The headlines are:
"MPs in England and Wales voted 379 to 137 to decriminalise abortion,
marking a significant shift in reproductive rights."
"The reform aims to protect women from investigation, arrest, prosecution,
or imprisonment related to their own pregnancies, while maintaining
penalties for abusive partners or medical professionals."
It may be too early to say but does this mean a woman can abort a viable foetus at 8 or 9 months with no consequences?
The headlines are:
"MPs in England and Wales voted 379 to 137 to decriminalise abortion,
marking a significant shift in reproductive rights."
"The reform aims to protect women from investigation, arrest,
prosecution, or imprisonment related to their own pregnancies, while maintaining penalties for abusive partners or medical professionals."
It may be too early to say but does this mean a woman can abort a viable foetus at 8 or 9 months with no consequences?
On 18/06/2025 10:41, Jeff Gaines wrote:
The headlines are:
"MPs in England and Wales voted 379 to 137 to decriminalise abortion,
marking a significant shift in reproductive rights."
"The reform aims to protect women from investigation, arrest,
prosecution, or imprisonment related to their own pregnancies, while
maintaining penalties for abusive partners or medical professionals."
It may be too early to say but does this mean a woman can abort a viable
foetus at 8 or 9 months with no consequences?
MPs vote to decriminalise abortion for women in England and Wales https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2le12114j9o
"The law will still penalise anyone who assists a woman, including
medical professionals, in getting an abortion outside the current legal framework."
So, if a woman turns up with a foetus half in and half out, they're not allowed to help her?
(It's a bit like the debate about "assisted dying", where, currently,
you're allowed to do it yourself but not allow someone else to help you.)
On 18 Jun 2025 at 10:41:16 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
The headlines are:
"MPs in England and Wales voted 379 to 137 to decriminalise abortion, >>marking a significant shift in reproductive rights."
"The reform aims to protect women from investigation, arrest, prosecution, >>or imprisonment related to their own pregnancies, while maintaining >>penalties for abusive partners or medical professionals."
It may be too early to say but does this mean a woman can abort a viable >>foetus at 8 or 9 months with no consequences?
What sort of "consequences" would you expect, and why?
On 18/06/2025 in message <3994547175.45d663f8@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 10:41:16 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
The headlines are:
"MPs in England and Wales voted 379 to 137 to decriminalise abortion,
marking a significant shift in reproductive rights."
"The reform aims to protect women from investigation, arrest, prosecution, >>> or imprisonment related to their own pregnancies, while maintaining
penalties for abusive partners or medical professionals."
It may be too early to say but does this mean a woman can abort a viable >>> foetus at 8 or 9 months with no consequences?
What sort of "consequences" would you expect, and why?
Prosecution for killing a viable baby, murder, manslaughter etc.
On 18 Jun 2025 at 11:14:26 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 18/06/2025 in message <3994547175.45d663f8@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 10:41:16 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>wrote:
The headlines are:
"MPs in England and Wales voted 379 to 137 to decriminalise abortion, >>>>marking a significant shift in reproductive rights."
"The reform aims to protect women from investigation, arrest, >>>>prosecution,
or imprisonment related to their own pregnancies, while maintaining >>>>penalties for abusive partners or medical professionals."
It may be too early to say but does this mean a woman can abort a viable >>>>foetus at 8 or 9 months with no consequences?
What sort of "consequences" would you expect, and why?
Prosecution for killing a viable baby, murder, manslaughter etc.
In English law the foetus is not a person until born, so cannot be a
victim of
homicide.
On 18/06/2025 in message <4221536968.2019ff79@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 11:14:26 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 18/06/2025 in message <3994547175.45d663f8@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 10:41:16 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>> wrote:
The headlines are:
"MPs in England and Wales voted 379 to 137 to decriminalise abortion, >>>>> marking a significant shift in reproductive rights."
"The reform aims to protect women from investigation, arrest,
prosecution,
or imprisonment related to their own pregnancies, while maintaining
penalties for abusive partners or medical professionals."
It may be too early to say but does this mean a woman can abort a viable >>>>> foetus at 8 or 9 months with no consequences?
What sort of "consequences" would you expect, and why?
Prosecution for killing a viable baby, murder, manslaughter etc.
In English law the foetus is not a person until born, so cannot be a
victim of
homicide.
It seems to me that we should try and think of the future and ensure that
in the final legislation that is changed. Once we allow one method of
killing viable life where do we stop?
On 18 Jun 2025 at 12:00:55 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 18/06/2025 in message <4221536968.2019ff79@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 11:14:26 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>wrote:
On 18/06/2025 in message <3994547175.45d663f8@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>>Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 10:41:16 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>>>wrote:
The headlines are:
"MPs in England and Wales voted 379 to 137 to decriminalise abortion, >>>>>>marking a significant shift in reproductive rights."
"The reform aims to protect women from investigation, arrest, >>>>>>prosecution,
or imprisonment related to their own pregnancies, while maintaining >>>>>>penalties for abusive partners or medical professionals."
It may be too early to say but does this mean a woman can abort a >>>>>>viable
foetus at 8 or 9 months with no consequences?
What sort of "consequences" would you expect, and why?
Prosecution for killing a viable baby, murder, manslaughter etc.
In English law the foetus is not a person until born, so cannot be a >>>victim of
homicide.
It seems to me that we should try and think of the future and ensure that >>in the final legislation that is changed. Once we allow one method of >>killing viable life where do we stop?
With the moment of birth, I would suggest.
On 18/06/2025 in message <4626064155.9362ffcd@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 12:00:55 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 18/06/2025 in message <4221536968.2019ff79@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 11:14:26 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>> wrote:
On 18/06/2025 in message <3994547175.45d663f8@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>>> Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 10:41:16 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>>>> wrote:
The headlines are:
"MPs in England and Wales voted 379 to 137 to decriminalise abortion, >>>>>>> marking a significant shift in reproductive rights."
"The reform aims to protect women from investigation, arrest,
prosecution,
or imprisonment related to their own pregnancies, while maintaining >>>>>>> penalties for abusive partners or medical professionals."
It may be too early to say but does this mean a woman can abort a >>>>>>> viable
foetus at 8 or 9 months with no consequences?
What sort of "consequences" would you expect, and why?
Prosecution for killing a viable baby, murder, manslaughter etc.
In English law the foetus is not a person until born, so cannot be a
victim of
homicide.
It seems to me that we should try and think of the future and ensure that >>> in the final legislation that is changed. Once we allow one method of
killing viable life where do we stop?
With the moment of birth, I would suggest.
That's far too late with modern medical care.
On 18 Jun 2025 at 12:41:05 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 18/06/2025 in message <4626064155.9362ffcd@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 12:00:55 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 18/06/2025 in message <4221536968.2019ff79@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 11:14:26 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 18/06/2025 in message <3994547175.45d663f8@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>>>> Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 10:41:16 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
The headlines are:
"MPs in England and Wales voted 379 to 137 to decriminalise abortion, >>>>>>>> marking a significant shift in reproductive rights."
"The reform aims to protect women from investigation, arrest,
prosecution,
or imprisonment related to their own pregnancies, while maintaining >>>>>>>> penalties for abusive partners or medical professionals."
It may be too early to say but does this mean a woman can abort a >>>>>>>> viable
foetus at 8 or 9 months with no consequences?
What sort of "consequences" would you expect, and why?
Prosecution for killing a viable baby, murder, manslaughter etc.
In English law the foetus is not a person until born, so cannot be a >>>>> victim of
homicide.
It seems to me that we should try and think of the future and ensure that >>>> in the final legislation that is changed. Once we allow one method of
killing viable life where do we stop?
With the moment of birth, I would suggest.
That's far too late with modern medical care.
So at what point does a woman lose autonomy over her own body to a bunch of Taliban-like religious men? Note that I know that's a loaded question and, unlike some people, I am not demanding an answer.
On 18 Jun 2025 at 12:58:18 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 12:41:05 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>wrote:
On 18/06/2025 in message <4626064155.9362ffcd@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 12:00:55 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>>wrote:
On 18/06/2025 in message <4221536968.2019ff79@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>>>Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 11:14:26 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On 18/06/2025 in message <3994547175.45d663f8@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>>>>>Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 10:41:16 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" >>>>>>>><jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
The headlines are:
"MPs in England and Wales voted 379 to 137 to decriminalise >>>>>>>>>abortion,
marking a significant shift in reproductive rights."
"The reform aims to protect women from investigation, arrest, >>>>>>>>>prosecution,
or imprisonment related to their own pregnancies, while maintaining >>>>>>>>>penalties for abusive partners or medical professionals."
It may be too early to say but does this mean a woman can abort a >>>>>>>>>viable
foetus at 8 or 9 months with no consequences?
What sort of "consequences" would you expect, and why?
Prosecution for killing a viable baby, murder, manslaughter etc.
In English law the foetus is not a person until born, so cannot be a >>>>>>victim of
homicide.
It seems to me that we should try and think of the future and ensure >>>>>that
in the final legislation that is changed. Once we allow one method of >>>>>killing viable life where do we stop?
With the moment of birth, I would suggest.
That's far too late with modern medical care.
So at what point does a woman lose autonomy over her own body to a bunch
of
Taliban-like religious men? Note that I know that's a loaded question
and,
unlike some people, I am not demanding an answer.
But I can reassure you that it is still illegal for anyone to help a women >terminate a pregnancy outside of the terms of the 1967 Act, as amended but >not
much.
And it remains exceedingly unwise and dangerous for a woman to do so on her >own. All that has changed is that any desperate act she may carry out to
try
to do so is no longer a crime.
On 18/06/2025 in message <4221536968.2019ff79@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 11:14:26 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>wrote:
On 18/06/2025 in message <3994547175.45d663f8@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 10:41:16 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>>wrote:
The headlines are:
"MPs in England and Wales voted 379 to 137 to decriminalise abortion, >>>>>marking a significant shift in reproductive rights."
"The reform aims to protect women from investigation, arrest, >>>>>prosecution,
or imprisonment related to their own pregnancies, while maintaining >>>>>penalties for abusive partners or medical professionals."
It may be too early to say but does this mean a woman can abort a >>>>>viable foetus at 8 or 9 months with no consequences?
What sort of "consequences" would you expect, and why?
Prosecution for killing a viable baby, murder, manslaughter etc.
In English law the foetus is not a person until born, so cannot be a
victim of homicide.
It seems to me that we should try and think of the future and ensure
that in the final legislation that is changed. Once we allow one method
of killing viable life where do we stop?
On 18/06/2025 in message <4829615896.5f118d69@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
We had some pretty good safeguards under the "old" legislation that took account of the health of mother and foetus. It seems to me now we are
saying that a woman can discard a viable foetus on a whim and nobody is
going to stand up for that foetus. It's all very well talking about
rights but there are two live in this situation, not one.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:44:36 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 18/06/2025 in message <4829615896.5f118d69@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
We had some pretty good safeguards under the "old" legislation that took
account of the health of mother and foetus. It seems to me now we are
saying that a woman can discard a viable foetus on a whim and nobody is
going to stand up for that foetus. It's all very well talking about
rights but there are two live in this situation, not one.
Respectfully, the law disagrees.
Just saying something (repeatedly) doesn't make it any less true.
On 18 Jun 2025 at 11:01:22 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 18/06/2025 10:41, Jeff Gaines wrote:
The headlines are:
"MPs in England and Wales voted 379 to 137 to decriminalise abortion,
marking a significant shift in reproductive rights."
"The reform aims to protect women from investigation, arrest,
prosecution, or imprisonment related to their own pregnancies, while
maintaining penalties for abusive partners or medical professionals."
It may be too early to say but does this mean a woman can abort a viable >>> foetus at 8 or 9 months with no consequences?
MPs vote to decriminalise abortion for women in England and Wales
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2le12114j9o
"The law will still penalise anyone who assists a woman, including
medical professionals, in getting an abortion outside the current legal
framework."
So, if a woman turns up with a foetus half in and half out, they're not
allowed to help her?
(It's a bit like the debate about "assisted dying", where, currently,
you're allowed to do it yourself but not allow someone else to help you.)
Of course they must help her! They have a legal and perhaps moral duty to save
the life of the child if feasible without harming the mother. And if it is not
possible then they have not assisted her in destroying it. Not a problem.
On 18/06/2025 13:48, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:44:36 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 18/06/2025 in message <4829615896.5f118d69@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
We had some pretty good safeguards under the "old" legislation that
took account of the health of mother and foetus. It seems to me now we
are saying that a woman can discard a viable foetus on a whim and
nobody is going to stand up for that foetus. It's all very well
talking about rights but there are two live in this situation, not
one.
Respectfully, the law disagrees.
Just saying something (repeatedly) doesn't make it any less true.
The Law (repeatedly) saying that a foetus isn't a person doesn't make it
any *more* true.
The headlines are:
"MPs in England and Wales voted 379 to 137 to decriminalise abortion,
marking a significant shift in reproductive rights."
"The reform aims to protect women from investigation, arrest,
prosecution, or imprisonment related to their own pregnancies, while maintaining penalties for abusive partners or medical professionals."
It may be too early to say but does this mean a woman can abort a
viable foetus at 8 or 9 months with no consequences?
On 18/06/2025 11:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 11:01:22 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >>
On 18/06/2025 10:41, Jeff Gaines wrote:Of course they must help her! They have a legal and perhaps moral duty to save
The headlines are:
"MPs in England and Wales voted 379 to 137 to decriminalise abortion,
marking a significant shift in reproductive rights."
"The reform aims to protect women from investigation, arrest,
prosecution, or imprisonment related to their own pregnancies, while
maintaining penalties for abusive partners or medical professionals."
It may be too early to say but does this mean a woman can abort a viable >>>> foetus at 8 or 9 months with no consequences?
MPs vote to decriminalise abortion for women in England and Wales
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2le12114j9o
"The law will still penalise anyone who assists a woman, including
medical professionals, in getting an abortion outside the current legal
framework."
So, if a woman turns up with a foetus half in and half out, they're not
allowed to help her?
(It's a bit like the debate about "assisted dying", where, currently,
you're allowed to do it yourself but not allow someone else to help you.) >>
the life of the child if feasible without harming the mother. And if it is not
possible then they have not assisted her in destroying it. Not a problem.
If the child is already dead (caused by the abortifacient), then they
can't save it and could be considered to be aiding the abortion.
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in news:xn0p76wiu9nuseq01o@news.individual.net:
The headlines are:
"MPs in England and Wales voted 379 to 137 to decriminalise abortion,
marking a significant shift in reproductive rights."
"The reform aims to protect women from investigation, arrest,
prosecution, or imprisonment related to their own pregnancies, while
maintaining penalties for abusive partners or medical professionals."
It may be too early to say but does this mean a woman can abort a
viable foetus at 8 or 9 months with no consequences?
Killing of a viable foetus amounts to Child Destruction, an offence under
the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. Punishable by up to life imprisonment.
The wikipedia page under that subject name has a reasonable summary.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:44:36 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
We had some pretty good safeguards under the "old" legislation that took
account of the health of mother and foetus. It seems to me now we are
saying that a woman can discard a viable foetus on a whim and nobody is
going to stand up for that foetus. It's all very well talking about
rights but there are two live in this situation, not one.
Respectfully, the law disagrees.
Just saying something (repeatedly) doesn't make it any less true.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 14:01:28 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 18/06/2025 13:48, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:44:36 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 18/06/2025 in message <4829615896.5f118d69@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
We had some pretty good safeguards under the "old" legislation that
took account of the health of mother and foetus. It seems to me now we >>>> are saying that a woman can discard a viable foetus on a whim and
nobody is going to stand up for that foetus. It's all very well
talking about rights but there are two live in this situation, not
one.
Respectfully, the law disagrees.
Just saying something (repeatedly) doesn't make it any less true.
The Law (repeatedly) saying that a foetus isn't a person doesn't make it
any *more* true.
That, of course, then depends on your definition of "person". And if that
is some variation of "a living human" then we are back to square one.
Life and intelligence are impossible to define in isolation. They have to
be defined in a circular manner since fundamentally we have no idea what either is outside of our own observations. We form part of the
definition. Hence the persistence of such useless pursuits as philosophy.
This would be merely a backwater of discussion. Only we are now looking
for life - and intelligence - outside our own planet, and I often wonder
if we'd ever know if we found it were it to be radically different to
what we think it is.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 14:01:28 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 18/06/2025 13:48, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:44:36 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 18/06/2025 in message <4829615896.5f118d69@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
We had some pretty good safeguards under the "old" legislation that
took account of the health of mother and foetus. It seems to me now we >>>> are saying that a woman can discard a viable foetus on a whim and
nobody is going to stand up for that foetus. It's all very well
talking about rights but there are two live in this situation, not
one.
Respectfully, the law disagrees.
Just saying something (repeatedly) doesn't make it any less true.
The Law (repeatedly) saying that a foetus isn't a person doesn't make it
any *more* true.
That, of course, then depends on your definition of "person". And if that
is some variation of "a living human" then we are back to square one.
That, of course, then depends on your definition of "person". And if that >>is some variation of "a living human" then we are back to square one.
If the foetus is wanted, it's a baby; if it isn't, it's a pregnancy, and
can be disposed of.
On 18/06/2025 in message <102v2ck$3a0qp$1@dont-email.me> Max Demian wrote:
That, of course, then depends on your definition of "person". And if that >>> is some variation of "a living human" then we are back to square one.
If the foetus is wanted, it's a baby; if it isn't, it's a pregnancy, and
can be disposed of.
That, sadly, seems to be very close to the truth. I thought we had Lords Spiritual so that at least some consideration was given to morality when considering legislation.
On 18 Jun 2025 at 21:23:15 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 18/06/2025 in message <102v2ck$3a0qp$1@dont-email.me> Max Demian wrote:
That, of course, then depends on your definition of "person". And if >>>>that
is some variation of "a living human" then we are back to square one.
If the foetus is wanted, it's a baby; if it isn't, it's a pregnancy, and >>>can be disposed of.
That, sadly, seems to be very close to the truth. I thought we had Lords >>Spiritual so that at least some consideration was given to morality when >>considering legislation.
So morality = patriarchal religious organisations?
On 18/06/2025 in message <102v2ck$3a0qp$1@dont-email.me> Max Demian wrote:
That, of course, then depends on your definition of "person". And if that >>>is some variation of "a living human" then we are back to square one.
If the foetus is wanted, it's a baby; if it isn't, it's a pregnancy, and >>can be disposed of.
That, sadly, seems to be very close to the truth. I thought we had Lords Spiritual so that at least some consideration was given to morality when considering legislation.
On 18/06/2025 in message <7976344325.6d95b9f5@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 21:23:15 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>wrote:
On 18/06/2025 in message <102v2ck$3a0qp$1@dont-email.me> Max Demian wrote: >>>
That, of course, then depends on your definition of "person". And if >>>>>that
is some variation of "a living human" then we are back to square one.
If the foetus is wanted, it's a baby; if it isn't, it's a pregnancy, and >>>>can be disposed of.
That, sadly, seems to be very close to the truth. I thought we had Lords >>>Spiritual so that at least some consideration was given to morality when >>>considering legislation.
So morality = patriarchal religious organisations?
Is it not their role? Nobody seems to have considered morals with this abortion legislation.
On 18/06/2025 in message <7976344325.6d95b9f5@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 21:23:15 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 18/06/2025 in message <102v2ck$3a0qp$1@dont-email.me> Max Demian wrote: >>>
That, of course, then depends on your definition of "person". And if >>>>> thatIf the foetus is wanted, it's a baby; if it isn't, it's a pregnancy, and >>>> can be disposed of.
is some variation of "a living human" then we are back to square one. >>>>
That, sadly, seems to be very close to the truth. I thought we had Lords >>> Spiritual so that at least some consideration was given to morality when >>> considering legislation.
So morality = patriarchal religious organisations?
Is it not their role? Nobody seems to have considered morals with this abortion legislation.
On 18/06/2025 in message <7976344325.6d95b9f5@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 21:23:15 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 18/06/2025 in message <102v2ck$3a0qp$1@dont-email.me> Max Demian
wrote:
That, of course, then depends on your definition of "person". AndIf the foetus is wanted, it's a baby; if it isn't, it's a pregnancy,
if that
is some variation of "a living human" then we are back to square one. >>>>
and
can be disposed of.
That, sadly, seems to be very close to the truth. I thought we had Lords >>> Spiritual so that at least some consideration was given to morality when >>> considering legislation.
So morality = patriarchal religious organisations?
Is it not their role? Nobody seems to have considered morals with this abortion legislation.
On 6/18/25 22:24, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 18/06/2025 in message <7976344325.6d95b9f5@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 21:23:15 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>wrote:
On 18/06/2025 in message <102v2ck$3a0qp$1@dont-email.me> Max Demian >>>>wrote:
That, of course, then depends on your definition of "person". And if >>>>>>thatIf the foetus is wanted, it's a baby; if it isn't, it's a pregnancy, >>>>>and
is some variation of "a living human" then we are back to square one. >>>>>
can be disposed of.
That, sadly, seems to be very close to the truth. I thought we had Lords >>>>Spiritual so that at least some consideration was given to morality when >>>>considering legislation.
So morality = patriarchal religious organisations?
Is it not their role? Nobody seems to have considered morals with this >>abortion legislation.
I think people have considered morals, it is just that their morals are >different to yours.
On 18/06/2025 in message <7976344325.6d95b9f5@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 21:23:15 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>wrote:
On 18/06/2025 in message <102v2ck$3a0qp$1@dont-email.me> Max Demian >>>wrote:
That, of course, then depends on your definition of "person". And if >>>>>that is some variation of "a living human" then we are back to square >>>>>one.
If the foetus is wanted, it's a baby; if it isn't, it's a pregnancy, >>>>and can be disposed of.
That, sadly, seems to be very close to the truth. I thought we had
Lords Spiritual so that at least some consideration was given to
morality when considering legislation.
So morality = patriarchal religious organisations?
Is it not their role? Nobody seems to have considered morals with this abortion legislation.
On 18 Jun 2025 at 22:24:27 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 18/06/2025 in message <7976344325.6d95b9f5@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 21:23:15 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>wrote:
On 18/06/2025 in message <102v2ck$3a0qp$1@dont-email.me> Max Demian >>>>wrote:
That, of course, then depends on your definition of "person". And if >>>>>>thatIf the foetus is wanted, it's a baby; if it isn't, it's a pregnancy, >>>>>and
is some variation of "a living human" then we are back to square one. >>>>>
can be disposed of.
That, sadly, seems to be very close to the truth. I thought we had Lords >>>>Spiritual so that at least some consideration was given to morality when >>>>considering legislation.
So morality = patriarchal religious organisations?
Is it not their role? Nobody seems to have considered morals with this >>abortion legislation.
My own sense of morality works very well without the aid of sky fairies. >However, it actually leads me to support today's decision. I have a funny >feeling some of the Anglican lords might well agree with me, but I won't
let
that discourage me.
18/06/2025 in message <8287941780.c737dff6@uninhabited.net> Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
We have freedom of religion in the UK
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 09:47:21 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
18/06/2025 in message <8287941780.c737dff6@uninhabited.net> Roger Hayter >>wrote:
[quoted text muted]
We have freedom of religion in the UK
No we don't.
You can't have freedom without equality, and not all religions are equal.
It would be much easier to have a freedom of "non religion". But that
doesn't work for whatever pressure group that wants their religion to be >"special".
On 2025-06-18, Peter Walker <not@for.mail> wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in
news:xn0p76wiu9nuseq01o@news.individual.net:
The headlines are:
"MPs in England and Wales voted 379 to 137 to decriminalise
abortion, marking a significant shift in reproductive rights."
"The reform aims to protect women from investigation, arrest,
prosecution, or imprisonment related to their own pregnancies, while
maintaining penalties for abusive partners or medical
professionals."
It may be too early to say but does this mean a woman can abort a
viable foetus at 8 or 9 months with no consequences?
Killing of a viable foetus amounts to Child Destruction, an offence
under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. Punishable by up to
life imprisonment.
The wikipedia page under that subject name has a reasonable summary.
The amendment as passed says:
For the purposes of the law related to abortion, including
sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and
the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, no offence is committed
by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy.
So that law will no longer apply in relation to a person's own
pregnancy.
There was another proposed amendment which would have repealed the
1929 Act completely, but I think it wasn't selected for a vote.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in news:slrn1055o7e.c44o.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu:
On 2025-06-18, Peter Walker <not@for.mail> wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in
news:xn0p76wiu9nuseq01o@news.individual.net:
The headlines are:
"MPs in England and Wales voted 379 to 137 to decriminalise
abortion, marking a significant shift in reproductive rights."
"The reform aims to protect women from investigation, arrest,
prosecution, or imprisonment related to their own pregnancies, while
maintaining penalties for abusive partners or medical
professionals."
It may be too early to say but does this mean a woman can abort a
viable foetus at 8 or 9 months with no consequences?
Killing of a viable foetus amounts to Child Destruction, an offence
under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. Punishable by up to
life imprisonment.
The wikipedia page under that subject name has a reasonable summary.
The amendment as passed says:
For the purposes of the law related to abortion, including
sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and
the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, no offence is committed
by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy.
So that law will no longer apply in relation to a person's own
pregnancy.
There was another proposed amendment which would have repealed the
1929 Act completely, but I think it wasn't selected for a vote.
Thanks for the clarification.
That's disappointing, basically legitamising deliberate self induced late abortion when a viable infant might be born which I feel is fundamentally wrong.
On 2025-06-19, Peter Walker <not@for.mail> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in
news:slrn1055o7e.c44o.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu:
On 2025-06-18, Peter Walker <not@for.mail> wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in
news:xn0p76wiu9nuseq01o@news.individual.net:
The headlines are:
"MPs in England and Wales voted 379 to 137 to decriminalise
abortion, marking a significant shift in reproductive rights."
"The reform aims to protect women from investigation, arrest,
prosecution, or imprisonment related to their own pregnancies,
while maintaining penalties for abusive partners or medical
professionals."
It may be too early to say but does this mean a woman can abort a
viable foetus at 8 or 9 months with no consequences?
Killing of a viable foetus amounts to Child Destruction, an offence
under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. Punishable by up to
life imprisonment.
The wikipedia page under that subject name has a reasonable
summary.
The amendment as passed says:
For the purposes of the law related to abortion, including
sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861
and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, no offence is
committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy.
So that law will no longer apply in relation to a person's own
pregnancy.
There was another proposed amendment which would have repealed the
1929 Act completely, but I think it wasn't selected for a vote.
Thanks for the clarification.
That's disappointing, basically legitamising deliberate self induced
late abortion when a viable infant might be born which I feel is
fundamentally wrong.
I agree that feels bad, but I wonder if in real life that sort of
thing actually happens at all, and if so whether it happens in
circumstances where any reasonable person would think that treating
the person who had been pregnant as a criminal deserving of punishment
would be justice as opposed to exacerbating an already tragic
situation.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in news:slrn1055o7e.c44o.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu:
On 2025-06-18, Peter Walker <not@for.mail> wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in
news:xn0p76wiu9nuseq01o@news.individual.net:
The headlines are:
"MPs in England and Wales voted 379 to 137 to decriminalise
abortion, marking a significant shift in reproductive rights."
"The reform aims to protect women from investigation, arrest,
prosecution, or imprisonment related to their own pregnancies, while
maintaining penalties for abusive partners or medical
professionals."
It may be too early to say but does this mean a woman can abort a
viable foetus at 8 or 9 months with no consequences?
Killing of a viable foetus amounts to Child Destruction, an offence
under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. Punishable by up to
life imprisonment.
The wikipedia page under that subject name has a reasonable summary.
The amendment as passed says:
For the purposes of the law related to abortion, including
sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and
the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, no offence is committed
by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy.
So that law will no longer apply in relation to a person's own
pregnancy.
There was another proposed amendment which would have repealed the
1929 Act completely, but I think it wasn't selected for a vote.
Thanks for the clarification.
That's disappointing, basically legitamising deliberate self induced late abortion when a viable infant might be born which I feel is fundamentally wrong.
I'd hope to retain the 1929 Act or a modern replacment/equivalent as it protects the foetus from the acts of third party aggressors against a pregnant woman eg. violent prtners/exes.
Sadly in Scotland an assualt occasioning the miscarriage of a foetus can
only be prosucuted as an offence of assult/ABH/GBH(English equivs given) against the mother and not child destruction, despite the potential aggravating factors under sentencing.
On 18/06/2025 01:48 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:44:36 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
We had some pretty good safeguards under the "old" legislation that took >>> account of the health of mother and foetus. It seems to me now we are
saying that a woman can discard a viable foetus on a whim and nobody is
going to stand up for that foetus. It's all very well talking about
rights but there are two live in this situation, not one.
Respectfully, the law disagrees.
That can't be true because as you are aware, the law provides various safeguards
for the unborn child. They have not been repealed.
Just saying something (repeatedly) doesn't make it any less true.
Good point. Perhaps one of which everybody ought to be aware.
We have freedom of religion in the UK so it is up to individuals to
choose their spiritual leaders, or to have none. You may choose "none"
but that shouldn't lead to denigration of the choice of others.
On 18/06/2025 in message <8287941780.c737dff6@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 22:24:27 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 18/06/2025 in message <7976344325.6d95b9f5@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 21:23:15 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>> wrote:
On 18/06/2025 in message <102v2ck$3a0qp$1@dont-email.me> Max Demian
wrote:
That, of course, then depends on your definition of "person". And if >>>>>>> thatIf the foetus is wanted, it's a baby; if it isn't, it's a pregnancy, >>>>>> and
is some variation of "a living human" then we are back to square one. >>>>>>
can be disposed of.
That, sadly, seems to be very close to the truth. I thought we had Lords >>>>> Spiritual so that at least some consideration was given to morality when >>>>> considering legislation.
So morality = patriarchal religious organisations?
Is it not their role? Nobody seems to have considered morals with this
abortion legislation.
My own sense of morality works very well without the aid of sky fairies.
However, it actually leads me to support today's decision. I have a funny
feeling some of the Anglican lords might well agree with me, but I won't
let
that discourage me.
We have freedom of religion in the UK so it is up to individuals to choose their spiritual leaders, or to have none. You may choose "none" but that shouldn't lead to denigration of the choice of others.
Peter Walker <not@for.mail> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in
news:slrn1055o7e.c44o.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu:
On 2025-06-18, Peter Walker <not@for.mail> wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in
news:xn0p76wiu9nuseq01o@news.individual.net:
The headlines are:
"MPs in England and Wales voted 379 to 137 to decriminalise
abortion, marking a significant shift in reproductive rights."
"The reform aims to protect women from investigation, arrest,
prosecution, or imprisonment related to their own pregnancies, while >>>>> maintaining penalties for abusive partners or medical
professionals."
It may be too early to say but does this mean a woman can abort a
viable foetus at 8 or 9 months with no consequences?
Killing of a viable foetus amounts to Child Destruction, an offence
under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. Punishable by up to
life imprisonment.
The wikipedia page under that subject name has a reasonable summary.
The amendment as passed says:
For the purposes of the law related to abortion, including
sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and
the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, no offence is committed
by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy.
So that law will no longer apply in relation to a person's own
pregnancy.
There was another proposed amendment which would have repealed the
1929 Act completely, but I think it wasn't selected for a vote.
Thanks for the clarification.
That's disappointing, basically legitamising deliberate self induced late
abortion when a viable infant might be born which I feel is fundamentally
wrong.
How do you determine “self induced”?
The process is that in the event of any stillbirth or other death of the
baby before or during birth the woman will be arrested, perhaps being taken from a hospital bed to a police station for questioning. Given the speed at which the criminal justice system works the woman will be under
investigation for months, if not years.
Do not tell me that is not what you intend, tell me why a woman who has
just lost the baby she wanted cannot be subjected to that inquisition.
snip
On 19/06/2025 in message <1030nq2$36m7c$2@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 09:47:21 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
18/06/2025 in message <8287941780.c737dff6@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
We have freedom of religion in the UK
No we don't.
You can't have freedom without equality, and not all religions are
equal.
It would be much easier to have a freedom of "non religion". But that >>doesn't work for whatever pressure group that wants their religion to be >>"special".
That looks interesting, do you want to expand?
Peter Walker <not@for.mail> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in
news:slrn1055o7e.c44o.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu:
On 2025-06-18, Peter Walker <not@for.mail> wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in
news:xn0p76wiu9nuseq01o@news.individual.net:
The headlines are:
"MPs in England and Wales voted 379 to 137 to decriminalise
abortion, marking a significant shift in reproductive rights."
"The reform aims to protect women from investigation, arrest,
prosecution, or imprisonment related to their own pregnancies,
while maintaining penalties for abusive partners or medical
professionals."
It may be too early to say but does this mean a woman can abort a
viable foetus at 8 or 9 months with no consequences?
Killing of a viable foetus amounts to Child Destruction, an offence
under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. Punishable by up to
life imprisonment.
The wikipedia page under that subject name has a reasonable
summary.
The amendment as passed says:
For the purposes of the law related to abortion, including
sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and
the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, no offence is committed
by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy.
So that law will no longer apply in relation to a person's own
pregnancy.
There was another proposed amendment which would have repealed the
1929 Act completely, but I think it wasn't selected for a vote.
Thanks for the clarification.
That's disappointing, basically legitamising deliberate self induced
late abortion when a viable infant might be born which I feel is
fundamentally wrong.
How do you determine “self induced”?
The process is that in the event of any stillbirth or other death of
the baby before or during birth the woman will be arrested, perhaps
being taken from a hospital bed to a police station for questioning.
Given the speed at which the criminal justice system works the woman
will be under investigation for months, if not years.
Do not tell me that is not what you intend, tell me why a woman who
has just lost the baby she wanted cannot be subjected to that
inquisition.
Peter Walker <not@for.mail> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
How do you determine “self induced”?
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 10:18:24 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 19/06/2025 in message <1030nq2$36m7c$2@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk
wrote:
It would be much easier to have a freedom of "non religion". But that >>>doesn't work for whatever pressure group that wants their religion to be >>>"special".
That looks interesting, do you want to expand?
It is one of those rare beasts - self explanatory.
Remove all and any laws that work to allow any religious point of view
some sort of differentiation to other points of view. So any notion of blasphemy is out the window for a start. Burn a Koran ? Well if it's not
in a clear air zone and the property of the burner, crack on.
On 19/06/2025 10:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
<snip>
We have freedom of religion in the UK so it is up to individuals to
choose their spiritual leaders, or to have none. You may choose "none"
but that shouldn't lead to denigration of the choice of others.
Why not? Many people denigrate, for example, Freemen on the Land and a whole host of other conspiracy theorists, yet their beliefs are surely
less risible than religions.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 10:18:24 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 19/06/2025 in message <1030nq2$36m7c$2@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 09:47:21 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
18/06/2025 in message <8287941780.c737dff6@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>>Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
We have freedom of religion in the UK
No we don't.
You can't have freedom without equality, and not all religions are
equal.
It would be much easier to have a freedom of "non religion". But that >>>doesn't work for whatever pressure group that wants their religion to be >>>"special".
That looks interesting, do you want to expand?
It is one of those rare beasts - self explanatory.
Remove all and any laws that work to allow any religious point of view
some sort of differentiation to other points of view. So any notion of >blasphemy is out the window for a start. Burn a Koran ? Well if it's not
in a clear air zone and the property of the burner, crack on.
It's probably best regarded as an expression of ignosticism.
As I noted there are too many vested interests to allow it to happen.
Faced with their own jurisprudential irrelevance, you would have an
amazing display of interfaith unity.
On 2025-06-19, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 10:18:24 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 19/06/2025 in message <1030nq2$36m7c$2@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk
wrote:
It would be much easier to have a freedom of "non religion". But that
doesn't work for whatever pressure group that wants their religion to be >>>> "special".
That looks interesting, do you want to expand?
It is one of those rare beasts - self explanatory.
Remove all and any laws that work to allow any religious point of view
some sort of differentiation to other points of view. So any notion of
blasphemy is out the window for a start. Burn a Koran ? Well if it's not
in a clear air zone and the property of the burner, crack on.
That's nothing to do with "blasphemy". If you were to burn a Koran
in the privacy of your own home then you wouldn't be committing any
offence, and if you did it somewhere in public then the most likely
offence, if any, would be a public order offence - which has nothing
to do with religion.
On 2025-06-19, Clive Arthur <clive@notnowthanks.co.uk> wrote:
On 19/06/2025 10:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
<snip>
We have freedom of religion in the UK so it is up to individuals to
choose their spiritual leaders, or to have none. You may choose "none"
but that shouldn't lead to denigration of the choice of others.
Why not? Many people denigrate, for example, Freemen on the Land and a
whole host of other conspiracy theorists, yet their beliefs are surely
less risible than religions.
Surely they are *more* risible? Unlike most religions, they make
provably false claims.
On 18/06/2025 16:13, JNugent wrote:
On 18/06/2025 01:48 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:44:36 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
We had some pretty good safeguards under the "old" legislation that
took
account of the health of mother and foetus. It seems to me now we are
saying that a woman can discard a viable foetus on a whim and nobody is >>>> going to stand up for that foetus. It's all very well talking about
rights but there are two live in this situation, not one.
Respectfully, the law disagrees.
That can't be true because as you are aware, the law provides various
safeguards for the unborn child. They have not been repealed.
Just saying something (repeatedly) doesn't make it any less true.
Good point. Perhaps one of which everybody ought to be aware.
I assume the law would get itself in a mess if it allowed that an unborn
baby is a "life" because then it might just have to disallow all abortion.
My own feelings are that the current cut off period of 24 weks, that is viabiity, give people lenty of time to abort earlier, and if there are
those who have aneed after, either because of the baby being severely disabled, the mother's life being at risk, or because they messed up
their dates/decided they can't keep it, there needs to sympathetic, and individual, help available, in each case the best sort of support which
helps the parent(s) and could assist a woman to continue with the
pregnancy where possible.
But at the moment the abortion lobby is inthe ascendant and those who
would help are kept quiet.
I know people who have needed an abortion, not that late, but on t
eother hand if my daughter-in-law's mum had got rid of her rather than
giving her up for adoption, I wouldn't have her and she is great.
On 19 Jun 2025 at 14:20:57 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-19, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 10:18:24 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 19/06/2025 in message <1030nq2$36m7c$2@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk
wrote:
It would be much easier to have a freedom of "non religion". But that >>>>> doesn't work for whatever pressure group that wants their religion to be >>>>> "special".
That looks interesting, do you want to expand?
It is one of those rare beasts - self explanatory.
Remove all and any laws that work to allow any religious point of view
some sort of differentiation to other points of view. So any notion of
blasphemy is out the window for a start. Burn a Koran ? Well if it's not >>> in a clear air zone and the property of the burner, crack on.
That's nothing to do with "blasphemy". If you were to burn a Koran
in the privacy of your own home then you wouldn't be committing any
offence, and if you did it somewhere in public then the most likely
offence, if any, would be a public order offence - which has nothing
to do with religion.
Try a public event burning a football scarf in that team's local area if you think public burning of a Koran is a religious gesture.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 13:20:57 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-19, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
That's nothing to do with "blasphemy". If you were to burn a Koran in
the privacy of your own home then you wouldn't be committing any
offence, and if you did it somewhere in public then the most likely
offence, if any, would be a public order offence - which has nothing to
do with religion.
Except Bibles have been burned and nothing done.
If you want your laws, you want them applied evenly.
On 2025-06-19, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
That's nothing to do with "blasphemy". If you were to burn a Koran in
the privacy of your own home then you wouldn't be committing any
offence, and if you did it somewhere in public then the most likely
offence, if any, would be a public order offence - which has nothing to
do with religion.
On 19 Jun 2025 at 10:47:21 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 18/06/2025 in message <8287941780.c737dff6@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 22:24:27 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 18/06/2025 in message <7976344325.6d95b9f5@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 21:23:15 BST, ""Jeff Gaines""
<jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 18/06/2025 in message <102v2ck$3a0qp$1@dont-email.me> Max Demian >>>>>> wrote:
That, of course, then depends on your definition of "person". And >>>>>>>> if that is some variation of "a living human" then we are back to >>>>>>>> square one.
If the foetus is wanted, it's a baby; if it isn't, it's a
pregnancy,
and can be disposed of.
That, sadly, seems to be very close to the truth. I thought we had >>>>>> Lords Spiritual so that at least some consideration was given to
morality when considering legislation.
So morality = patriarchal religious organisations?
Is it not their role? Nobody seems to have considered morals with
this abortion legislation.
My own sense of morality works very well without the aid of sky
fairies. However, it actually leads me to support today's decision. I
have a funny feeling some of the Anglican lords might well agree with
me, but I won't let that discourage me.
We have freedom of religion in the UK so it is up to individuals to
choose their spiritual leaders, or to have none. You may choose "none"
but that shouldn't lead to denigration of the choice of others.
Absolutely, I'm all for that. Which is why I don't want religious
leaders making laws for me. I am happy with the secular appointment
system of appointing MPs and Lords. (Well not that happy, but I don't
want ex-officio religious leaders making my laws. If MPs are religious,
let them declare it, but otherwise its their votes not their position in
a church which enables them.)
Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1030vk9$3sl1e$1@dont-email.me:
Peter Walker <not@for.mail> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in
news:slrn1055o7e.c44o.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu:
On 2025-06-18, Peter Walker <not@for.mail> wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in
news:xn0p76wiu9nuseq01o@news.individual.net:
The headlines are:
"MPs in England and Wales voted 379 to 137 to decriminalise
abortion, marking a significant shift in reproductive rights."
"The reform aims to protect women from investigation, arrest,
prosecution, or imprisonment related to their own pregnancies,
while maintaining penalties for abusive partners or medical
professionals."
It may be too early to say but does this mean a woman can abort a
viable foetus at 8 or 9 months with no consequences?
Killing of a viable foetus amounts to Child Destruction, an offence
under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. Punishable by up to
life imprisonment.
The wikipedia page under that subject name has a reasonable
summary.
The amendment as passed says:
For the purposes of the law related to abortion, including
sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and
the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, no offence is committed
by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy.
So that law will no longer apply in relation to a person's own
pregnancy.
There was another proposed amendment which would have repealed the
1929 Act completely, but I think it wasn't selected for a vote.
Thanks for the clarification.
That's disappointing, basically legitamising deliberate self induced
late abortion when a viable infant might be born which I feel is
fundamentally wrong.
How do you determine self induced?
I have no intention of doing such as that is the purpose of legal >investigation and process much as any potential crime is investigated.
The process is that in the event of any stillbirth or other death of
the baby before or during birth the woman will be arrested, perhaps
being taken from a hospital bed to a police station for questioning.
Given the speed at which the criminal justice system works the woman
will be under investigation for months, if not years.
Do not tell me that is not what you intend, tell me why a woman who
has just lost the baby she wanted cannot be subjected to that
inquisition.
We're not talking about the 'loss of a baby', we're talking about the >potential deliberate destruction of a viable foetus which is worthy of >investigation as are any situations where there is a loss of life or >potentially viable life.
If for example an autopsy of a discarded potentially viable foetus
indicated a likely penetration on the skull by a knitting needle may I
assume your reluctance for investigation would be diminished?
On 19 Jun 2025 13:00:49 GMT, Peter Walker <not@for.mail> wrote in <mbig01Fne7hU1@mid.individual.net>:
Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1030vk9$3sl1e$1@dont-email.me:
Peter Walker <not@for.mail> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in
news:slrn1055o7e.c44o.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu:
On 2025-06-18, Peter Walker <not@for.mail> wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in
news:xn0p76wiu9nuseq01o@news.individual.net:
The headlines are:
"MPs in England and Wales voted 379 to 137 to decriminalise
abortion, marking a significant shift in reproductive rights."
"The reform aims to protect women from investigation, arrest,
prosecution, or imprisonment related to their own pregnancies,
while maintaining penalties for abusive partners or medical
professionals."
It may be too early to say but does this mean a woman can abort a >>>>>>> viable foetus at 8 or 9 months with no consequences?
Killing of a viable foetus amounts to Child Destruction, an offence >>>>>> under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. Punishable by up to >>>>>> life imprisonment.
The wikipedia page under that subject name has a reasonable
summary.
The amendment as passed says:
For the purposes of the law related to abortion, including
sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and
the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, no offence is committed
by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy.
So that law will no longer apply in relation to a person's own
pregnancy.
There was another proposed amendment which would have repealed the
1929 Act completely, but I think it wasn't selected for a vote.
Thanks for the clarification.
That's disappointing, basically legitamising deliberate self induced
late abortion when a viable infant might be born which I feel is
fundamentally wrong.
How do you determine self induced?
I have no intention of doing such as that is the purpose of legal
investigation and process much as any potential crime is investigated.
The process is that in the event of any stillbirth or other death of
the baby before or during birth the woman will be arrested, perhaps
being taken from a hospital bed to a police station for questioning.
Given the speed at which the criminal justice system works the woman
will be under investigation for months, if not years.
Do not tell me that is not what you intend, tell me why a woman who
has just lost the baby she wanted cannot be subjected to that
inquisition.
We're not talking about the 'loss of a baby', we're talking about the
potential deliberate destruction of a viable foetus which is worthy of
investigation as are any situations where there is a loss of life or
potentially viable life.
If for example an autopsy of a discarded potentially viable foetus
indicated a likely penetration on the skull by a knitting needle may I
assume your reluctance for investigation would be diminished?
Standard process would be for the woman to be arrested first then the investigation carried out.
Given the track record of the police and many other organisations, the
woman is likely to have to prove that she is not guilty and in order to
do so will have to use all the money she has in getting legal advice.
Anyone who thinks she will get her money back should look up "innocence
tax".
On 2025-06-19, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 13:20:57 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-19, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
That's nothing to do with "blasphemy". If you were to burn a Koran in
the privacy of your own home then you wouldn't be committing any
offence, and if you did it somewhere in public then the most likely
offence, if any, would be a public order offence - which has nothing to
do with religion.
Except Bibles have been burned and nothing done.
If you want your laws, you want them applied evenly.
It would appear that you don't want the law changed so much as you want people to be changed.
On 6/19/25 12:49, Peter Walker wrote:
When it comes to deliberate abortion of a viable foetus by a woman who
must be visibly heavily pregnant then it's difficult to distinguish the >>difference between that and the killing (murder) of a newly born infant.
I have little sympathy, let the the court decide on MH mitigation under >>sentencing rather than decriminalising the action.
What would you hope that such a law would achieve?
I have little confidence that the legal system is reliable in identifying >deliberate crime. I have little confidence that punishing genuine killings >does much good (the women are probably mentally disturbed). I have little >confidence such a law would deter late abortions. I'm very sure that >punishing, or even investigating, innocent women is harmful. I'm sure that >paying police to investigate crimes takes a valuable resource away from
other areas.
I'm not seeing evidence there is a big problem in the first place.
Why don't we just let people get on with their lives?
When it comes to deliberate abortion of a viable foetus by a woman who
must be visibly heavily pregnant then it's difficult to distinguish the difference between that and the killing (murder) of a newly born infant.
I have little sympathy, let the the court decide on MH mitigation under sentencing rather than decriminalising the action.
On 20/06/2025 in message <1032rsu$euvb$1@dont-email.me> Pancho wrote:
On 6/19/25 12:49, Peter Walker wrote:
When it comes to deliberate abortion of a viable foetus by a woman who
must be visibly heavily pregnant then it's difficult to distinguish the
difference between that and the killing (murder) of a newly born infant. >>> I have little sympathy, let the the court decide on MH mitigation under
sentencing rather than decriminalising the action.
What would you hope that such a law would achieve?
I have little confidence that the legal system is reliable in
identifying deliberate crime. I have little confidence that punishing
genuine killings does much good (the women are probably mentally
disturbed). I have little confidence such a law would deter late
abortions. I'm very sure that punishing, or even investigating,
innocent women is harmful. I'm sure that paying police to investigate
crimes takes a valuable resource away from other areas.
I'm not seeing evidence there is a big problem in the first place.
Why don't we just let people get on with their lives?
Except the viable foetus which has no choice of course.
On 6/19/25 12:49, Peter Walker wrote:
When it comes to deliberate abortion of a viable foetus by a woman who
must be visibly heavily pregnant then it's difficult to distinguish the
difference between that and the killing (murder) of a newly born infant.
I have little sympathy, let the the court decide on MH mitigation under
sentencing rather than decriminalising the action.
What would you hope that such a law would achieve?
I have little confidence that the legal system is reliable in
identifying deliberate crime. I have little confidence that punishing
genuine killings does much good (the women are probably mentally
disturbed). I have little confidence such a law would deter late
abortions. I'm very sure that punishing, or even investigating, innocent women is harmful. I'm sure that paying police to investigate crimes
takes a valuable resource away from other areas.
I'm not seeing evidence there is a big problem in the first place.
Why don't we just let people get on with their lives?
On 20/06/2025 06:34 AM, Pancho wrote:
On 6/19/25 12:49, Peter Walker wrote:
When it comes to deliberate abortion of a viable foetus by a woman who
must be visibly heavily pregnant then it's difficult to distinguish the
difference between that and the killing (murder) of a newly born infant. >>> I have little sympathy, let the the court decide on MH mitigation under
sentencing rather than decriminalising the action.
What would you hope that such a law would achieve?
I have little confidence that the legal system is reliable in
identifying deliberate crime. I have little confidence that punishing
genuine killings does much good (the women are probably mentally
disturbed). I have little confidence such a law would deter late
abortions. I'm very sure that punishing, or even investigating, innocent
women is harmful. I'm sure that paying police to investigate crimes
takes a valuable resource away from other areas.
"I'm very sure that punishing, or even investigating, innocent women is harmful".
It's a good job, then, that no part of the criminal code is aimed at
doing that (or even at punishing innocent men, as guilty as we must all
be seen), isn't it?
I'm not seeing evidence there is a big problem in the first place.
Agreed. What the "need" for this latest legislation was is not obvious.
It's somewhat reminiscent of the furore some years ago when it was
robustly claimed that women shouldn't be punished for murdering their husbands, especially not in cold blood at dead of night.
Why don't we just let people get on with their lives?
Really?
Would you prefer to have let that Chinese PhD student just get on with
his life too?
On 19/06/2025 01:27 PM, kat wrote:
On 18/06/2025 16:13, JNugent wrote:
On 18/06/2025 01:48 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:44:36 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
We had some pretty good safeguards under the "old" legislation that
took
account of the health of mother and foetus. It seems to me now we are >>>>> saying that a woman can discard a viable foetus on a whim and
nobody is
going to stand up for that foetus. It's all very well talking about
rights but there are two live in this situation, not one.
Respectfully, the law disagrees.
That can't be true because as you are aware, the law provides various
safeguards for the unborn child. They have not been repealed.
Just saying something (repeatedly) doesn't make it any less true.
Good point. Perhaps one of which everybody ought to be aware.
I assume the law would get itself in a mess if it allowed that an unborn
baby is a "life" because then it might just have to disallow all
abortion.
The law has been a mess ever since David Steel's Bill was passed.
Incidentally, and hilariously, Steel once addressed some remarks for the attention of the Pope(!) on a TV broadcast, saying that the Pope should accept that in his (ie, Steel's) opinion, there was a new sin in the
world: bringing up an unwanted child (that last bit said in terms, those
are not the exact words).
My own feelings are that the current cut off period of 24 weks, that is
viabiity, give people lenty of time to abort earlier, and if there are
those who have aneed after, either because of the baby being severely
disabled, the mother's life being at risk, or because they messed up
their dates/decided they can't keep it, there needs to sympathetic, and
individual, help available, in each case the best sort of support which
helps the parent(s) and could assist a woman to continue with the
pregnancy where possible.
But at the moment the abortion lobby is inthe ascendant and those who
would help are kept quiet.
I know people who have needed an abortion, not that late, but on t
eother hand if my daughter-in-law's mum had got rid of her rather than
giving her up for adoption, I wouldn't have her and she is great.
There are also the oft cited cases of famous and renowned people born
with some defect or other, whereas in the UK in the late twentieth
century, it would have been lawful - and perhaps even encourageable - to
kill them in the womb.
On 6/20/25 08:14, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 20/06/2025 in message <1032rsu$euvb$1@dont-email.me> Pancho wrote:
On 6/19/25 12:49, Peter Walker wrote:
When it comes to deliberate abortion of a viable foetus by a woman who >>>>must be visibly heavily pregnant then it's difficult to distinguish the >>>>difference between that and the killing (murder) of a newly born infant. >>>>I have little sympathy, let the the court decide on MH mitigation under >>>>sentencing rather than decriminalising the action.
What would you hope that such a law would achieve?
I have little confidence that the legal system is reliable in identifying >>>deliberate crime. I have little confidence that punishing genuine >>>killings does much good (the women are probably mentally disturbed). I >>>have little confidence such a law would deter late abortions. I'm very >>>sure that punishing, or even investigating, innocent women is harmful. >>>I'm sure that paying police to investigate crimes takes a valuable >>>resource away from other areas.
I'm not seeing evidence there is a big problem in the first place.
Why don't we just let people get on with their lives?
Except the viable foetus which has no choice of course.
A foetus is not a person. We have a clear divide, a foetus becomes a
person when it is born.
A foetus cannot choose. Most importantly, a foetus is not independent.
You can decide a foetus is important because it has the potential to
become a person, but so does an embryo.
People talk abstractly, about a foetus being important, and it is, mainly
to the mother. If you want to argue it important on religious grounds, you >can, but I'm not religious.
I can't see any intrinsic reason that a foetus should have more rights, of >its own, than something like a dog, a calf or a piglet.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/06/2025 06:34 AM, Pancho wrote:
On 6/19/25 12:49, Peter Walker wrote:
When it comes to deliberate abortion of a viable foetus by a woman who >>>> must be visibly heavily pregnant then it's difficult to distinguish the >>>> difference between that and the killing (murder) of a newly born infant. >>>> I have little sympathy, let the the court decide on MH mitigation under >>>> sentencing rather than decriminalising the action.
What would you hope that such a law would achieve?
I have little confidence that the legal system is reliable in
identifying deliberate crime. I have little confidence that punishing
genuine killings does much good (the women are probably mentally
disturbed). I have little confidence such a law would deter late
abortions. I'm very sure that punishing, or even investigating, innocent >>> women is harmful. I'm sure that paying police to investigate crimes
takes a valuable resource away from other areas.
"I'm very sure that punishing, or even investigating, innocent women is
harmful".
It's a good job, then, that no part of the criminal code is aimed at
doing that (or even at punishing innocent men, as guilty as we must all
be seen), isn't it?
Punishing innocent people may not be what is intended but it happens far
too often.
Even if the accused is found not guilty, the whole process is a harrowing experience and likely to be very expensive.
I'm not seeing evidence there is a big problem in the first place.
Agreed. What the "need" for this latest legislation was is not obvious.
It's somewhat reminiscent of the furore some years ago when it was
robustly claimed that women shouldn't be punished for murdering their
husbands, especially not in cold blood at dead of night.
Why don't we just let people get on with their lives?
Really?
Would you prefer to have let that Chinese PhD student just get on with
his life too?
On 6/20/25 08:14, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 20/06/2025 in message <1032rsu$euvb$1@dont-email.me> Pancho wrote:
On 6/19/25 12:49, Peter Walker wrote:
When it comes to deliberate abortion of a viable foetus by a woman who >>>> must be visibly heavily pregnant then it's difficult to distinguish the >>>> difference between that and the killing (murder) of a newly born infant. >>>> I have little sympathy, let the the court decide on MH mitigation under >>>> sentencing rather than decriminalising the action.
What would you hope that such a law would achieve?
I have little confidence that the legal system is reliable in identifying >>> deliberate crime. I have little confidence that punishing genuine killings >>> does much good (the women are probably mentally disturbed). I have little >>> confidence such a law would deter late abortions. I'm very sure that
punishing, or even investigating, innocent women is harmful. I'm sure that >>> paying police to investigate crimes takes a valuable resource away from other
areas.
I'm not seeing evidence there is a big problem in the first place.
Why don't we just let people get on with their lives?
Except the viable foetus which has no choice of course.
A foetus is not a person. We have a clear divide, a foetus becomes a person when
it is born.
A foetus cannot choose. Most importantly, a foetus is not independent.
On 20/06/2025 10:58, Pancho wrote:
On 6/20/25 08:14, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 20/06/2025 in message <1032rsu$euvb$1@dont-email.me> Pancho wrote:
On 6/19/25 12:49, Peter Walker wrote:
When it comes to deliberate abortion of a viable foetus by a woman who >>>>> must be visibly heavily pregnant then it's difficult to distinguish
the
difference between that and the killing (murder) of a newly born
infant.
I have little sympathy, let the the court decide on MH mitigation
under
sentencing rather than decriminalising the action.
What would you hope that such a law would achieve?
I have little confidence that the legal system is reliable in
identifying deliberate crime. I have little confidence that
punishing genuine killings does much good (the women are probably
mentally disturbed). I have little confidence such a law would deter
late abortions. I'm very sure that punishing, or even investigating,
innocent women is harmful. I'm sure that paying police to
investigate crimes takes a valuable resource away from other areas.
I'm not seeing evidence there is a big problem in the first place.
Why don't we just let people get on with their lives?
Except the viable foetus which has no choice of course.
A foetus is not a person. We have a clear divide, a foetus becomes a
person when it is born.
You have never been pregnant, have you.
I think people have considered morals, it is just that their morals
are different to yours.
Indeed yes. It probably depends on life experience in this highly
emotive area.
Except the viable foetus which has no choice of course.
A foetus is not a person. We have a clear divide, a foetus becomes a >>>person when it is born.
You have never been pregnant, have you.
Maybe you misunderstood what I meant. I acknowledged a foetus is important
to the mother. I think it is best to delegate responsibility for care of
the foetus to the mother. If the foetus is threatened, the mother should
be able to seek legal protection for the foetus. If someone other than the >mother harms the foetus, without the mother's permission, the law should
be able to consider it as similar to harming a baby.
The only contentious thing I'm saying is that the law should not pursue
the mother for damaging the foetus.
On 21/06/2025 in message <1035ve0$vdrr$4@dont-email.me> Pancho wrote:
Maybe you misunderstood what I meant. I acknowledged a foetus isExcept the viable foetus which has no choice of course.A foetus is not a person. We have a clear divide, a foetus becomes a >>>>person when it is born.
You have never been pregnant, have you.
important to the mother. I think it is best to delegate responsibility
for care of the foetus to the mother. If the foetus is threatened, the >>mother should be able to seek legal protection for the foetus. If
someone other than the mother harms the foetus, without the mother's >>permission, the law should be able to consider it as similar to harming
a baby.
The only contentious thing I'm saying is that the law should not pursue
the mother for damaging the foetus.
Would you give the foetus the same status as a slave then, it belongs to
its owner (the mother) who can do what she likes with it?
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:55:41 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 21/06/2025 in message <1035ve0$vdrr$4@dont-email.me> Pancho wrote:
Maybe you misunderstood what I meant. I acknowledged a foetus is >>>important to the mother. I think it is best to delegate responsibility >>>for care of the foetus to the mother. If the foetus is threatened, the >>>mother should be able to seek legal protection for the foetus. IfExcept the viable foetus which has no choice of course.A foetus is not a person. We have a clear divide, a foetus becomes a >>>>>person when it is born.
You have never been pregnant, have you.
someone other than the mother harms the foetus, without the mother's >>>permission, the law should be able to consider it as similar to harming
a baby.
The only contentious thing I'm saying is that the law should not pursue >>>the mother for damaging the foetus.
Would you give the foetus the same status as a slave then, it belongs to >>its owner (the mother) who can do what she likes with it?
Well in law, before it's born it is "it" isn't it ? It has no independent >rights.
On 21/06/2025 in message <10363tg$vl61$3@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:55:41 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 21/06/2025 in message <1035ve0$vdrr$4@dont-email.me> Pancho wrote:
Maybe you misunderstood what I meant. I acknowledged a foetus is >>>>important to the mother. I think it is best to delegate responsibility >>>>for care of the foetus to the mother. If the foetus is threatened, the >>>>mother should be able to seek legal protection for the foetus. If >>>>someone other than the mother harms the foetus, without the mother's >>>>permission, the law should be able to consider it as similar toExcept the viable foetus which has no choice of course.A foetus is not a person. We have a clear divide, a foetus becomes a >>>>>>person when it is born.
You have never been pregnant, have you.
harming a baby.
The only contentious thing I'm saying is that the law should not
pursue the mother for damaging the foetus.
Would you give the foetus the same status as a slave then, it belongs
to its owner (the mother) who can do what she likes with it?
Well in law, before it's born it is "it" isn't it ? It has no
independent rights.
Again, this is a moral issue and to say that about an 8.5 month old
foetus disgusts me.
On 6/19/25 10:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I think people have considered morals, it is just that their morals
are different to yours.
Indeed yes. It probably depends on life experience in this highly
emotive area.
It depends, maybe you feel morals are intrinsic, subliminal, without
need for discussion or explanation. Alternatively, you might take a more scientific view that morals should be justified, proved, deduced from
simpler moral axioms.
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:55:41 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 21/06/2025 in message <1035ve0$vdrr$4@dont-email.me> Pancho wrote:
Maybe you misunderstood what I meant. I acknowledged a foetus isExcept the viable foetus which has no choice of course.A foetus is not a person. We have a clear divide, a foetus becomes a >>>>> person when it is born.
You have never been pregnant, have you.
important to the mother. I think it is best to delegate responsibility
for care of the foetus to the mother. If the foetus is threatened, the
mother should be able to seek legal protection for the foetus. If
someone other than the mother harms the foetus, without the mother's
permission, the law should be able to consider it as similar to harming
a baby.
The only contentious thing I'm saying is that the law should not pursue
the mother for damaging the foetus.
Would you give the foetus the same status as a slave then, it belongs to
its owner (the mother) who can do what she likes with it?
Well in law, before it's born it is "it" isn't it ? It has no independent rights.
On 21/06/2025 in message <1035ve0$vdrr$4@dont-email.me> Pancho wrote:
Except the viable foetus which has no choice of course.
A foetus is not a person. We have a clear divide, a foetus becomes a
person when it is born.
You have never been pregnant, have you.
Maybe you misunderstood what I meant. I acknowledged a foetus is
important to the mother. I think it is best to delegate responsibility
for care of the foetus to the mother. If the foetus is threatened, the
mother should be able to seek legal protection for the foetus. If
someone other than the mother harms the foetus, without the mother's
permission, the law should be able to consider it as similar to
harming a baby.
The only contentious thing I'm saying is that the law should not
pursue the mother for damaging the foetus.
Would you give the foetus the same status as a slave then, it belongs to
its owner (the mother) who can do what she likes with it?
On 21/06/2025 10:37, Pancho wrote:
On 6/19/25 10:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I think people have considered morals, it is just that their morals
are different to yours.
Indeed yes. It probably depends on life experience in this highly
emotive area.
It depends, maybe you feel morals are intrinsic, subliminal, without
need for discussion or explanation. Alternatively, you might take a
more scientific view that morals should be justified, proved, deduced
from simpler moral axioms.
Who decides these "simpler moral axioms"?
There are schemes like utilitarianism, (greatest good for the greatest
number &c.), but they have shortcomings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Utilitarianism#Criticisms_and_responses
Morality can't be derived scientifically, as science determines what is,
not what ought to be.
It's a whole branch of philosophy.
On 21/06/2025 in message <10363tg$vl61$3@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:55:41 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 21/06/2025 in message <1035ve0$vdrr$4@dont-email.me> Pancho wrote:
Maybe you misunderstood what I meant. I acknowledged a foetus isExcept the viable foetus which has no choice of course.A foetus is not a person. We have a clear divide, a foetus becomes a >>>>>> person when it is born.
You have never been pregnant, have you.
important to the mother. I think it is best to delegate responsibility >>>> for care of the foetus to the mother. If the foetus is threatened, the >>>> mother should be able to seek legal protection for the foetus. If
someone other than the mother harms the foetus, without the mother's
permission, the law should be able to consider it as similar to harming >>>> a baby.
The only contentious thing I'm saying is that the law should not pursue >>>> the mother for damaging the foetus.
Would you give the foetus the same status as a slave then, it belongs to >>> its owner (the mother) who can do what she likes with it?
Well in law, before it's born it is "it" isn't it ? It has no independent
rights.
Again, this is a moral issue and to say that about an 8.5 month old
foetus disgusts me.
On 21/06/2025 in message <10363tg$vl61$3@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:55:41 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 21/06/2025 in message <1035ve0$vdrr$4@dont-email.me> Pancho wrote:
Maybe you misunderstood what I meant. I acknowledged a foetus isExcept the viable foetus which has no choice of course.A foetus is not a person. We have a clear divide, a foetus becomes a >>>>>> person when it is born.
You have never been pregnant, have you.
important to the mother. I think it is best to delegate responsibility >>>> for care of the foetus to the mother. If the foetus is threatened, the >>>> mother should be able to seek legal protection for the foetus. If
someone other than the mother harms the foetus, without the mother's
permission, the law should be able to consider it as similar to harming >>>> a baby.
The only contentious thing I'm saying is that the law should not pursue >>>> the mother for damaging the foetus.
Would you give the foetus the same status as a slave then, it belongs to >>> its owner (the mother) who can do what she likes with it?
Well in law, before it's born it is "it" isn't it ? It has no independent
rights.
Again, this is a moral issue and to say that about an 8.5 month old foetus disgusts me.
On 21/06/2025 13:11, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 21/06/2025 in message <10363tg$vl61$3@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:55:41 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 21/06/2025 in message <1035ve0$vdrr$4@dont-email.me> Pancho wrote:
Maybe you misunderstood what I meant. I acknowledged a foetus is >>>>>important to the mother. I think it is best to delegate responsibility >>>>>for care of the foetus to the mother. If the foetus is threatened, the >>>>>mother should be able to seek legal protection for the foetus. If >>>>>someone other than the mother harms the foetus, without the mother's >>>>>permission, the law should be able to consider it as similar to harming >>>>>a baby.Except the viable foetus which has no choice of course.A foetus is not a person. We have a clear divide, a foetus becomes a >>>>>>>person when it is born.
You have never been pregnant, have you.
The only contentious thing I'm saying is that the law should not pursue >>>>>the mother for damaging the foetus.
Would you give the foetus the same status as a slave then, it belongs to >>>>its owner (the mother) who can do what she likes with it?
Well in law, before it's born it is "it" isn't it ? It has no independent >>>rights.
Again, this is a moral issue and to say that about an 8.5 month old
foetus disgusts me.
Few people have problems with the "morning after pill", which I think >prevents implantation.
Most people have a problem with infanticide - killing the newborn.
The problem is, where do you draw the line?
On 21 Jun 2025 at 13:11:28 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 21/06/2025 in message <10363tg$vl61$3@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:55:41 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 21/06/2025 in message <1035ve0$vdrr$4@dont-email.me> Pancho wrote:
Maybe you misunderstood what I meant. I acknowledged a foetus is >>>>>important to the mother. I think it is best to delegate responsibility >>>>>for care of the foetus to the mother. If the foetus is threatened, the >>>>>mother should be able to seek legal protection for the foetus. If >>>>>someone other than the mother harms the foetus, without the mother's >>>>>permission, the law should be able to consider it as similar to harming >>>>>a baby.Except the viable foetus which has no choice of course.A foetus is not a person. We have a clear divide, a foetus becomes a >>>>>>>person when it is born.
You have never been pregnant, have you.
The only contentious thing I'm saying is that the law should not pursue >>>>>the mother for damaging the foetus.
Would you give the foetus the same status as a slave then, it belongs to >>>>its owner (the mother) who can do what she likes with it?
Well in law, before it's born it is "it" isn't it ? It has no independent >>>rights.
Again, this is a moral issue and to say that about an 8.5 month old foetus >>disgusts me.
Saying that a judge can decide what a woman does with her own body disgusts >me. So there we are; people differ on what is moral to them.
On 21/06/2025 in message <1320423865.ff0de156@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 21 Jun 2025 at 13:11:28 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 21/06/2025 in message <10363tg$vl61$3@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk wrote: >>>
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:55:41 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 21/06/2025 in message <1035ve0$vdrr$4@dont-email.me> Pancho wrote: >>>>>
Maybe you misunderstood what I meant. I acknowledged a foetus isExcept the viable foetus which has no choice of course.A foetus is not a person. We have a clear divide, a foetus becomes a >>>>>>>> person when it is born.
You have never been pregnant, have you.
important to the mother. I think it is best to delegate responsibility >>>>>> for care of the foetus to the mother. If the foetus is threatened, the >>>>>> mother should be able to seek legal protection for the foetus. If
someone other than the mother harms the foetus, without the mother's >>>>>> permission, the law should be able to consider it as similar to harming >>>>>> a baby.
The only contentious thing I'm saying is that the law should not pursue >>>>>> the mother for damaging the foetus.
Would you give the foetus the same status as a slave then, it belongs to >>>>> its owner (the mother) who can do what she likes with it?
Well in law, before it's born it is "it" isn't it ? It has no independent >>>> rights.
Again, this is a moral issue and to say that about an 8.5 month old foetus >>> disgusts me.
Saying that a judge can decide what a woman does with her own body disgusts >> me. So there we are; people differ on what is moral to them.
We're not talking about what a woman does with her own body but what she
does with a viable entity.
On 21/06/2025 in message <1036lqi$14iv0$7@dont-email.me> Vir Campestris wrote:
On 21/06/2025 13:11, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 21/06/2025 in message <10363tg$vl61$3@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk wrote: >>>
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:55:41 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 21/06/2025 in message <1035ve0$vdrr$4@dont-email.me> Pancho wrote: >>>>>
Maybe you misunderstood what I meant. I acknowledged a foetus isExcept the viable foetus which has no choice of course.A foetus is not a person. We have a clear divide, a foetus becomes a >>>>>>>> person when it is born.
You have never been pregnant, have you.
important to the mother. I think it is best to delegate responsibility >>>>>> for care of the foetus to the mother. If the foetus is threatened, the >>>>>> mother should be able to seek legal protection for the foetus. If
someone other than the mother harms the foetus, without the mother's >>>>>> permission, the law should be able to consider it as similar to harming >>>>>> a baby.
The only contentious thing I'm saying is that the law should not pursue >>>>>> the mother for damaging the foetus.
Would you give the foetus the same status as a slave then, it belongs to >>>>> its owner (the mother) who can do what she likes with it?
Well in law, before it's born it is "it" isn't it ? It has no independent >>>> rights.
Again, this is a moral issue and to say that about an 8.5 month old
foetus disgusts me.
Few people have problems with the "morning after pill", which I think
prevents implantation.
Most people have a problem with infanticide - killing the newborn.
The problem is, where do you draw the line?
The old law made a good stab by setting it roughly at a point where the embryo could survive, now it seems to be a few minutes before birth.
On 21/06/2025 in message <1036lqi$14iv0$7@dont-email.me> Vir Campestris wrote:
On 21/06/2025 13:11, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 21/06/2025 in message <10363tg$vl61$3@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk wrote: >>>>On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:55:41 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 21/06/2025 in message <1035ve0$vdrr$4@dont-email.me> Pancho wrote: >>>>>
Except the viable foetus which has no choice of course.A foetus is not a person. We have a clear divide, a foetus becomes a >>>>>>>>person when it is born.
You have never been pregnant, have you.
Maybe you misunderstood what I meant. I acknowledged a foetus is >>>>>>important to the mother. I think it is best to delegate responsibility >>>>>>for care of the foetus to the mother. If the foetus is threatened, the >>>>>>mother should be able to seek legal protection for the foetus. If >>>>>>someone other than the mother harms the foetus, without the mother's >>>>>>permission, the law should be able to consider it as similar to harming >>>>>>a baby.
The only contentious thing I'm saying is that the law should not pursue >>>>>>the mother for damaging the foetus.
Would you give the foetus the same status as a slave then, it belongs to >>>>>its owner (the mother) who can do what she likes with it?
Well in law, before it's born it is "it" isn't it ? It has no independent >>>>rights.
Again, this is a moral issue and to say that about an 8.5 month old >>>foetus disgusts me.
Few people have problems with the "morning after pill", which I think >>prevents implantation.
Most people have a problem with infanticide - killing the newborn.
The problem is, where do you draw the line?
The old law made a good stab by setting it roughly at a point where the embryo could survive, now it seems to be a few minutes before birth.
We're not talking about what a woman does with her own body but what she >>does with a viable entity.
Like a tapeworm, you mean?
On 21/06/2025 in message <4143368302.cfd65560@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
We're not talking about what a woman does with her own body but what she >>>does with a viable entity.
Like a tapeworm, you mean?
You really are scum aren't you.
On 6/21/25 17:31, Max Demian wrote:
On 21/06/2025 10:37, Pancho wrote:
It depends, maybe you feel morals are intrinsic, subliminal, without
need for discussion or explanation. Alternatively, you might take a
more scientific view that morals should be justified, proved, deduced
from simpler moral axioms.
Who decides these "simpler moral axioms"?
Isaac Asimov
There are schemes like utilitarianism, (greatest good for the greatest
number &c.), but they have shortcomings: https://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/ Utilitarianism#Criticisms_and_responses
Yes, I know about utility and constraint satisfaction problems, from
stats and computer algorithms. A lot of work has been done on non-moral problems that can be applied to moral problems.
Morality can't be derived scientifically, as science determines what
is, not what ought to be.
It's a whole branch of philosophy.
If you like, there is a fine line between maths and philosophy. I tend
to call it maths and science, others call it philosophy.
On 2025-06-21, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 21/06/2025 in message <1036lqi$14iv0$7@dont-email.me> Vir Campestris
wrote:
On 21/06/2025 13:11, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 21/06/2025 in message <10363tg$vl61$3@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:55:41 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 21/06/2025 in message <1035ve0$vdrr$4@dont-email.me> Pancho wrote: >>>>>>
Except the viable foetus which has no choice of course.A foetus is not a person. We have a clear divide, a foetus becomes a >>>>>>>>> person when it is born.
You have never been pregnant, have you.
Maybe you misunderstood what I meant. I acknowledged a foetus is >>>>>>> important to the mother. I think it is best to delegate responsibility >>>>>>> for care of the foetus to the mother. If the foetus is threatened, the >>>>>>> mother should be able to seek legal protection for the foetus. If >>>>>>> someone other than the mother harms the foetus, without the mother's >>>>>>> permission, the law should be able to consider it as similar to harming >>>>>>> a baby.
The only contentious thing I'm saying is that the law should not pursue >>>>>>> the mother for damaging the foetus.
Would you give the foetus the same status as a slave then, it belongs to >>>>>> its owner (the mother) who can do what she likes with it?
Well in law, before it's born it is "it" isn't it ? It has no independent >>>>> rights.
Again, this is a moral issue and to say that about an 8.5 month old
foetus disgusts me.
Few people have problems with the "morning after pill", which I think
prevents implantation.
Most people have a problem with infanticide - killing the newborn.
The problem is, where do you draw the line?
The old law made a good stab by setting it roughly at a point where the
embryo could survive, now it seems to be a few minutes before birth.
That's not correct. Abortion is still illegal after 24 weeks. You can't
go to the doctor and ask for one, they'll say no (with a very few
exceptions, e.g. your life is at risk). What has changed is almost
entirely that people who suffer a miscarriage after that time will no
longer potentially get victimised by the legal system for no fault
of their own while they are already traumatised.
On 6/20/25 16:38, kat wrote:
On 20/06/2025 10:58, Pancho wrote:
On 6/20/25 08:14, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 20/06/2025 in message <1032rsu$euvb$1@dont-email.me> Pancho wrote:
On 6/19/25 12:49, Peter Walker wrote:
When it comes to deliberate abortion of a viable foetus by a woman who >>>>>> must be visibly heavily pregnant then it's difficult to distinguish the >>>>>> difference between that and the killing (murder) of a newly born infant. >>>>>> I have little sympathy, let the the court decide on MH mitigation under >>>>>> sentencing rather than decriminalising the action.
What would you hope that such a law would achieve?
I have little confidence that the legal system is reliable in identifying >>>>> deliberate crime. I have little confidence that punishing genuine killings
does much good (the women are probably mentally disturbed). I have little >>>>> confidence such a law would deter late abortions. I'm very sure that >>>>> punishing, or even investigating, innocent women is harmful. I'm sure that
paying police to investigate crimes takes a valuable resource away from >>>>> other areas.
I'm not seeing evidence there is a big problem in the first place.
Why don't we just let people get on with their lives?
Except the viable foetus which has no choice of course.
A foetus is not a person. We have a clear divide, a foetus becomes a person >>> when it is born.
You have never been pregnant, have you.
Maybe you misunderstood what I meant. I acknowledged a foetus is important to the mother. I think it is best to delegate responsibility for care of the foetus
to the mother. If the foetus is threatened, the mother should be able to seek legal protection for the foetus. If someone other than the mother harms the foetus, without the mother's permission, the law should be able to consider it
as similar to harming a baby.
The only contentious thing I'm saying is that the law should not pursue the mother for damaging the foetus.
The only contentious thing I'm saying is that the law should not
pursue the mother for damaging the foetus.
I feel you do not understand my point. It isn't just that a baby is important to the mother, but that the baby already has some personality before it is born.
Obviously it will matter to a woman who is losing a wanted baby through miscarriage rather more than one who wants rid of it, but it is arguable
that getting rid ( or just losing) before you feel it moving is going to
be a better solution, because once you do, they really do become a person.
On 6/22/25 12:54, kat wrote:
The only contentious thing I'm saying is that the law should not
pursue the mother for damaging the foetus.
I feel you do not understand my point. It isn't just that a baby is
important to the mother, but that the baby already has some
personality before it is born.
Obviously it will matter to a woman who is losing a wanted baby
through miscarriage rather more than one who wants rid of it, but it
is arguable that getting rid ( or just losing) before you feel it
moving is going to be a better solution, because once you do, they
really do become a person.
It is common to anthropomorphise, but I'm unconvinced the personality exhibited by a foetus is that significant, just basic responses to
stimulate. I understand this is very intimate for a mother, but the personality exhibited, the sentience required, is much less than
something like a cat. We don't consider cats human.
It seems to me as if you are once again telling me about the bond a
mother feels for a foetus, rather than anything about how the foetus
feels. I'm not for one moment question a mother's bond to the foetus.
I've seen a woman being told she had miscarried. I saw how traumatic it
was for her.
On 6/22/25 12:54, kat wrote:
The only contentious thing I'm saying is that the law should not pursue the >>> mother for damaging the foetus.
I feel you do not understand my point. It isn't just that a baby is important
to the mother, but that the baby already has some personality before it is born.
Obviously it will matter to a woman who is losing a wanted baby through
miscarriage rather more than one who wants rid of it, but it is arguable that
getting rid ( or just losing) before you feel it moving is going to be a
better solution, because once you do, they really do become a person.
It is common to anthropomorphise, but I'm unconvinced the personality exhibited
by a foetus is that significant, just basic responses to stimulate. I understand
this is very intimate for a mother, but the personality exhibited, the sentience
required, is much less than something like a cat. We don't consider cats human.
It seems to me as if you are once again telling me about the bond a mother feels
for a foetus, rather than anything about how the foetus feels. I'm not for one
moment question a mother's bond to the foetus.
I've seen a woman being told she had miscarried. I saw how traumatic it was for
her.
On 6/20/25 16:38, kat wrote:
On 20/06/2025 10:58, Pancho wrote:
On 6/20/25 08:14, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 20/06/2025 in message <1032rsu$euvb$1@dont-email.me> Pancho wrote:
I have little confidence that the legal system is reliable in
identifying deliberate crime. I have little confidence that
punishing genuine killings does much good (the women are probably
mentally disturbed). I have little confidence such a law would
deter late abortions. I'm very sure that punishing, or even
investigating, innocent women is harmful. I'm sure that paying
police to investigate crimes takes a valuable resource away from
other areas.
I'm not seeing evidence there is a big problem in the first place.
Why don't we just let people get on with their lives?
Except the viable foetus which has no choice of course.
A foetus is not a person. We have a clear divide, a foetus becomes a
person when it is born.
You have never been pregnant, have you.
Maybe you misunderstood what I meant. I acknowledged a foetus is
important to the mother. I think it is best to delegate responsibility
for care of the foetus to the mother. If the foetus is threatened, the
mother should be able to seek legal protection for the foetus. If
someone other than the mother harms the foetus, without the mother's permission, the law should be able to consider it as similar to harming
a baby.
The only contentious thing I'm saying is that the law should not pursue
the mother for damaging the foetus.
On 23/06/2025 01:26 AM, Pancho wrote:
On 6/22/25 12:54, kat wrote:
The only contentious thing I'm saying is that the law should not
pursue the mother for damaging the foetus.
I feel you do not understand my point. It isn't just that a baby is
important to the mother, but that the baby already has some
personality before it is born.
Obviously it will matter to a woman who is losing a wanted baby
through miscarriage rather more than one who wants rid of it, but it
is arguable that getting rid ( or just losing) before you feel it
moving is going to be a better solution, because once you do, they
really do become a person.
It is common to anthropomorphise, but I'm unconvinced the personality
exhibited by a foetus is that significant, just basic responses to
stimulate. I understand this is very intimate for a mother, but the
personality exhibited, the sentience required, is much less than
something like a cat. We don't consider cats human.
It seems to me as if you are once again telling me about the bond a
mother feels for a foetus, rather than anything about how the foetus
feels. I'm not for one moment question a mother's bond to the foetus.
I've seen a woman being told she had miscarried. I saw how traumatic it
was for her.
Why do you keep using that word?
In order to dehumanise the unborn child?
"We are eagerly awaiting the birth of our first foetus", said no
expectant parent, ever.
On 21/06/2025 10:53, Pancho wrote:
On 6/20/25 16:38, kat wrote:
On 20/06/2025 10:58, Pancho wrote:
On 6/20/25 08:14, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 20/06/2025 in message <1032rsu$euvb$1@dont-email.me> Pancho wrote:
I have little confidence that the legal system is reliable in
identifying deliberate crime. I have little confidence that
punishing genuine killings does much good (the women are probably
mentally disturbed). I have little confidence such a law would
deter late abortions. I'm very sure that punishing, or even
investigating, innocent women is harmful. I'm sure that paying
police to investigate crimes takes a valuable resource away from
other areas.
I'm not seeing evidence there is a big problem in the first place. >>>>>>
Why don't we just let people get on with their lives?
Except the viable foetus which has no choice of course.
A foetus is not a person. We have a clear divide, a foetus becomes a
person when it is born.
You have never been pregnant, have you.
Maybe you misunderstood what I meant. I acknowledged a foetus is
important to the mother. I think it is best to delegate responsibility
for care of the foetus to the mother. If the foetus is threatened, the
mother should be able to seek legal protection for the foetus. If
someone other than the mother harms the foetus, without the mother's
permission, the law should be able to consider it as similar to
harming a baby.
The only contentious thing I'm saying is that the law should not
pursue the mother for damaging the foetus.
"I acknowledged a foetus is important to the mother." Abortion is only considered where the foetus *isn't* important to the mother, but just an inconvenience.
In my opinion if a baby is capable of being born alive it should have
the protection of our criminal law and it is wholly artificial to exempt
the mother from criminal liability but to penalise anyone who helped her abort the child. It actually infantilises women, implying that their decisions are caused by psychological problems for which they should be pitied.
On 6/23/25 11:09, JNugent wrote:
On 23/06/2025 01:26 AM, Pancho wrote:
On 6/22/25 12:54, kat wrote:
The only contentious thing I'm saying is that the law should not
pursue the mother for damaging the foetus.
I feel you do not understand my point. It isn't just that a baby is
important to the mother, but that the baby already has some
personality before it is born.
Obviously it will matter to a woman who is losing a wanted baby
through miscarriage rather more than one who wants rid of it, but it
is arguable that getting rid ( or just losing) before you feel it
moving is going to be a better solution, because once you do, they
really do become a person.
It is common to anthropomorphise, but I'm unconvinced the personality
exhibited by a foetus is that significant, just basic responses to
stimulate. I understand this is very intimate for a mother, but the
personality exhibited, the sentience required, is much less than
something like a cat. We don't consider cats human.
It seems to me as if you are once again telling me about the bond a
mother feels for a foetus, rather than anything about how the foetus
feels. I'm not for one moment question a mother's bond to the foetus.
I've seen a woman being told she had miscarried. I saw how traumatic it
was for her.
Why do you keep using that word?
In order to dehumanise the unborn child?
I don't think I do, a human foetus is, erm... human.
Did I make a mistake somewhere?
"We are eagerly awaiting the birth of our first foetus", said no
expectant parent, ever.
We are waiting for our foetus to become a baby does lack poetry, but I
don't understand your point?
On 23/06/2025 14:33, Max Demian wrote:
On 21/06/2025 10:53, Pancho wrote:
On 6/20/25 16:38, kat wrote:
On 20/06/2025 10:58, Pancho wrote:
On 6/20/25 08:14, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 20/06/2025 in message <1032rsu$euvb$1@dont-email.me> Pancho wrote:
I have little confidence that the legal system is reliable in
identifying deliberate crime. I have little confidence that
punishing genuine killings does much good (the women are probably >>>>>>> mentally disturbed). I have little confidence such a law would
deter late abortions. I'm very sure that punishing, or even
investigating, innocent women is harmful. I'm sure that paying
police to investigate crimes takes a valuable resource away from >>>>>>> other areas.
I'm not seeing evidence there is a big problem in the first place. >>>>>>>
Why don't we just let people get on with their lives?
Except the viable foetus which has no choice of course.
A foetus is not a person. We have a clear divide, a foetus becomes
a person when it is born.
You have never been pregnant, have you.
Maybe you misunderstood what I meant. I acknowledged a foetus is
important to the mother. I think it is best to delegate
responsibility for care of the foetus to the mother. If the foetus is
threatened, the mother should be able to seek legal protection for
the foetus. If someone other than the mother harms the foetus,
without the mother's permission, the law should be able to consider
it as similar to harming a baby.
The only contentious thing I'm saying is that the law should not
pursue the mother for damaging the foetus.
"I acknowledged a foetus is important to the mother." Abortion is only
considered where the foetus *isn't* important to the mother, but just
an inconvenience.
In my opinion if a baby is capable of being born alive it should have
the protection of our criminal law and it is wholly artificial to exempt
the mother from criminal liability but to penalise anyone who helped her abort the child. It actually infantilises women, implying that their decisions are caused by psychological problems for which they should be pitied.
It is odd that the relevant Bill seems to have been passed with far less
care and debate than the Assisted Dying bill.
On 2025-06-23, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
In my opinion if a baby is capable of being born alive it should have
the protection of our criminal law and it is wholly artificial to exempt
the mother from criminal liability but to penalise anyone who helped her
abort the child. It actually infantilises women, implying that their
decisions are caused by psychological problems for which they should be
pitied.
Without having read the debate, I think at least part of the point is
that, not that rarely, foetuses do sometimes just stop living, and
embarking on a criminal investigation of a likely already-grieving woman
who has just suffered a miscarriage on the basis that there's a tiny possibility they caused it deliberately is in itself an injustice.
On 23/06/2025 14:33, Max Demian wrote:
"I acknowledged a foetus is important to the mother." Abortion is only
considered where the foetus *isn't* important to the mother, but just
an inconvenience.
In my opinion if a baby is capable of being born alive it should have
the protection of our criminal law and it is wholly artificial to exempt
the mother from criminal liability but to penalise anyone who helped her abort the child. It actually infantilises women, implying that their decisions are caused by psychological problems for which they should be pitied.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:46:43 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,835 |
| Posted today: | 1 |