Woman jailed for illegal abortion at 34 weeks. Thoughts?

Lockdown didn’t affect antenatal clinics or ultrasound scans. Ultrasound scans were undertaken at the same frequency as pre-lockdown with no reduction in service. Everybody who declared a pregnancy got their scans within the timeframe.

 

Why don't men stop assuming what is the best thing for women in these circumstances and let the women decide for themselves?

 

Well, from what I remember you had to go to appointments alone. She had 3 children , that may have made things more difficult As I understand it , she had irregular periods so dating could be tricky.

 

That’s the whole point: does a woman have the right to terminate the life of her gestating child beyond the current 24 weeks?

This isn’t a case of a man deciding for a woman. It’s an ethical and moral dilemma and asserting that the woman should just be able to end a pregnancy at such a late stage would not be something agreed with by a large proportion of society whether or not you think it should be. As many women as men would be against that - at least I would imagine that to be the case.

I can’t comment on this issue as anything other than a male; that doesn’t make my contribution to the conversation less valid. I’ve been very clear that I’m 100% prochoice and also in any circumstance - not just where there is disability or the pregnancy being a result of rape etc as some have suggested - but only up to the point the child would have a decent chance of survival if born. The law is set at 24 weeks and that is it seems the point a child would have a chance. That isn’t an arbitrary line in the sand; there is a medically defined reason the date is set at that point.

What is your actual suggestion here? What is the suggested solution?

 

You are ignoring the main point. To not.. 'remain pregnant' when you are carrying a viable near term person means killing it. Are you really saying you would be willing to do that? What about just after it is born? How about then? Same action just a different location?

 

Sorry no I don't, I've tried finding out but no idea.

Yet again, in your rush to be professionally offended on behalf of whichever group youve decided to defend today, you have massively got it wrong.

You state that because there are hostile posts about a jailed person and because that person is a woman then it MUST be misogyny. You state there are prejudicial posts about her yet quote absolutely none.

I'll tell you what isn't prejudicial and that is people criticising a convicted felon. I'll tell you what IS prejudicial and that is you automatically assuming that the motive is misogyny based on nothing but the gender of the people posting. Perhaps you should have a look at your own prejudicial behaviour before baselessly accusing others of doing the same.

Ps, by your logic fired, jamdrop and redhelen are all guilty of misandry as all three have (quite rightly imo) slagged off Joey Barton on here and he was actually found not guilty. That shows how incorrect your argument is.

 

No, I’m not saying I would be willing to do that, I’m saying that is the counter argument to your point. After birth is irrelevant to the argument that someone is never forced to use their body medically to save someone else’s life so that’s a straw man argument. The equivalent would be that she wouldn’t be forced to breastfeed after birth, even if that was the only way to save the child’s life. She would be judged morally on that, if she could breastfeed with no issues and chose not to, but it wouldn’t be illegal for her to not.

 

If the baby would have survived a premature birth at 34 weeks, then it’s not much different to killing the baby after birth. There would be calls for a much longer sentence had she done that.

 

Sorry JD but in your efforts to defend the indefensible (IMO) your 'breastfeeding argument does not stand up for a number of reasons. If a woman cannot breastfeed or chooses not to there were always 'wet nurses who would do so. Nowadays there is formula milk. The idea that 'the only way to save the baby's life would have been to breastfeed' is therefore nonsense. Furthermore, the implication is that if that or any inaction on the part of the mother resulted in the death of a baby through negligence then it would certainly lead to a charge of infanticide or even manslaughter/murder if there were no mitigating circumstances such as mental health issues. Once born the child would be taken into care anyway. Your argument is not really relevant to what we are discussing.. a deliberate act to terminate a life.
You have still not shown a moral distinction between terminating a viable healthy baby still in the womb and one that has just been born. Let me go one step further. If this mother had delivered the baby at home alone unattended through some unexpected medical anomaly at 34 weeks and it survived and she killed it without telling anyone, what would be your the reaction to that? Again the distinction, if any, between killing a viable healthy baby in the womb or outside the womb is a very small one.

 

The obvious distinction which you keep purposefully choosing to ignore is that she did want she did to end her pregnancy. The baby dying is the outcome of that. Killing a baby already born isn’t to end a pregnancy. I’m not saying she was right to do so but it is a glaring difference that you keep deliberately pretending doesn’t exist.

 

As I understand it you are drawing a distinction between her choosing to end her pregnancy and the baby dying which I totally get. Obviously you can't have one without the other but you are saying that the primary motive isn't to kill the baby but is to stop specifically her from being pregnant. To put it another way if Lily had been inside another woman's body then Carla Foster had no desire to kill her, because she was inside hers she had the desire to stop being pregnant, the death of the baby is merely the inevitable outcome of that.

So now I'm curious about the breastfeeding issue that you brought up. If a mother to a newborn was somehow in her house with no access to any formula milk etc and she flat out refused to breastfeed the baby leading to it's death would or even could she be charged with a crime? No idea personally but I think that's quite an interesting moral and legal issue now that I've thought about it.

 

There are a few things that are a criminal offence in a case you are describing. I think (not being an expert) it would come under Wilful neglect or ill treatment.

 

Good grief. There is no answer to that! Apart from nonsensical semantics ..what is the " obvious distinction" between 'ending a pregnancy' and killing an unborn viable baby when the former results in the latter? I am not deliberately pretending anything. You are completely ignoring the fact that terminating a viable baby in the womb has the same outcome as 'terminating' it i.e. killing it after it has been delivered. i.e. the death of the unborn. How can you not see that?

If you cannot then there is little point in continuing to debate with you.

EDIT: ON reflection the critical point you are omitting in your argument re terminating a pregnancy is not the same as killing a baby comes back to the time of termination. After a certain time the foetus goes from the stages of a collection of cells, through to non sentient organism and finally a fully developed sentient human being. That is what the whole case is about and the point YOU are choosing to disregard. I believe it is a woman's body with, within reason, her right to choose but at some point that choice to terminate should no longer be an option. This was one such case.

 

Does the same apply to racism? If a single individual is targeted and abused because he's black is it not racism? For it to be so, it would have to be directed to everyone of the same ethnicity? Barnsley fans hollaring at Ian Wright in the game against Arsenal in the mid 90s weren't racist as they didn't give Viv Anderson or Clint Marcelle the same treatment? And John, who bullies, patronises and belittles his colleague Jane isn't displaying misogyny bcause he's dating his secretary Tracy?

Misogyny is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women and any form of discrimination can be directed at an entire group or an individual member.

 

Going a bit off piste with this argument but I believe you are correct. a misogynystic act against a single person can surely take place like a racist act as you describe. I think the point though is that the action has to be clear evidence of hatred of a person simply because of their gender or race and not because of the actions of the targeted victim of the abuse. Accusations of misogyny in this thread (of which I have posted numerous times as I feel very strongly about this issue) are wrong. I have followed the thread and cannot find any posts that have not been critical of the person to whom it relates because of her actions and attitude. If anything the nearest it has been to not adhering to this have been a couple of post implying men should have no say in this and women should be able to do exactly as they please.

 

Yeah not the best way of putting it on reflection Jay, fair point, but my point was this thread isn’t showing, to me, any misogyny as it isn’t judging a person or persons based solely or even remotely due to her gender; there is no agenda to judge or belittle women in general (or her alone) for the fact she happens to be female.

Of course a single person can be victim to prejudice, be it racism, misogyny or any form of discrimination. My clumsy wording was just trying to point out that people having a negative opinion on the actions of Carla Foster - and only her, and only because of what she has done, don’t point to any form of discrimination. Spectemur Agendo.

 

This is where I am.

There are more posts with misandristic undertones on this thread than there are misogynistic ones.

The assertion that a man can’t have an opinion on a matter such as this is ridiculous.

 

Some big assumptions that a male can't possibly know what it is like to have a difficult pregnancy too.

Try watching a group of midwives panic whilst your baby is not breathing adequately enough and stuck in the birthing canal whilst your wife is out of it through pain meds.

Or worrying sick when your partner with a chronic health condition is hospitalised twice during pregnancy due to complications and supporting her through that, not knowing if either are going to make it.

We might not know how it feels first hand, but don't presume we haven't had to go through stuff like the above. And they are my children too.

 

I nearly added that to my latest response to JamDrop with whom I totally disagree with her stance. The law though does (rightly) prioritise a woman's rights over men regarding abortion...i.e. she alone can decide to terminate an unwanted pregnancy whilst her husband has no right to make her or stop her. after all she is carrying (literally) the risks. The whole argument is about terminating (killing IMO) a viable/healthy unborn child which is why I feel so strongly that the sentence and charges in this specific instance , whilst within the remit of current legislation was , rather than harsh, was far too lenient. what about the rights of the unborn child? The legislation and law surrounding this is, IMO, about 50 years behind the times failing to acknowledge the medical advances that have removed all but a tiny element of uncertainty as to the health and development of an unborn foetus. Ironically, the same people who argue for equality are now the ones claiming that men should have no say in life and death decisions.

 

Not all women are physically capable of breastfeeding - I can't remember the statistics but it was a sufficient amount for wetnurses to be needed back in the day before formula. What would happen if a woman was unable to breastfeed and couldn't afford to buy the formula needed to feed the baby?