignty over her own body, in the later there is no such infringement); there isn't such a qualitative difference between being a day under 16 and being 16.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 20, 2012)

Athos said:


> The comparison between turning 16 and being born does not bear scrutiny.


 
There are a lot of differences, but there's still a huge amount of moral weight placed on a particular event.  I suspect for reasons of cultural convenience more than anything else.


----------



## Athos (Sep 20, 2012)

8ball said:
			
		

> There are a lot of differences, but there's still a huge amount of moral weight placed on a particular event.  I suspect for reasons of cultural convenience more than anything else.



I think the age of consent is arbitrary, but has been selected for pragmatic purposes i.e. the value of certainty in the law. However, the difference between being unborn and born isn't simply arbitrary - they are qualitatively different states.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 20, 2012)

Athos said:


> I think the age of consent is arbitrary, but has been selected for pragmatic purposes i.e. the value of certainty in the law. However, the difference between being unborn and born isn't simply arbitrary - they are qualitatively different states.


 
I agree with the first point - with the second I agree that they are different states too, but that the state of the foetus/baby isn't that different in the two 'states' and there is a huge overlap in development between 'baby/foetuses' in the womb and those outside it in terms of what can really be regarded to be a 'person'.  So I think the second watershed is really a matter of convenience too.

It makes me think of how we can look at the US constitution and their ideas of all men (not even 'people') being born equal and see all the holes when they still had slavery.  I think at some point in the future these simple cut-offs that we dance around and try to ignore will be the examples future generations point to when discussing how wrong we were about a lot of things.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 20, 2012)

8ball said:


> I think at some point in the future these simple cut-offs that we dance around and try to ignore will be the examples future generations point to when discussing how wrong we were about a lot of things.


Maybe. I think grey areas are something the law isn't well equipped to deal with. Perhaps future generations will find ways of dealing with it that we haven't thought of yet. They probably will. But it's necessarily hard for us to think how.

(Plenty of people pointed out the hypocrisy of the US constitution at the time, or soon after, btw. HD Thoreau for one.)


----------



## 8ball (Sep 20, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Maybe. I think grey areas are something the law isn't well equipped to deal with. Perhaps future generations will find ways of dealing with it that we haven't thought of yet. They probably will. But it's necessarily hard for us to think how.


 
I always think these things and the way we currently organise our economies will be among the main things that make kids in a hundred years consider us impossibly primitive.

edit: at least I hope so


----------



## Athos (Sep 20, 2012)

8ball said:
			
		

> I agree with the first point - with the second I agree that they are different states too, but that the state of the foetus/baby isn't that different in the two 'states' and there is a huge overlap in development between 'baby/foetuses' in the womb and those outside it in terms of what can really be regarded to be a 'person'.  So I think the second watershed is really a matter of convenience too



That depends on how you frame the debate. You appear to focus on foetal development (a continuum), whereas I am talking about the moment at which a foetus'/baby's existence ceases to interfere with the rights of another i.e. birth (a binary distinction).

To my mind, my approach makes more sense because this is less a question of when a foetus is granted a right to life, but of when a foetus' right to life trumps a woman's right to her own body. After all, if the foetus existed independently of the woman then nobody would have any cause to deny that it has a right to life per se.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 20, 2012)

Athos said:


> That depends on how you frame the debate. You appear to focus on foetal development (a continuum), whereas I am talking about the moment at which a foetus'/baby's existence ceases to interfere with the rights of another i.e. birth (a binary distinction).
> 
> To my mind, my approach makes more sense because this is less a question of when a foetus is granted a right to life, but of when a foetus' right to life trumps a woman's right to her own body. After all, if the foetus existed independently of the woman then nobody would have any cause to deny that it has a right to life per se.


 
I'm familiar with the argument and I broadly agree with it.


----------



## Athos (Sep 21, 2012)

Athos said:
			
		

> That depends on how you frame the debate. You appear to focus on foetal development (a continuum), whereas I am talking about the moment at which a foetus'/baby's existence ceases to interfere with the rights of another i.e. birth (a binary distinction).
> 
> To my mind, my approach makes more sense because this is less a question of when a foetus is granted a right to life, but of when a foetus' right to life trumps a woman's right to her own body. After all, if the foetus existed independently of the woman then nobody would have any cause to deny that it has a right to life per se.



I should have been clearer. By "makes more sense" I meant that (unlike Garf's position) it has a consistent logic, and it results in an unambiguous legal position. That's not to say there is no place for a debate about a 'timescales' approach. 

However, I think that before you can assess the point at which a foetus' right to life should trump a woman's rights, you need to establish the nature and extent of any such right to life. And, at that first stage, that needs to ne done without reference to the competing right.

So, what is the right to life? Is it binary, or can it exist on a sliding scale? To what entities does it attach (or should it attach). What are the conditions which trigger it? Should it be in similar terms as the debate around the point of death i.e. it's not considered killing to torn off a life support machine when there is no brain activity; does that mean life doesn't exist before brain activity?


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 21, 2012)

smmudge said:


> A full-term foetus is still a foetus.


Maybe so, the law disagrees that it's okay to kill it then. (Especially if you bury the body and refuse to say where it is).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 21, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Speculation. Left in a shop doorway or summat.....


 
Of course it's speculation. We don't *know*, do we?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 21, 2012)

weltweit said:


> I have been following the debate. Thought I would chip in, I am uncomfortable with late term abortions.
> 
> There was an anti-abortionist who used to post on here, forget his name, his suggested solution to unwanted babies was immediate adoption.


 
That's a standard pro-life trope.
It also tends to avoid the fact that a mother can experience considerable and diverse emotional trauma if compelled to give birth when she doesn't wish to.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 21, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> bullshit abounds


 
Maybe so, but The Dude abides.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 21, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's a standard pro-life trope.
> It also tends to avoid the fact that a mother can experience considerable and diverse emotional trauma if compelled to give birth when she doesn't wish to.


Yes, I am sure that is true, but it is also the case I think that abortion (at any time) can also be traumatic.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 21, 2012)

Thora said:


> Not clear or obvious. What are you counting as "the start of labour"? Contractions, dilation, waters breaking, a show? What if someone goes into labour at 30 weeks, then it starts and doesn't start again for a week - could they terminate in the mean time? What about when labour stalls or is delayed with drugs?


yes a show... full on dancing girls tutus and sparklers anything less is child abuse...

back on topic why didn't she hasn't she said where the body is...


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 21, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's a standard pro-life trope.
> It also tends to avoid the fact that a mother can experience considerable and diverse emotional trauma if compelled to give birth when she doesn't wish to.


But at 39 weeks dead or alive, the mother has to give birth/ deliver the baby.
To be honest, there's a case of an otherwise good dad getting a  bit pissed and in the heat of the moment killing his baby. He got 13 years for something maybe a better lawyer could have framed as manslaughter. I can post a link but it doesn't tell the full version of it as the paper version does.
Her 8 years for something that is more than likely at least, infanticide as well as hiding the body seems light in comparison.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 21, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> yes a show... full on dancing girls tutus and sparklers anything less is child abuse...
> 
> back on topic why didn't she hasn't she said where the body is...


 
Do you know what show is?

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1196615/how-long-did-you-have-bloody-show-red-before-labor


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 21, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Do you know what show is?
> 
> http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1196615/how-long-did-you-have-bloody-show-red-before-labor


do you now what sarcasm is... how about play on words...


----------



## Thora (Sep 21, 2012)

So when are you counting labour as starting then?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 21, 2012)

Thora said:


> So when are you counting labour as starting then?


1997... side issue... not on topic... the debate isn't about abortion or the merits or timings of it the debate was until some people high jacked it about this particular case.  I don't have suitable medical qualifications to place a definitive time on it if even some of the most educated in the field don't agree however i was speaking in generalised terms.  can we please now stop trying to derail this and return to the topic... ffs.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 21, 2012)

> A judge who criticised UK abortion policies while sentencing a woman to eight years in prison for performing her own abortion at a late stage in her pregnancy is one of at least five members of the judiciary with links to a Christian charity which has campaigned for more conservative abortion laws.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/sep/21/judge-jailed-abortion-woman-christian


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 21, 2012)

trashpony said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/sep/21/judge-jailed-abortion-woman-christian


 
And you can bet he'll defend himself by saying that with his special wig and robe powers, he can hold that view privately while not letting it affect his judgement.

Chinny fucking reckon, wiggy!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 21, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> do you now what sarcasm is... how about play on words...


 
No worries: if you haven't been through it, there's no reason to know what show is.


----------



## toggle (Sep 22, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> And you can bet he'll defend himself by saying that with his special wig and robe powers, he can hold that view privately while not letting it affect his judgement.
> 
> Chinny fucking reckon, wiggy!


 
any grounds for appeal in this?


----------



## silverfish (Sep 22, 2012)

silverfish said:


> Its a fucking mess but I've more sympathy than anything else
> 
> *What are the odds the Judge has some form of religion in his life*.
> 
> 8 years? Really?


 
well blow me down
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...abortion-case-is-part-of-religious-group.html


----------



## trashpony (Sep 22, 2012)

silverfish said:


> well blow me down
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...abortion-case-is-part-of-religious-group.html


Ahem
Post #443


----------



## silverfish (Sep 22, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Ahem
> Post #443


 
Must read thread fully before posting
Must read thread fully before posting
Must read thread fully before posting


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 22, 2012)

toggle said:


> any grounds for appeal in this?


 
I doubt it, hence me mentioning that he'll just give his colleagues a reassurance that his personal convictions had no effect on his judgement.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 23, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> No worries: if you haven't been through it, there's no reason to know what show is.


No you're right I've never given birth, I doubt very much that you have either...


----------



## Louloubelle (Sep 24, 2012)

Red Cat said:


> I'm aware of that book...I think I've read some of it re. eating disorders? Thanks for that.


 
I can't remember anything about eating disorders but that could simply be a flaw of my memory.  Pines was originally a dermatologist and she waqs especially interested in psychosomatic disorders manifesting in skin disorders.  She also worked extensively with Holocaust survivors and the children and grandchildren of survivors and was very interested in the manifestations of multi-generational trauma.

I think I have at least 2 copies of this book somewhere - I liked it so much that I made sure I had a copy to lend out as well as one to read.  You are welcome to borrow a copy if you wish, providing I can find it from amongst my thousands of books


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 25, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I doubt it, hence me mentioning that he'll just give his colleagues a reassurance that his personal convictions had no effect on his judgement.


the only way that is credible is if he publicly and committed renounces them for ever more.  

frankly it's barbaric in the 21st century that people with any beliefs of a supernatural being are allowed in any high office with life and death decisions over people.  it should be far more like France and enforce state wide secularism within public office... (of course without the obvious and sexist/racist issues of banning head scarves and other stupidity; simply removing the religious from public office)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> the only way that is credible is if he publicly and committed renounces them for ever more.
> 
> frankly it's barbaric in the 21st century that people with any beliefs of a supernatural being are allowed in any high office with life and death decisions over people. it should be far more like France and enforce state wide secularism within public office... (of course without the obvious and sexist/racist issues of banning head scarves and other stupidity; simply removing the religious from public office)


 
I agree, but that isn't how the Establishment works, is it? They affect to believe each others' mumblings about impartiality, and continue to be hypocritical fuckwads.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 25, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I agree, but that isn't how the Establishment works, is it? They affect to believe each others' mumblings about impartiality, and continue to be hypocritical fuckwads.


Old world new world though...

the current generation I think are less inclined to be this way though we're still looking at another 40 + years before they have anywhere near the power... corporations have become the new aristos meaning the old order is less tiered than it has ever been, sadly a true class less society based on the old ideals means an new class base society but one imbued with corporate rather than land owning sensibilities...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> Old world new world though...
> 
> the current generation I think are less inclined to be this way though we're still looking at another 40 + years before they have anywhere near the power... corporations have become the new aristos meaning the old order is less tiered than it has ever been, sadly a true class less society based on the old ideals means an new class base society but one imbued with corporate rather than land owning sensibilities...


 
TBF, that particular evolution (or, more properly, fucked-up mutation) has been going on since the industrial revolution, but yeah, it's more pernicious now.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 25, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> TBF, that particular evolution (or, more properly, fucked-up mutation) has been going on since the industrial revolution, but yeah, it's more pernicious now.


transmogrification I believe  the institutions remain the same largely the players change...

but in doing so they weaken as without the inherited idea of value or worth it means they are more susceptible to bankruptcy... as we're now seeing... it only take one mad uncle to squander away millions but when several mad uncles compete at the top of the food chain to be the most profligate as it were... well then you see real change... (and sadly economic disaster for the rest of us... but equally entropy in terms of them taking each other out...).

It forces a far more neo-tenic look at the way we legislate societally, and because there's a new broom every 10 years rather than a dynasty lasting for generations it means descsions and those actions which prove more in favour or fashion will surface more readily but also those without favour fall much faster...  (look at say establishments attitudes to homosexuality for example compared to even the early 90's, or women clergy etc)...

Big better more more faster faster faster...


----------

