General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
What’s been conveniently left out of this article is how long past the legal final termination date she took the pills, she took the tablets at 32-34 weeks, this almost full term! Full term is 40 weeks. She knew what she was doing and purposely lied to Drs and others over it.
How is what this woman did any different from the other woman who is currently on trial for murdering pre-mature babies by air embolisms.
The problem raised by the rights organisation is that the law used to charge the woman is one that should not be on the books - it essentially leaves wide open space to find women guilty for having an abortion for any reason. It's an archaic law used just because the judge and prosecution wanted to find the woman guilty of something so they just went with whatever would work.
The reason that the woman waited so long to get an abortion is due to a lack of access to healthcare and resources in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. The woman was searching online about how to get an abortion at a point where it was entirely legal for her to do so, but she was unable to access those services due to the pandemic.
Ah well, I would say those are all mitigated circumstances against the sentence. The other articles I read on this left that last part out.
If she tried to access an abortion legally within the humane timeframe and couldn’t because of the ongoing pandemic, then I can understand why this is seen as an injustice.
To add, any law that old should be looked at and renewed, there should be a parliamentary process for this.
And now, this woman, a mother to three children who are still alive (one of whom is disabled) is going to be incarcerated for over a year. For what purpose? The woman is clearly not a danger to society, it's not like she's going to be a repeat offender of this crime. Prison as a form of punishment is inhumane and does not deter crime - this is well known. As for rehabilitation, what here would need to be rehabilitated?
This entire case is disgusting and it will hugely harm the welfare of her and her children for entirely no good reason, has cost the taxpayer who knows how much, has wasted the courts time, and all of this just to make an entirely needless point.
Totally agree that it's the wrong punishment. It's not as if she would go around getting further abortions unless they locked her up.
Absolutely - and I’d go further, too. All the studies and research shows that punitive measures do nothing to deter crime, so the question has to be asked - from a logical standpoint, why punish her at all? I agree it is absolutely tragic that a baby suffered due to her actions but the judge himself said that she seemed extremely remorseful and the poor woman has already suffered so much. Who does it benefit to punish her further? Our courts are supposed to be part of our so-called “justice system” - if this act of callous, senseless, needless violence is “justice” then the world really should perish.
I'm interested where you got that information, because I think you are wrong about some of the facts of the case.
The web searches I'd read about were things like "How to get an abortion at 6 months", which were considered aggravating circumstances as it reinforced that she was fully aware of what she was doing.
There is certainly a case for keeping law's up to date, but equally this country has been very well served by having a sufficiently sensible law that abortion is not a live political issue.
With the circumstances she was under, I can imagine choosing the legal risk against being forced to carry and raise an unwanted child. Especially since there likely was confusion over earlier-term abortion services at the time potentially causing the process to go on longer than she wanted.
She reconciled with the father of her other sons, just as lockdown started, but was pregnant with someone else's child. I hope this gets appealed, even if just for the kids' sake.
A woman should have domain over her own body. As long as the child is attached to her, she should be able to abort it. The fetus doesn’t have a concept of what’s going on or what is missing.