Woman jailed for illegal abortion at 34 weeks. Thoughts?

Reading this thread...... clearly Misogyny is alive and well on this site!

 

The victim was a little girl. Not sure how you're arguing misogyny.

 

In your head. Maybe


MYSOGYNY

1. dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.
2. a feeling of hate or dislike towards women, or a feeling that women are not as good as men.

I have not read one comment portraying that description. Only basing their judgement on whether they think the outcome was right or wrong. And both sexes fit into the same category. Not the fact she happens to be a woman.
Note Women plural.

Margaret thatcher I hated.
But by the same token I hate Boris for the same reason.
Does not make me or anyone else a misogynist.
Or shall we include, Women against pit closures
(And my mrs) who also hated Thatcher.

And Boris more than likely. Would that make em Misandrists.

 

No - because I posted infanticide-slash-murder numerous times as well as acknowledging mitigation factors such as mental health issues etc enshrined in the law regarding sentencing.
I merely clarified my views after reading how the law views the mitigating factors in more detail. None of them appears to apply in this case based on what the judge stated.
Given we now have ultrasound, and non invasive practises that give a clear indication of a foetus' health in the womb it is far easier to ascertain if it is viable and healthy than decades ago when there was some uncertainty as to even the sex before the actual birth, so it is long overdue that a baby on or near term and certainly full term is afforded the rights of a new-born (again all IMHO) .

Again I am waiting for someone to tell me the difference between killing a viable healthy baby close to term, term or full term and still in the womb and one that has just been born. Even with mitigating circumstances resulting in an infanticide charge, some form of action regarding hospitalisation under mental health safeguarding usually results. There are odd case though where custodial sentences are handed down for killing a baby under 12 months.

 

I think with the advances in science the first part of that is no longer really debatable. Like my reply to Mark, we now have tools like ultrasound, and various tests that can determine the viability and health of a foetus long before due date. The very fact that survivability of premature delivery times resulting in healthy babies growing into healthy adults is getting earlier and earlier . Once determined that the foetus is deliverable that puts paid to the question of when 'life' begins.
As a lay person I go with the medical experts on this and if they have determined that after a certain number of weeks abortion should, except in specific extreme circumstances, be illegal I go along with that.
Arguing that the 'mother' has the absolute right to do as she please because it is her body (bearing in mind the very word ' mother' implies she has a child) implies the life she is carrying has no rights until it literally sees the light of day? How can you argue that is logical or just? The idea of early termination of a cluster of cells as a non sentient organism being terminated , unlike the extreme views of some Right to Life supporters, I think is morally acceptable. Knowing what we now know about foetal development in the 3rd Trimester I personally believe we are crossing the line of what is right and acceptable.

 

?? What on earth are you talking about?

 

The argument back is, as I said above, no one can ever be forced to undergo anything medically for someone else, even to save their life. The argument is, can a woman be forced into using her body to remain pregnant for the sake of someone else (the baby) when she does not wish to? I don’t know the answer but that’s what it boils down to.

 

MYSOGYNY

1. dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.
2. a feeling of hate or dislike towards women, or a feeling that women are not as good as men.''

HF
On this thread are hostile posts about the woman - clearly she is disliked/hated and there are contemptuous/prejudicial posts about her - to me that is misogyny.

Having said that I didn't have a problem with your posts - but ffs why you had to include a certain Mrs T and Bojo in your post I don't know ?

 

I'm not sure that remaining pregnant can be seen in the same vein as say having an appendix out or blood transfusion or a genuine procedure. You are not carrying out anything, so you are not mandating any procedure. That's why it is probably exempted in the first place.

I am pro-choice, by the way, and find what the US has done a disgrace.

No child should be brought into the world unwanted, but there has to be a cutoff i.e. not at such a late stage.

 

I think you can minimise the effect on the body a pregnancy takes @TitusMagee . And obviously the more pregnancies you have the greater the toll. For eg. I was told a filling a child and that was certainly the case for me, having never had a filling in my life before And I did everything by the book in my pregnancies.

 

My partner had our son in her 40s, I'm well aware of the risks and difficulties (which were significant in my partner's case btw) but it doesn't mean someone should be able to terminate a perfectly healthy baby at 34 weeks.

 

Being pregnant is way bigger than either of those things in terms of the toll it takes on the woman’s body and is 24/7 throughout the remaining duration rather than a one time thing and then recovery. I don’t know what the solution is, just that I believe that is the counter argument to Tekky.

 

See my above response to Helen. Fully aware of that. My argument was that carrying a baby is not a medical procedure in itself.

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with the law as it is. There has to be a cut off and unfortunately there is no better solution. I am 100% pro-choice within that cutoff.

Time for me to step away from this now anyway.

 

Why do you say this? I think this thread on the whole has been balanced and well argued by many people. I haven't done a re-trawl through each post but I can't think of anyone who's posted anything which could be construed as misogynistic. People have responded sensitively to this issue and if they have criticised the woman who has been jailed then they have criticised her for her actions not because she is a woman. Personally I think your comment is lazy
Edit - I have just read your other comment where you mention people hating/ disliking the woman but in context I think some people on here , if they do hate/dislike her, do so simply as a result of her actions NOT because she is a woman. Again I dont think that's misogynistic at all - it's simply people disliking a PERSON because they don't like actions that that person has taken.

 

Because this thread it is not about women. she is a woman accepted . Why do you think no one has even gone there.
Misogyny is not related to one individual hence
Women. not a particular woman. (A hatred of Women in general IS the meaning)
I pointed Thatcher and bojo out as examples.
It wouldn't be misogyny to hate and hold contempt for Thatcher. Her political stance made me think like that.

I don't know if this helps. I'm trying to explain that you've accused people on here of misogyny. When it is not in my opinion the case.

Misogyny can look like many things. It can be blatant, like violence against women, or it can be less obvious, like subtly perpetuating inequality between men and women.

Someone with misogynistic beliefs, for example, might take men at their word while dismissing or trivializing a woman with the same opinion.

I'll leave it at that. We obviously see the use of the term differently. But to call out people as mysogynysts. Is quite an accusation when in my view wrong.

 

thanks KCP.
I agree there are some well balanced posts but there are other poste where the gender of the person is noted - a number of posters refer to 'she' and 'woman.'
When that woman is then castigated and portrayed as being bad and deserving of punishment as some posters have done there's an issue.
One thread of misogyny is to distinguish good women from bad women and this is what has happened here.

 

The topic is about a person having, or not, a baby.
In my world that is still only possible by a woman, hence she. Sorry I'm not au fait with my pro nouns, I guess as well as a misogynist, I'm a 'phobe of some type.

 

You and me both because I referred to the individual in question as she (don’t know her name) I am also a misogynist.

 

Incorrect. Completely.

For it to be misogyny, there would need to be hostile posts about WOMEN. Not one woman. Singular.

Not one post I read on this thread has shown any prejudice due to gender, not one has shown anything other than contempt towards her - and her only - based solely on her actions, not because of her gender or any assertion that males are in any way superior.

I appreciate a male could not be convicted of the same crime but that doesn’t make this being a criminal act misogynistic.

 

There is allsorts wrong with a stance like this.

Say for example the law was changed to state any woman can terminate any pregnancy at any point prior to birth if she chooses she doesn’t want to continue her pregnancy - what then? Is that a floodgate we want to open?

How would it work? Kill the foetus and force a still birth on the woman? Immediate elective c-section, and try to save the child to be put into state care?

Not wanting to continue to be pregnant is one thing, but after a certain point, and certainly by 34 weeks - the woman is going to give birth, in one way or another, and whether or not the foetus (and I’m continuing to use that word instead of ‘baby’ to try and take as much emotion out of it as possible) is still living at that point doesn’t change that. Ok it wouldn’t have to be a vaginal delivery necessarily - but there is a reluctance to conduct unnecessary major surgery like a c-section electively - I can understand this - so what is the answer?

As things stand the law states this is a criminal act punishable by imprisonment.

I’m not sure there would be a huge appetite amongst the general public, in the House of Commons or the lords to change the law so broadly. It doesn’t come across as much of a vote winner so I don’t see it as a wasps nest they’d be likely to want to poke.