Home Politics & Debate
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

late abortion woman to be prosecuted

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ...maybe. Abortions are legal in the UK right? And I think I'm safe in assuming that late term abortions are illegal. As well they should be, you don't go through the first two trimesters and when you get to the third go "oops, didn't notice I was pregnant better take care of that". Abortions are a last resort, why make em worse by actually stopping a beating heart?


    Yes you are right:

    Abortion Act 1967 s.1(1)(a)
    a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated...[T]hat the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week. (in English it is illegal after 24 weeks)

    See my earlier reply for full act. (reply no.6)

    But I had a friend at work who only started to show in the third trimesters, before then I she had not told us, you honestly would have not know.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    go_away wrote:
    Nope, it's still a criminal offence if it's not done within the guidelines of the Abortion Act of 1967.



    No they're not. For foetal abnormality and to save the life of the woman, it's legal up until birth. For the majority, the upper limit is 23 weeks and 6 days.



    Bit confused by that statement, but if you're referring to the foetus, the heart starts beating after about 18 days.


    I think if you read the act it says "has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week" so if you had a good lawyer you could possibly be aright up until 24 weeks and 6 days. This is just a possible interpertation, at the end of the day it all depends on the way in which the trial judge interperates the wording of the act. Persoanlly I would like to see the the cut off point lowered.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    little_one, you'd do well to look up the abortion law in your Archbold. It is still illegal for anyone other than a doctor to perform an abortion, and a woman can be convicted for administering a noxious substance to herself in order to procure an abortion.

    How screwed up is that, you can be convicted for poisoning yourself?

    I don't think the time limits should be lowered, because it is of no concern to the state what a woman does to her own body.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you look at post 6 I put section 1 up in full, I was just debating the meaning of exceeding 24 weeks.

    And I made it clear in reply 32, that the section quoted was not in full and to refer back to reply 6.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I was pointing it out to you, and also in general:)

    I was also referring to other acts, away from the Abortion Act 1967.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think the Abortion Act 1967, is trying to protect the unborn, some laws are there to punish, others are there to protect, like the Children Act 1989, which trys to encourage Local Authorities to work in partnership with parents and to help them bring up thier children at home, instead of just removing the children as it was common under the old law. Though criminal law acts such as the Abortion Act are normally about punishment.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    trinity1 wrote:
    I say "should". I think abortion is murder, not everybody agrees, and I think pre-meditated murder usually deserves death penalty, again, not everyone agrees. But I like that view.
    If you have your doctor remove a mole from your back, should both of you be charged with murder?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    that poster is a previously returning poster known as monocrat. He has some issues I think.

    Mother issues? You'd think anti-choice trolls could come up with some decent enough new material.
    I think if you read the act it says "has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week" so if you had a good lawyer you could possibly be aright up until 24 weeks and 6 days

    I very much doubt it. Marie Stopes will not perform abortions beyond 23 weeks and 4 days, and BPAS use the same doctors who work for MSI. Anyone who turns up at the clinic above that limit are flatly refused. The logistics of performing any abortion beyond 19 weeks are very unpleasant, especially for the woman involved and there's very little you can do to tweak a scan when you've got a clear shot of the foetal head which gives a very accurate measurement of the age of the foetus, which has to be reported to the DoH. That's not even bringing a lawyer into it. A lot of the women aren't in a fanancial position to afford a lawyer, despite the number of hotshots who are willing to get into a Roe V Wade style dealing.

    That's certainly not going to help the woman in this case, or Manna Begum.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Little_one wrote:
    I think the Abortion Act 1967, is trying to protect the unborn, some laws are there to punish, others are there to protect

    Yep, I know. I don't mean to be rude, but I work in the law and have a law degree.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    Aladdin wrote:
    If you have your doctor remove a mole from your back, should both of you be charged with murder?
    Not defending monocrat in any way, but the mole on your back has the same DNA as the rest of you, and isn't something that's supposed to become autonomous later.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In this case, thse doctor IS the mother of the girl.

    Pretty sad all round. I can't see what good prosecuting them both will do.
Sign In or Register to comment.