Now, the The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (among
others) want to make abortion entirely legal.
I don't mind, but I think people should decide whether they want
infanticide (or whatever) to be legal or not.
(It's not explained how or why she
was pregnant.)
Paris Mayo jailed for murder of newborn son https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-66018917
"A 19-year-old who murdered her newborn son hours after giving birth has
been jailed for at least 12 years.
"A trial heard Paris Mayo, then 15, suffocated the boy, Stanley, [Why
name it?] by stuffing cotton wool into his throat."
=======================================================================
Woman accused of illegal abortion found not guilty https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93y5gq09x7o
"A woman accused of having an illegal abortion has been cleared by a jury.
"Nicola Packer, 45, cried as she was acquitted of 'unlawfully
administering to herself a poison or other noxious thing' with the
'intent to procure a miscarriage".
=======================================================================
The main difference is that the "insecure" teenager who "started having
sex at 13 and used it as a way to get people to like her" waited until
the baby is born before destroying it, whereas the mature 41 year old
did it a couple of months earlier. (It's not explained how or why she
was pregnant.)
Now, the The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (among
others) want to make abortion entirely legal.
I don't mind, but I think people should decide whether they want
infanticide (or whatever) to be legal or not.
On 14/05/2025 17:58, Max Demian wrote:
Paris Mayo jailed for murder of newborn son
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-66018917
"A 19-year-old who murdered her newborn son hours after giving birth has
been jailed for at least 12 years.
"A trial heard Paris Mayo, then 15, suffocated the boy, Stanley, [Why
name it?] by stuffing cotton wool into his throat."
=======================================================================
Woman accused of illegal abortion found not guilty
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93y5gq09x7o
"A woman accused of having an illegal abortion has been cleared by a jury. >>
"Nicola Packer, 45, cried as she was acquitted of 'unlawfully
administering to herself a poison or other noxious thing' with the
'intent to procure a miscarriage".
=======================================================================
The main difference is that the "insecure" teenager who "started having
sex at 13 and used it as a way to get people to like her" waited until
the baby is born before destroying it, whereas the mature 41 year old
did it a couple of months earlier. (It's not explained how or why she
was pregnant.)
Now, the The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (among
others) want to make abortion entirely legal.
I don't mind, but I think people should decide whether they want
infanticide (or whatever) to be legal or not.
Jess Phillips and other politicians claim that abortion, the destruction
of an unborn child, should no longer be illegal.
They say that if the public knew you could be prosecuted for taking a
pill to kill your unborn child, we'd all be shocked and regard it as an appalling law.
Obviously abortion can be lawful if carried out up to 23 weeks of
pregnancy with the approval of two doctors.
I really can't see why the current law should be amended, or why women
who kill their foetuses shouldn't be prosecuted. What exactly is the argument in favour of decriminalisation? Is it that women are to be considered victims if they have an unwanted pregnancy?
On 14 May 2025 at 23:23:26 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 14/05/2025 17:58, Max Demian wrote:
Paris Mayo jailed for murder of newborn son
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-66018917
"A 19-year-old who murdered her newborn son hours after giving birth has >>> been jailed for at least 12 years.
"A trial heard Paris Mayo, then 15, suffocated the boy, Stanley, [Why
name it?] by stuffing cotton wool into his throat."
=======================================================================
Woman accused of illegal abortion found not guilty
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93y5gq09x7o
"A woman accused of having an illegal abortion has been cleared by a jury. >>>
"Nicola Packer, 45, cried as she was acquitted of 'unlawfully
administering to herself a poison or other noxious thing' with the
'intent to procure a miscarriage".
=======================================================================
The main difference is that the "insecure" teenager who "started having
sex at 13 and used it as a way to get people to like her" waited until
the baby is born before destroying it, whereas the mature 41 year old
did it a couple of months earlier. (It's not explained how or why she
was pregnant.)
Now, the The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (among
others) want to make abortion entirely legal.
I don't mind, but I think people should decide whether they want
infanticide (or whatever) to be legal or not.
Jess Phillips and other politicians claim that abortion, the destruction
of an unborn child, should no longer be illegal.
They say that if the public knew you could be prosecuted for taking a
pill to kill your unborn child, we'd all be shocked and regard it as an
appalling law.
Obviously abortion can be lawful if carried out up to 23 weeks of
pregnancy with the approval of two doctors.
I really can't see why the current law should be amended, or why women
who kill their foetuses shouldn't be prosecuted. What exactly is the
argument in favour of decriminalisation? Is it that women are to be
considered victims if they have an unwanted pregnancy?
I think it is more a question of autonomy over their own body.
On 15/05/2025 08:46, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 May 2025 at 23:23:26 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 14/05/2025 17:58, Max Demian wrote:
Paris Mayo jailed for murder of newborn son
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-66018917
"A 19-year-old who murdered her newborn son hours after giving birth has >>>> been jailed for at least 12 years.
"A trial heard Paris Mayo, then 15, suffocated the boy, Stanley, [Why
name it?] by stuffing cotton wool into his throat."
======================================================================= >>>>
Woman accused of illegal abortion found not guilty
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93y5gq09x7o
"A woman accused of having an illegal abortion has been cleared by a jury. >>>>
"Nicola Packer, 45, cried as she was acquitted of 'unlawfully
administering to herself a poison or other noxious thing' with the
'intent to procure a miscarriage".
======================================================================= >>>>
The main difference is that the "insecure" teenager who "started having >>>> sex at 13 and used it as a way to get people to like her" waited until >>>> the baby is born before destroying it, whereas the mature 41 year old
did it a couple of months earlier. (It's not explained how or why she
was pregnant.)
Now, the The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (among
others) want to make abortion entirely legal.
I don't mind, but I think people should decide whether they want
infanticide (or whatever) to be legal or not.
Jess Phillips and other politicians claim that abortion, the destruction >>> of an unborn child, should no longer be illegal.
They say that if the public knew you could be prosecuted for taking a
pill to kill your unborn child, we'd all be shocked and regard it as an
appalling law.
Obviously abortion can be lawful if carried out up to 23 weeks of
pregnancy with the approval of two doctors.
I really can't see why the current law should be amended, or why women
who kill their foetuses shouldn't be prosecuted. What exactly is the
argument in favour of decriminalisation? Is it that women are to be
considered victims if they have an unwanted pregnancy?
I think it is more a question of autonomy over their own body.
I understand that bit. But there has to be a balancing act between the
rights of the woman and the rights of an unborn child. Is the plan to
say that you can take a pill and kill your unborn child whenever you
feel the urge to do so, without any involvement by doctors, simply
because you've changed your mind about wanting to have a child? Or is
the plan to say that you shouldn't do that, but you are safe from
prosecution and you will be treated compassionately as if you acted out
of pre-natal psychosis or some other involuntary mental disorder?
This seems to me more controversial than assisted dying, which also
involves autonomy over one's own body. There have been recent press
articles saying that the assisted dying bill now has much less support
than before. There is the fear that disabled people or people with
eating disorders will be encouraged to opt for an early death. There are calls for far more protection against those who might have an ulterior
motive for encouraging a friend or relative to have assisted dying.
Where is all the protection given to unborn children, though? I'm not
opposed to abortion but I think the existing laws seem to be a fair compromise.
On 15/05/2025 08:46, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 May 2025 at 23:23:26 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>> On 14/05/2025 17:58, Max Demian wrote:
Paris Mayo jailed for murder of newborn son
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-66018917
"A 19-year-old who murdered her newborn son hours after giving birth has >>>> been jailed for at least 12 years.
"A trial heard Paris Mayo, then 15, suffocated the boy, Stanley, [Why
name it?] by stuffing cotton wool into his throat."
======================================================================= >>>>
Woman accused of illegal abortion found not guilty
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93y5gq09x7o
"A woman accused of having an illegal abortion has been cleared by a jury. >>>>
"Nicola Packer, 45, cried as she was acquitted of 'unlawfully
administering to herself a poison or other noxious thing' with the
'intent to procure a miscarriage".
======================================================================= >>>>
The main difference is that the "insecure" teenager who "started having >>>> sex at 13 and used it as a way to get people to like her" waited until >>>> the baby is born before destroying it, whereas the mature 41 year old
did it a couple of months earlier. (It's not explained how or why she
was pregnant.)
Now, the The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (among
others) want to make abortion entirely legal.
I don't mind, but I think people should decide whether they want
infanticide (or whatever) to be legal or not.
Jess Phillips and other politicians claim that abortion, the destruction >>> of an unborn child, should no longer be illegal.
They say that if the public knew you could be prosecuted for taking a
pill to kill your unborn child, we'd all be shocked and regard it as an
appalling law.
Obviously abortion can be lawful if carried out up to 23 weeks of
pregnancy with the approval of two doctors.
I really can't see why the current law should be amended, or why women
who kill their foetuses shouldn't be prosecuted. What exactly is the
argument in favour of decriminalisation? Is it that women are to be
considered victims if they have an unwanted pregnancy?
I think it is more a question of autonomy over their own body.
I understand that bit. But there has to be a balancing act between the
rights of the woman and the rights of an unborn child. Is the plan to
say that you can take a pill and kill your unborn child whenever you
feel the urge to do so, without any involvement by doctors, simply
because you've changed your mind about wanting to have a child? Or is
the plan to say that you shouldn't do that, but you are safe from
prosecution and you will be treated compassionately as if you acted out
of pre-natal psychosis or some other involuntary mental disorder?
This seems to me more controversial than assisted dying, which also
involves autonomy over one's own body. There have been recent press
articles saying that the assisted dying bill now has much less support
than before. There is the fear that disabled people or people with
eating disorders will be encouraged to opt for an early death. There are calls for far more protection against those who might have an ulterior
motive for encouraging a friend or relative to have assisted dying.
Where is all the protection given to unborn children, though? I'm not
opposed to abortion but I think the existing laws seem to be a fair compromise.
On 2025-05-15, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 15/05/2025 08:46, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 May 2025 at 23:23:26 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>> On 14/05/2025 17:58, Max Demian wrote:
Paris Mayo jailed for murder of newborn son
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-66018917
"A 19-year-old who murdered her newborn son hours after giving birth has >>>>> been jailed for at least 12 years.
"A trial heard Paris Mayo, then 15, suffocated the boy, Stanley, [Why >>>>> name it?] by stuffing cotton wool into his throat."
======================================================================= >>>>>
Woman accused of illegal abortion found not guilty
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93y5gq09x7o
"A woman accused of having an illegal abortion has been cleared by a jury.
"Nicola Packer, 45, cried as she was acquitted of 'unlawfully
administering to herself a poison or other noxious thing' with the
'intent to procure a miscarriage".
======================================================================= >>>>>
The main difference is that the "insecure" teenager who "started having >>>>> sex at 13 and used it as a way to get people to like her" waited until >>>>> the baby is born before destroying it, whereas the mature 41 year old >>>>> did it a couple of months earlier. (It's not explained how or why she >>>>> was pregnant.)
Now, the The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (among >>>>> others) want to make abortion entirely legal.
I don't mind, but I think people should decide whether they want
infanticide (or whatever) to be legal or not.
Jess Phillips and other politicians claim that abortion, the destruction >>>> of an unborn child, should no longer be illegal.
They say that if the public knew you could be prosecuted for taking a
pill to kill your unborn child, we'd all be shocked and regard it as an >>>> appalling law.
Obviously abortion can be lawful if carried out up to 23 weeks of
pregnancy with the approval of two doctors.
I really can't see why the current law should be amended, or why women >>>> who kill their foetuses shouldn't be prosecuted. What exactly is the
argument in favour of decriminalisation? Is it that women are to be
considered victims if they have an unwanted pregnancy?
I think it is more a question of autonomy over their own body.
I understand that bit. But there has to be a balancing act between the
rights of the woman and the rights of an unborn child. Is the plan to
say that you can take a pill and kill your unborn child whenever you
feel the urge to do so, without any involvement by doctors, simply
because you've changed your mind about wanting to have a child? Or is
the plan to say that you shouldn't do that, but you are safe from
prosecution and you will be treated compassionately as if you acted out
of pre-natal psychosis or some other involuntary mental disorder?
This seems to me more controversial than assisted dying, which also
involves autonomy over one's own body. There have been recent press
articles saying that the assisted dying bill now has much less support
than before. There is the fear that disabled people or people with
eating disorders will be encouraged to opt for an early death. There are
calls for far more protection against those who might have an ulterior
motive for encouraging a friend or relative to have assisted dying.
Where is all the protection given to unborn children, though? I'm not
opposed to abortion but I think the existing laws seem to be a fair
compromise.
I think allowing abortion pills up to a certain stage in the pregnancy
and then allowing medically-approved and supervised abortion up to a
later stage would be a reasonable step forward?
On 14/05/2025 17:58, Max Demian wrote:
Now, the The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (among
others) want to make abortion entirely legal.
Abortion IS totally legal, under the set parameters, and those
parameters have been set and agreed by Parliament. The relevant Law is available for viewing online.
I don't mind, but I think people should decide whether they want
infanticide (or whatever) to be legal or not.
I don't think anyone is claiming, or lobbying, that Infanticide should
be allowed. In fact, probably the opposite, in that the vast majority of people would not want there to be a law where you could kill, legally,
your own children.
I'm not getting into an abortion debate, but there is a vast difference between a foetus and a new born child.
On 15/05/2025 08:46, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I understand that bit. But there has to be a balancing act between the
rights of the woman and the rights of an unborn child.
On 15 May 2025 at 11:28:04 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-15, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 15/05/2025 08:46, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 May 2025 at 23:23:26 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>> On 14/05/2025 17:58, Max Demian wrote:
Paris Mayo jailed for murder of newborn son
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-66018917
"A 19-year-old who murdered her newborn son hours after giving birth has >>>>>> been jailed for at least 12 years.
"A trial heard Paris Mayo, then 15, suffocated the boy, Stanley, [Why >>>>>> name it?] by stuffing cotton wool into his throat."
======================================================================= >>>>>>
Woman accused of illegal abortion found not guilty
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93y5gq09x7o
"A woman accused of having an illegal abortion has been cleared by a jury.
"Nicola Packer, 45, cried as she was acquitted of 'unlawfully
administering to herself a poison or other noxious thing' with the >>>>>> 'intent to procure a miscarriage".
======================================================================= >>>>>>
The main difference is that the "insecure" teenager who "started having >>>>>> sex at 13 and used it as a way to get people to like her" waited until >>>>>> the baby is born before destroying it, whereas the mature 41 year old >>>>>> did it a couple of months earlier. (It's not explained how or why she >>>>>> was pregnant.)
Now, the The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (among >>>>>> others) want to make abortion entirely legal.
I don't mind, but I think people should decide whether they want
infanticide (or whatever) to be legal or not.
Jess Phillips and other politicians claim that abortion, the destruction >>>>> of an unborn child, should no longer be illegal.
They say that if the public knew you could be prosecuted for taking a >>>>> pill to kill your unborn child, we'd all be shocked and regard it as an >>>>> appalling law.
Obviously abortion can be lawful if carried out up to 23 weeks of
pregnancy with the approval of two doctors.
I really can't see why the current law should be amended, or why women >>>>> who kill their foetuses shouldn't be prosecuted. What exactly is the >>>>> argument in favour of decriminalisation? Is it that women are to be
considered victims if they have an unwanted pregnancy?
I think it is more a question of autonomy over their own body.
I understand that bit. But there has to be a balancing act between the
rights of the woman and the rights of an unborn child. Is the plan to
say that you can take a pill and kill your unborn child whenever you
feel the urge to do so, without any involvement by doctors, simply
because you've changed your mind about wanting to have a child? Or is
the plan to say that you shouldn't do that, but you are safe from
prosecution and you will be treated compassionately as if you acted out
of pre-natal psychosis or some other involuntary mental disorder?
This seems to me more controversial than assisted dying, which also
involves autonomy over one's own body. There have been recent press
articles saying that the assisted dying bill now has much less support
than before. There is the fear that disabled people or people with
eating disorders will be encouraged to opt for an early death. There are >>> calls for far more protection against those who might have an ulterior
motive for encouraging a friend or relative to have assisted dying.
Where is all the protection given to unborn children, though? I'm not
opposed to abortion but I think the existing laws seem to be a fair
compromise.
I think allowing abortion pills up to a certain stage in the pregnancy
and then allowing medically-approved and supervised abortion up to a
later stage would be a reasonable step forward?
That is the current law as I understand it, except that the pills are only allowed without medical approval up to a very early stage, possibly pre-implantation.
On 2025-05-15, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:=======================================================================
On 15/05/2025 08:46, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 May 2025 at 23:23:26 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 14/05/2025 17:58, Max Demian wrote:
Paris Mayo jailed for murder of newborn son
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-66018917
"A 19-year-old who murdered her newborn son hours after giving birth >>>>> has been jailed for at least 12 years.
"A trial heard Paris Mayo, then 15, suffocated the boy, Stanley,
[Why name it?] by stuffing cotton wool into his throat."
=======================================================================
Woman accused of illegal abortion found not guilty
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93y5gq09x7o
"A woman accused of having an illegal abortion has been cleared by a >>>>> jury.
"Nicola Packer, 45, cried as she was acquitted of 'unlawfully
administering to herself a poison or other noxious thing' with the
'intent to procure a miscarriage".
The main difference is that the "insecure" teenager who "started
having sex at 13 and used it as a way to get people to like her"
waited until the baby is born before destroying it, whereas the
mature 41 year old did it a couple of months earlier. (It's not
explained how or why she was pregnant.)
Now, the The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
(among others) want to make abortion entirely legal.
I don't mind, but I think people should decide whether they want
infanticide (or whatever) to be legal or not.
Jess Phillips and other politicians claim that abortion, the
destruction of an unborn child, should no longer be illegal.
They say that if the public knew you could be prosecuted for taking a
pill to kill your unborn child, we'd all be shocked and regard it as
an appalling law.
Obviously abortion can be lawful if carried out up to 23 weeks of
pregnancy with the approval of two doctors.
I really can't see why the current law should be amended, or why
women who kill their foetuses shouldn't be prosecuted. What exactly
is the argument in favour of decriminalisation? Is it that women are
to be considered victims if they have an unwanted pregnancy?
I think it is more a question of autonomy over their own body.
I understand that bit. But there has to be a balancing act between the
rights of the woman and the rights of an unborn child. Is the plan to
say that you can take a pill and kill your unborn child whenever you
feel the urge to do so, without any involvement by doctors, simply
because you've changed your mind about wanting to have a child? Or is
the plan to say that you shouldn't do that, but you are safe from
prosecution and you will be treated compassionately as if you acted out
of pre-natal psychosis or some other involuntary mental disorder?
This seems to me more controversial than assisted dying, which also
involves autonomy over one's own body. There have been recent press
articles saying that the assisted dying bill now has much less support
than before. There is the fear that disabled people or people with
eating disorders will be encouraged to opt for an early death. There
are calls for far more protection against those who might have an
ulterior motive for encouraging a friend or relative to have assisted
dying. Where is all the protection given to unborn children, though?
I'm not opposed to abortion but I think the existing laws seem to be a
fair compromise.
I think allowing abortion pills up to a certain stage in the pregnancy
and then allowing medically-approved and supervised abortion up to a
later stage would be a reasonable step forward?
On Thu, 15 May 2025 10:28:04 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-15, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:=======================================================================
On 15/05/2025 08:46, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 May 2025 at 23:23:26 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 14/05/2025 17:58, Max Demian wrote:
Paris Mayo jailed for murder of newborn son
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-66018917
"A 19-year-old who murdered her newborn son hours after giving birth >>>>>> has been jailed for at least 12 years.
"A trial heard Paris Mayo, then 15, suffocated the boy, Stanley,
[Why name it?] by stuffing cotton wool into his throat."
=======================================================================
Woman accused of illegal abortion found not guilty
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93y5gq09x7o
"A woman accused of having an illegal abortion has been cleared by a >>>>>> jury.
"Nicola Packer, 45, cried as she was acquitted of 'unlawfully
administering to herself a poison or other noxious thing' with the >>>>>> 'intent to procure a miscarriage".
The main difference is that the "insecure" teenager who "started
having sex at 13 and used it as a way to get people to like her"
waited until the baby is born before destroying it, whereas the
mature 41 year old did it a couple of months earlier. (It's not
explained how or why she was pregnant.)
Now, the The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
(among others) want to make abortion entirely legal.
I don't mind, but I think people should decide whether they want
infanticide (or whatever) to be legal or not.
Jess Phillips and other politicians claim that abortion, the
destruction of an unborn child, should no longer be illegal.
They say that if the public knew you could be prosecuted for taking a >>>>> pill to kill your unborn child, we'd all be shocked and regard it as >>>>> an appalling law.
Obviously abortion can be lawful if carried out up to 23 weeks of
pregnancy with the approval of two doctors.
I really can't see why the current law should be amended, or why
women who kill their foetuses shouldn't be prosecuted. What exactly >>>>> is the argument in favour of decriminalisation? Is it that women are >>>>> to be considered victims if they have an unwanted pregnancy?
I think it is more a question of autonomy over their own body.
I understand that bit. But there has to be a balancing act between the
rights of the woman and the rights of an unborn child. Is the plan to
say that you can take a pill and kill your unborn child whenever you
feel the urge to do so, without any involvement by doctors, simply
because you've changed your mind about wanting to have a child? Or is
the plan to say that you shouldn't do that, but you are safe from
prosecution and you will be treated compassionately as if you acted out
of pre-natal psychosis or some other involuntary mental disorder?
This seems to me more controversial than assisted dying, which also
involves autonomy over one's own body. There have been recent press
articles saying that the assisted dying bill now has much less support
than before. There is the fear that disabled people or people with
eating disorders will be encouraged to opt for an early death. There
are calls for far more protection against those who might have an
ulterior motive for encouraging a friend or relative to have assisted
dying. Where is all the protection given to unborn children, though?
I'm not opposed to abortion but I think the existing laws seem to be a
fair compromise.
I think allowing abortion pills up to a certain stage in the pregnancy
and then allowing medically-approved and supervised abortion up to a
later stage would be a reasonable step forward?
Of course, assuming your sex follows your username, you'll never have to worry about that directly.
It's a matter of degree, and whether it can exist entirely apart fromErr, yes, my Daughter was born at 27 weeks. At the time, they said 25
its mother. In the second case, it was 26 weeks old, and, I imagine,
would pretty much look like a baby.
On Thu, 15 May 2025 10:14:11 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 15/05/2025 08:46, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I understand that bit. But there has to be a balancing act between the
rights of the woman and the rights of an unborn child.
Only if your worldview ascribes rights to a foetus. And even if it does, human newborns are not independent creatures.
On 15/05/2025 11:59, Max Demian wrote:
It's a matter of degree, and whether it can exist entirely apart fromErr, yes, my Daughter was born at 27 weeks. At the time, they said 25
its mother. In the second case, it was 26 weeks old, and, I imagine,
would pretty much look like a baby.
weeks was too early to sustain the life of the baby, things may have
moved on since then, but it doesnt get past the problem that the lungs
and other organs are not fully developed until around 25 weeks+, and any
baby born at that age will probably be subject to some disability even
if they can survive the first few weeks.
On 14/05/2025 17:58, Max Demian wrote:
Now, the The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (among
others) want to make abortion entirely legal.
Abortion IS totally legal, under the set parameters, and those
parameters have been set and agreed by Parliament. The relevant Law is available for viewing online.
If someone performed an abortion outwith of the Law, then they will be subject to possible arrest and Trial.
There may be extenuating circumstances to someone who did that, the
Court would take that into account when a trial takes place, and give Judgement according to the facts presented to the Court.
I don't mind, but I think people should decide whether they want
infanticide (or whatever) to be legal or not.
I don't think anyone is claiming, or lobbying, that Infanticide should
be allowed. In fact, probably the opposite, in that the vast majority of people would not want there to be a law where you could kill, legally,
your own children.
I'm not getting into an abortion debate, but there is a vast difference between a foetus and a new born child. If you need to vent that you dont agree with the Law, then your MP, or maybe the Health Secretary are the people to contact.
On 2025-05-14, Alan Lee wrote:
On 14/05/2025 17:58, Max Demian wrote:
Now, the The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (among
others) want to make abortion entirely legal.
Abortion IS totally legal, under the set parameters, and those
parameters have been set and agreed by Parliament. The relevant Law is
available for viewing online.
No, it isn't. It's still illegal (at least in England and Wales) under
the 1861 law --- the 1967 and 1990 laws merely provide a defence for pregnant women and clinicians under certain circumstances. Now in practice, the
state doesn't prosecute abortions under those circumstances and expect
people to defend themselves, but AIUI it could in theory force women
to appear in court and present a defence.
"Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote in message news:i6ljflxa1v.ln2@news.ducksburg.com...
On 2025-05-14, Alan Lee wrote:
On 14/05/2025 17:58, Max Demian wrote:
Now, the The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (among
others) want to make abortion entirely legal.
Abortion IS totally legal, under the set parameters, and those
parameters have been set and agreed by Parliament. The relevant Law is
available for viewing online.
No, it isn't. It's still illegal (at least in England and Wales) under
the 1861 law --- the 1967 and 1990 laws merely provide a defence for pregnant
women and clinicians under certain circumstances. Now in practice, the
state doesn't prosecute abortions under those circumstances and expect
people to defend themselves, but AIUI it could in theory force women
to appear in court and present a defence.
quote:
Abortion Act 1967
1 Medical termination of pregnancy.
(1)Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be
guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy
is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered
medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith—
:unquote
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/87/section/1
It then lists the conditons which need to be fulfilled.
But which when fulfilled, must therefore mean that no offence has been committed. And thus that there are no grounds for prosection or subsequent Court Appearences or need for any defences
bb
On 16 May 2025 at 14:05:34 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote in message
news:i6ljflxa1v.ln2@news.ducksburg.com...
On 2025-05-14, Alan Lee wrote:
On 14/05/2025 17:58, Max Demian wrote:
Now, the The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (among >>>>> others) want to make abortion entirely legal.
Abortion IS totally legal, under the set parameters, and those
parameters have been set and agreed by Parliament. The relevant Law is >>>> available for viewing online.
No, it isn't. It's still illegal (at least in England and Wales) under
the 1861 law --- the 1967 and 1990 laws merely provide a defence for pregnant
women and clinicians under certain circumstances. Now in practice, the
state doesn't prosecute abortions under those circumstances and expect
people to defend themselves, but AIUI it could in theory force women
to appear in court and present a defence.
quote:
Abortion Act 1967
1 Medical termination of pregnancy.
(1)Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be
guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy
is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered
medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith-
:unquote
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/87/section/1
It then lists the conditons which need to be fulfilled.
But which when fulfilled, must therefore mean that no offence has been
committed. And thus that there are no grounds for prosection or subsequent >> Court Appearences or need for any defences
bb
Unless of course the applicability of one or more of the conditions is denied by the prosecutor.
Which is what he said.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:0208198050.7ee34f51@uninhabited.net...
On 16 May 2025 at 14:05:34 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
"Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote in message
news:i6ljflxa1v.ln2@news.ducksburg.com...
On 2025-05-14, Alan Lee wrote:
On 14/05/2025 17:58, Max Demian wrote:
Now, the The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (among >>>>>> others) want to make abortion entirely legal.
Abortion IS totally legal, under the set parameters, and those
parameters have been set and agreed by Parliament. The relevant Law is >>>>> available for viewing online.
No, it isn't. It's still illegal (at least in England and Wales) under >>>> the 1861 law --- the 1967 and 1990 laws merely provide a defence for pregnant
women and clinicians under certain circumstances. Now in practice, the >>>> state doesn't prosecute abortions under those circumstances and expect >>>> people to defend themselves, but AIUI it could in theory force women
to appear in court and present a defence.
quote:
Abortion Act 1967
1 Medical termination of pregnancy.
(1)Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be
guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy >>> is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered
medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith-
:unquote
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/87/section/1
It then lists the conditons which need to be fulfilled.
But which when fulfilled, must therefore mean that no offence has been
committed. And thus that there are no grounds for prosection or subsequent >>> Court Appearences or need for any defences
bb
Unless of course the applicability of one or more of the conditions is denied
by the prosecutor.
Which is what he said.
No he didn't.
He said abortion was illegal. "An offence". But somehow the conditions imposed
by the 1967 and 1990 Acts might somehow constitute a Defence; if in fact
they could be shown, as applying in that particular case.
But that the State were no longer bothering to prosecute in most cases
Whereas according the actual wording of the 1967 Act, as quoted above,
a person meeting those conditions when terminating a pregnancy, shall
*not* be guilty of an offence.
Whereas obviously if anyone fails to meet those conditions - which I presume is what you mean by "the applicability of those conditions is denied by the prosecutor " - IOW where the accused is lying basically * - then they *will* be guilty of an offence.
bb
* Such as a claim under Section (b) that the birth would represent a
very real threat to the mother's mental health
I think allowing abortion pills up to a certain stage in the pregnancy
and then allowing medically-approved and supervised abortion up to a
later stage would be a reasonable step forward?
On 16 May 2025 at 14:56:35 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:0208198050.7ee34f51@uninhabited.net...
On 16 May 2025 at 14:05:34 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>
"Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote in message
news:i6ljflxa1v.ln2@news.ducksburg.com...
On 2025-05-14, Alan Lee wrote:
On 14/05/2025 17:58, Max Demian wrote:
Now, the The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (among >>>>>>> others) want to make abortion entirely legal.
Abortion IS totally legal, under the set parameters, and those
parameters have been set and agreed by Parliament. The relevant Law is >>>>>> available for viewing online.
No, it isn't. It's still illegal (at least in England and Wales) under >>>>> the 1861 law --- the 1967 and 1990 laws merely provide a defence for pregnant
women and clinicians under certain circumstances. Now in practice, the >>>>> state doesn't prosecute abortions under those circumstances and expect >>>>> people to defend themselves, but AIUI it could in theory force women >>>>> to appear in court and present a defence.
quote:
Abortion Act 1967
1 Medical termination of pregnancy.
(1)Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be
guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy >>>> is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered
medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith-
:unquote
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/87/section/1
It then lists the conditons which need to be fulfilled.
But which when fulfilled, must therefore mean that no offence has been >>>> committed. And thus that there are no grounds for prosection or subsequent >>>> Court Appearences or need for any defences
bb
Unless of course the applicability of one or more of the conditions is denied
by the prosecutor.
Which is what he said.
No he didn't.
He said abortion was illegal. "An offence". But somehow the conditions imposed
by the 1967 and 1990 Acts might somehow constitute a Defence; if in fact
they could be shown, as applying in that particular case.
But that the State were no longer bothering to prosecute in most cases
Whereas according the actual wording of the 1967 Act, as quoted above,
a person meeting those conditions when terminating a pregnancy, shall
*not* be guilty of an offence.
Whereas obviously if anyone fails to meet those conditions - which I presume >> is what you mean by "the applicability of those conditions is denied by the >> prosecutor " - IOW where the accused is lying basically * - then they *will* >> be guilty of an offence.
Indeed. But they would only be committing an offence because of the 1861 law.
I don't think the the 1967 Act created new offences (though I could be wrong).
* Such as a claim under Section (b) that the birth would represent a
very real threat to the mother's mental health
On 2025-05-16, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 May 2025 at 14:56:35 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:0208198050.7ee34f51@uninhabited.net...
On 16 May 2025 at 14:05:34 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>>
"Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote in message
news:i6ljflxa1v.ln2@news.ducksburg.com...
On 2025-05-14, Alan Lee wrote:
On 14/05/2025 17:58, Max Demian wrote:
Now, the The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (among >>>>>>>> others) want to make abortion entirely legal.
Abortion IS totally legal, under the set parameters, and those
parameters have been set and agreed by Parliament. The relevant Law is >>>>>>> available for viewing online.
No, it isn't. It's still illegal (at least in England and Wales) under >>>>>> the 1861 law --- the 1967 and 1990 laws merely provide a defence for pregnant
women and clinicians under certain circumstances. Now in practice, the >>>>>> state doesn't prosecute abortions under those circumstances and expect >>>>>> people to defend themselves, but AIUI it could in theory force women >>>>>> to appear in court and present a defence.
quote:
Abortion Act 1967
1 Medical termination of pregnancy.
(1)Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be
guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy >>>>> is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered >>>>> medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith-
:unquote
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/87/section/1
It then lists the conditons which need to be fulfilled.
But which when fulfilled, must therefore mean that no offence has been >>>>> committed. And thus that there are no grounds for prosection or subsequent
Court Appearences or need for any defences
bb
Unless of course the applicability of one or more of the conditions is denied
by the prosecutor.
Which is what he said.
No he didn't.
He said abortion was illegal. "An offence". But somehow the conditions imposed
by the 1967 and 1990 Acts might somehow constitute a Defence; if in fact >>> they could be shown, as applying in that particular case.
But that the State were no longer bothering to prosecute in most cases
Whereas according the actual wording of the 1967 Act, as quoted above,
a person meeting those conditions when terminating a pregnancy, shall
*not* be guilty of an offence.
Whereas obviously if anyone fails to meet those conditions - which I presume
is what you mean by "the applicability of those conditions is denied by the >>> prosecutor " - IOW where the accused is lying basically * - then they *will*
be guilty of an offence.
Indeed. But they would only be committing an offence because of the 1861 law.
I don't think the the 1967 Act created new offences (though I could be
wrong).
OK, I was wrong but not entirely in principle. My point is that
there's nothing in the current set of laws to stop the police and CPS
from arresting and prosecuting people for abortions that we are used
to regarding as legal and making them substantiate the conditions
(usually mother's mental health) in court --- something which would be extremely unpleasant for the not-a-criminal.
* Such as a claim under Section (b) that the birth would represent a
very real threat to the mother's mental health
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 38:32:28 |
| Calls: | 9,798 |
| Files: | 13,751 |
| Messages: | 6,189,398 |