Abortion at 34 weeks case...

[CEB]

Don’t disagree with that at all - yep, I was focusing on external and psychological factors, I overlooked that one

[tuffers#1]

Maybe you were reading about horses & horse racing that day !

[CEB]

phew, for a second there you were in danger of coherent communication

[tuffers#1]

I'm always available for Coherent Communication ,
But more often than not I like to remind others there discussions are not always perfect, no matter how much they have read or persons they may have conversed with.

If it was marked by performance ratings youd Be
Beckles 6.5 - WorkMan like but always got a card or mistake in him .

[CEB]

Phew, it’s lucky you checked your post for mistakes before posting, otherwise you’d look a little silly right now.

[tuffers#1]

I only edited the line break in the post

Now edited to add a

[CEB]

Back on topic, the guardian view on this is pretty thorough.

Would be interested to hear any considered takes as to why this take is wrong, rather than just “it feels like there needs to be a limit”

The case of a mother prosecuted for inducing her own abortion after the legal limit is tragic. Her imprisonment is unconscionable. The judge accepted that she was in “emotional turmoil” when she ended her pregnancy at between 32 and 34 weeks: with lockdown imposed, she had moved back in with her estranged partner while carrying another man’s child and was seeking to hide the pregnancy. She has since experienced guilt and depression, and is plagued by nightmares and “flashbacks to seeing [her] dead child’s face”. Her three children, one of whom has special needs and is thus especially reliant upon her, will be denied her for the next 14 months.

Many have asked good questions about the decisions of prosecutors to pursue the case in these circumstances, and of the judge to impose a prison sentence. Nonetheless, as the judge identified, ultimately the issue is the law itself.


At the heart of this outrage lies a paradox. Abortion is now a routine health procedure: one in three women in the UK will have one in their lifetime. Yet according to law, it remains a crime except under the exemptions created in 1967. In practice, the Abortion Act passed that year has served women and society well, saving lives. Women can access safe and legal abortions up to 24 weeks in England, Scotland and Wales. The overwhelming (and steadily rising) majority – 89% in 2021 – are carried out before 10 weeks. Only 1% are carried out over 20 weeks. A vanishingly small number – 276 in 2021 – are carried out legally after 24 weeks due to exceptional circumstances, such as because the mother’s life is at risk or the child is severely disabled.

Supporters of reproductive rights have often taken a pragmatic approach to the legislation, worried that reopening the issue might create more problems than it solves. That remains a concern at a time when culture war rhetoric is resurfacing, misinformation spreads so rapidly and jubilant anti-abortion campaigners from the US are funding and training activists elsewhere, including the UK.

But if the law ain’t broke for most, it is being used to break a small number of women. Dozens have been investigated on suspicion of illegal abortions in the last decade, including after natural stillbirths and in the case of pregnancies which ended before 24 weeks. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service says investigations have risen in the last three years.

It is hard to see what purpose is served by criminalising women who would be better dealt with by healthcare and other services, especially when vulnerable women – for example, those with coercive partners – are more likely to be affected. Most women who want to end a pregnancy already do so long before the legal limits. What criminalisation may do is make women in fraught situations more likely to turn to unregulated suppliers of abortifacients, and more wary of seeking healthcare afterwards. This is one of the reasons that the British Medical Association and many other healthcare associations advocate decriminalisation.


Decriminalisation does not remove gestational limits or other regulation. Health professionals could still be held answerable; men who coerced partners into abortion could also be dealt with through other laws. Canada, Australia and New Zealand have already decriminalised abortion. But Westminster has also acted. In reaction to the draconian nature of restrictions in Northern Ireland, highlighted by the landslide referendum victory to overturn the ban in the Republic of Ireland, it ensured abortion was decriminalised there (though it remains largely unobtainable). The right and logical course is to decriminalise abortion in the rest of the UK.

[Long slender neck]

I just read that

During Foster’s trial, the court heard that she had been having sex with two men and did not know which was the father when she became pregnant.

Funny how things can be worded isnt it?

[CEB]

I don’t know - I mean, my viewpoint remains the same regardless of the terms in which this case is framed. Perhaps you should lay out clearly what impact the different framing here has on what you think should happen?

[Long slender neck]

Doesnt change my view either way, just think its funny the way things are portrayed depending which side of the fence you're on.

[CEB]

Doesnt change my view either way, just think its funny the way things are portrayed depending which side of the fence you're on.

But what specifically is funny or interesting about it? The accounts I’ve referred to, and the way I’ve spoken myself are not in denial of the fact that the women we discuss when discussing late term abortion are very likely to be women whose lives are unstable, chaotic and easy to frame negatively. In fact, it’s pretty self evident (again, read some of the accounts of the women we’re discussing)

The only reason to frame an incident such as this through a Jeremy Kyle-esque lens is if you have an outcome you’d like to see that differs from the process I mention above as what I think would work. Do you have a different process you’d like to kick in when the context can be framed as “woman sleeps around”?

[tuffers#1]

Doesnt change my view either way, just think its funny the way things are portrayed depending which side of the fence you're on.

Be interesting to know if her children moved back in with her, or if they had stayed with their Father. A Disabled Child is a heavy burden to bare .

[Long slender neck]

Doesnt change my view either way, just think its funny the way things are portrayed depending which side of the fence you're on.

But what specifically is funny or interesting about it? The accounts I’ve referred to, and the way I’ve spoken myself are not in denial of the fact that the women we discuss when discussing late term abortion are very likely to be women whose lives are unstable, chaotic and easy to frame negatively. In fact, it’s pretty self evident (again, read some of the accounts of the women we’re discussing)

The only reason to frame an incident such as this through a Jeremy Kyle-esque lens is if you have an outcome you’d like to see that differs from the process I mention above as what I think would work. Do you have a different process you’d like to kick in when the context can be framed as “woman sleeps around”?

Your 'process' isnt reality though is it? I dont think there's much wrong with the law as it stands.

I'm not in favour of late stage abortions because the mother is having a 'crisis', particularly a crisis of their own making.

[CEB]

Doesnt change my view either way, just think its funny the way things are portrayed depending which side of the fence you're on.

But what specifically is funny or interesting about it? The accounts I’ve referred to, and the way I’ve spoken myself are not in denial of the fact that the women we discuss when discussing late term abortion are very likely to be women whose lives are unstable, chaotic and easy to frame negatively. In fact, it’s pretty self evident (again, read some of the accounts of the women we’re discussing)

The only reason to frame an incident such as this through a Jeremy Kyle-esque lens is if you have an outcome you’d like to see that differs from the process I mention above as what I think would work. Do you have a different process you’d like to kick in when the context can be framed as “woman sleeps around”?

Your 'process' isnt reality though is it? I dont think there's much wrong with the law as it stands.

I'm not in favour of late stage abortions because the mother is having a 'crisis', particularly a crisis of their own making.

What do you mean “my process isn’t reality”? I’m literally arguing, as many people are, that the current law criminalises vulnerable women unduly. And that that’s what is wrong with the law as it stands.

You like the law as it stands. Understood.

[Long slender neck]

the process I mention above as what I think would work.

Could you clarify what this is?

[CEB]

You’ll get clarification by reading my post above. If you have a specific question, feel free to ask. As far as I’m concerned, we’ve identified where we differ on this, and that’s fine.

[Long slender neck]

The Guardian view of 'Decriminalise it'?

[Admin]

This particular case seems awful, with a woman in a scary, highly stressful situation during an unprecedented time of stress for everyone in the world.
What sticks out to me is that she wasn’t getting support that she desperately needed, and wasn’t in a situation where there was a “good” option. And even the “lying” afterwards is the result of there being no safe way to disclose what happened.


The whole “would you feel different in X situation?” is barking up the wrong tree.
What cases like this illustrate is not the need to have clarity over when it’s OK to have an abortion, but the need for vulnerable women to have access to support - mental health support, shelter, counselling, financial assistance, escape from violent/coercive control etc.

If we actually accept that abortion at all stages should not be a criminal offence, then we enable women considering abortion to seek support, knowing that doing so will not put them on the radar as having committed a crime if the support turns out to not be enough.

Decriminalisation of abortion at all stages does not = support of late stage abortion. It just means that we recognise that archaic laws are not fit for purpose when they have this outcome.

At the risk of being accused of brown-nosing Keef, I'm not sure there needed to be any further discussion after the point above. And imprisonment is just the crowning turd on top of the whole case.

[Max B Gold]

This particular case seems awful, with a woman in a scary, highly stressful situation during an unprecedented time of stress for everyone in the world.
What sticks out to me is that she wasn’t getting support that she desperately needed, and wasn’t in a situation where there was a “good” option. And even the “lying” afterwards is the result of there being no safe way to disclose what happened.


The whole “would you feel different in X situation?” is barking up the wrong tree.
What cases like this illustrate is not the need to have clarity over when it’s OK to have an abortion, but the need for vulnerable women to have access to support - mental health support, shelter, counselling, financial assistance, escape from violent/coercive control etc.

If we actually accept that abortion at all stages should not be a criminal offence, then we enable women considering abortion to seek support, knowing that doing so will not put them on the radar as having committed a crime if the support turns out to not be enough.

Decriminalisation of abortion at all stages does not = support of late stage abortion. It just means that we recognise that archaic laws are not fit for purpose when they have this outcome.

At the risk of being accused of brown-nosing Keef, I'm not sure there needed to be any further discussion after the point above. And imprisonment is just the crowning turd on top of the whole case.

I make you right other than to say his debating style could be less aggressive.

[Long slender neck]

This particular case seems awful, with a woman in a scary, highly stressful situation during an unprecedented time of stress for everyone in the world.
What sticks out to me is that she wasn’t getting support that she desperately needed, and wasn’t in a situation where there was a “good” option. And even the “lying” afterwards is the result of there being no safe way to disclose what happened.


The whole “would you feel different in X situation?” is barking up the wrong tree.
What cases like this illustrate is not the need to have clarity over when it’s OK to have an abortion, but the need for vulnerable women to have access to support - mental health support, shelter, counselling, financial assistance, escape from violent/coercive control etc.

If we actually accept that abortion at all stages should not be a criminal offence, then we enable women considering abortion to seek support, knowing that doing so will not put them on the radar as having committed a crime if the support turns out to not be enough.

Decriminalisation of abortion at all stages does not = support of late stage abortion. It just means that we recognise that archaic laws are not fit for purpose when they have this outcome.

At the risk of being accused of brown-nosing Keef, I'm not sure there needed to be any further discussion after the point above. And imprisonment is just the crowning turd on top of the whole case.

The important bit.

And stop lovebombing him please.

[CEB]

Not sure how highlighting that as “the important bit” is consistent with your first post on this thread, but you do you x

[Max B Gold]

This particular case seems awful, with a woman in a scary, highly stressful situation during an unprecedented time of stress for everyone in the world.
What sticks out to me is that she wasn’t getting support that she desperately needed, and wasn’t in a situation where there was a “good” option. And even the “lying” afterwards is the result of there being no safe way to disclose what happened.


The whole “would you feel different in X situation?” is barking up the wrong tree.
What cases like this illustrate is not the need to have clarity over when it’s OK to have an abortion, but the need for vulnerable women to have access to support - mental health support, shelter, counselling, financial assistance, escape from violent/coercive control etc.

If we actually accept that abortion at all stages should not be a criminal offence, then we enable women considering abortion to seek support, knowing that doing so will not put them on the radar as having committed a crime if the support turns out to not be enough.

Decriminalisation of abortion at all stages does not = support of late stage abortion. It just means that we recognise that archaic laws are not fit for purpose when they have this outcome.

At the risk of being accused of brown-nosing Keef, I'm not sure there needed to be any further discussion after the point above. And imprisonment is just the crowning turd on top of the whole case.

The important bit.

And stop lovebombing him please.

I'm sorry but its not every day someone wins an Internet argument but when they do it has to be recognised.

Also, your weak effort to enrage him by throwing in a random apparent trans inconsistency was poor. In future leave that kind of thing to me please.

[CEB]

Don’t worry maxyyyy, trans aggro is our thing, I won’t do it with anyone else x

[Long slender neck]

Not sure how highlighting that as “the important bit” is consistent with your first post on this thread, but you do you x

I'd be in favour of a shorter sentence, possibly, wouldnt go as far as decriminalising.

[Adz]

“ I'd say at 34 weeks it’s their baby *in* their body. Perhaps this is where we disagree.”

I don’t think that’s where we disagree - I don’t think it’s factually incorrect for you to see a foetus near full term as a baby in her body. Where we disagree is on what weight we place on that fact.
I think that that fact is a good reason that late term abortions shouldn’t be routine, should be very rare, to the point of being absolutely last resort.
I also think that women who are pregnant are very unlikely to get to that stage by just not addressing whether they want a baby until then.
Which is why it’s important to look at what actually happens in such cases. Again, Mindsweep’s post links to someone very knowledgeable on this, and it’s worth reading (and reading the material she links to)

I don't know what is the right thing to do, but were she to give birth to that baby at that point it would survive, you may be able to draw a line on it saying it's in her body it's her choice, but I'm struggling to see the difference between an abortion, and giving birth to it and killing it.