miscarriage punishable by death???????

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:43 pm

Miscarriage of Justice: Georgia Lawmaker Proposes Death Penalty for Miscarriages

Someone tell me why this maniac is in a position of power?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 2:27 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1354907 wrote: Miscarriage of Justice: Georgia Lawmaker Proposes Death Penalty for Miscarriages

Someone tell me why this maniac is in a position of power?

That he should be in a position of power is worrying but what would be truly frightening is if he stays in a position of power after the next election.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 3:17 pm

I can't believe that such a thing would be proposed in this day and age. The Bill cant possibly get through and he cant possibly be allowed to retain his seat. What an odious man !

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 4:33 pm

With all due respect, I don't believe the previous posters bothered to read anything other than the headline. This guy is anti abortion and is against MISCARRIAGES IF IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT THEY WERE CAUSED BY HUMAN INVOLVEMENT, which in his view is the same as abortion.

along-for-the-ride · Post by **along-for-the-ride** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:50 pm

Here are another of the Senators proposals:

Ga. Lawmaker Proposes Doing Away With Driver's Licenses - Atlanta News Story - WGCL Atlanta

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:25 pm

Well, crap! this guy is from Marietta. That explains a lot.

Post by **spot** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 10:32 pm

I think you need to be very cautious of the wording before criticizing Representative Franklin. He's been at this for several years.

HB377.html is his 2003/4 attempt to make abortion illegal in Georgia. He excludes miscarriage: Abortion "does not include a naturally occurring expulsion of a fetus known medically as a 'spontaneous abortion' and popularly as a 'miscarriage' so long as there is no human involvement whatsoever in the causation of such event".

Georgia General Assembly - HB 93 is his 2005/6 attempt at the same thing. Same text.

hb1_LC_18_5850T_a_3.html is 2007/8, pressing on with the same definition of miscarriage.

hb1_LC_21_9986_pf_2.html goes through the same process, and the same failure, in 2009/10 "so as to provide that prenatal murder shall be unlawful in all events", a great deal more detail than previous bills, deleting the words "product of human conception" and replacing them with "prenatal human person", deleting the words "induced termination of pregnancy" and replacing them with "prenatal murder", deleting "an induced termination of pregnancy" and replacing with "a prenatal murder". He's very consistent. Again. miscarriage is explicitly excluded "so long as there is no human involvement whatsoever in the causation of such event".

hb1.html is the current attempt, the one that's discussed in the OP. Exactly the same exclusion is in this as in all the previous bills, that abortion "does not include a naturally occurring expulsion of a fetus known medically as a 'spontaneous abortion' and popularly as a 'miscarriage' so long as there is no human involvement whatsoever in the causation of such event". There's nothing in the bill attempting to shift the burden of proof from the state to the defendant, which is what raises the outrage in the OP report: "women who miscarry could become felons if they cannot prove that there was 'no human involvement whatsoever in the causation' of their miscarriage".

The OP report is a propagandist lie. Its author, Nsenga Burton, should apologize.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 10:51 pm

You make a good point. As with many such reports the author tries to go for the hysterical view, but this guy really is a nut case.

he is not the only one trying this new angle to outlaw abortion.

Post by **spot** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:03 pm

What new angle? I'm unaware of one.

The thread's headline is badly informed. "miscarriage punishable by death" is untrue. The original article isn't just uninformed, it's a lie. The bill does nothing to shift the burden of proof onto the defendant and if it did it would undoubtedly be struck down by the courts.

The bill very explicitly excludes miscarriage from illegality and the burden of proof that 'human involvement' induced the termination of a pregnancy still lies firmly with the prosecutor. The middle ground over which cases would be an area for argument is whether the 'human involvement' was deliberate or whether a duty of care to the unborn child had been broken - the difference between accident and carelessness.

Just the same difference already exists in the law covering deaths after birth, this act attempts to move the same legislation to the time before birth.

Fuzzy might, perhaps, believe all women have an absolute right to abortion on demand and every court of every country on Earth should recognize and respect their right. That's no reason to descend to this level of inaccurate discussion though.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:56 am

That's what happen when you get people in power who think their religious beliefs give them moral authority to tell everybody what to do rather than sit down and work out a concensus about what is right and just.

I'm sure i saw somewhere he also not trying to outlaw the free supply of contraception including the day after pill that at least a rape victim can use.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 4:54 am

Does anybody know his beliefs on the right to bear arms ?

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 5:01 am

I can just imagine a police investigation during a family's mourning period after a miscarriage. Double the pleasure.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 7:26 am

spot;1354935 wrote: What new angle? I'm unaware of one.

The thread's headline is badly informed. "miscarriage punishable by death" is untrue. The original article isn't just uninformed, it's a lie. The bill does nothing to shift the burden of proof onto the defendant and if it did it would undoubtedly be struck down by the courts.

The bill very explicitly excludes miscarriage from illegality and the burden of proof that 'human involvement' induced the termination of a pregnancy still lies firmly with the prosecutor. The middle ground over which cases would be an area for argument is whether the 'human involvement' was deliberate or whether a duty of care to the unborn child had been broken - the difference between accident and carelessness.

Just the same difference already exists in the law covering deaths after birth, this act attempts to move the same legislation to the time before birth.

Fuzzy might, perhaps, believe all women have an absolute right to abortion on demand and every court of every country on Earth should recognize and respect their right. That's no reason to descend to this level of inaccurate discussion though.

While it might approach the bill from the most extreme POV, the OP presumes correctly.

Some exerpts from the bill itself:

life begins at the moment of conception;

Georgia has, therefore, reserved to itself exclusive jurisdiction over the definition and

47 punishment of murder under Amendment X of the Constitution of the United States;

(11) The definition and prosecution of murder within Georgia to protect its own prenatal

56 citizens...

(12) The United States Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to hear or decide the case of

64 Roe v. Wade or any other case pertaining to a state's punishment of the crime of prenatal

65 murder;

So, yes, it can be seen where the guy wants to go with this.

If passed, it would allow the prosecution of a woman who miscarried, and there are any number of actions that doctors have said can cause a miscarriage.

You are correct, of course in that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution.

And of course no innocent people are ever put in jail, or executed, right?

Let's take one example.

A fellow causes a traffic accident, and injuries from that accident cause one of the passengers to miscarry. With this law in place, the driver can be charged with homicide.

Or another.

A woman is pregnant but doesn't know it yet.

She goes out to play with friends and overexerts herself on a hot day, and this causes her to miscarry. The fetus is expelled due to her activity. The prosecution claims that she did this deliberately and charges pre-meditated prenatal murder.

How does she prove she didn't know she was pregnant?

Whatever the outcome of the case, how does she go back to a normal life?

There is the potential, here, for just what the article claims.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 10:26 am

Lon;1354917 wrote: With all due respect, I don't believe the previous posters bothered to read anything other than the headline. This guy is anti abortion and is against MISCARRIAGES IF IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT THEY WERE CAUSED BY HUMAN INVOLVEMENT, which in his view is the same as abortion.

You have reversed the wording which completely changes the meaning. The quote was :-

Under Rep. Franklin's bill, HB 1, women who miscarry could become felons if they cannot prove that there was "no human involvement whatsoever in the causation" of their miscarriage.

It goes from innocent until proven guilty to guilty until proven innocent - how does a woman who has just had a miscarriage prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was "no human involvement whatsoever".

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 10:42 am

Bryn Mawr;1354958 wrote:

It goes from innocent until proven guilty to guilty until proven innocent - how does a woman who has just had a miscarriage prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was "no human involvement whatsoever".

She can't of course, nor should she be made to.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:38 pm

and yet his people put him there.

Post by **spot** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 5:33 pm

LarsMac;1354951 wrote: There is the potential, here, for just what the article claims.All you're saying is that a miscarriage of justice could occur under the proposed law. The same's true of any law. "How does she prove she didn't know she was pregnant"? She has no need to. The burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt is on the prosecutor. It may be, perhaps, that you feel your courts have become a lottery where such principles no longer apply and if that's your point I'd agree, but you're barking up a different argument there which has nothing to do with Representative Franklin.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 9:21 pm

spot;1354975 wrote: All you're saying is that a miscarriage of justice could occur under the proposed law. The same's true of any law. "How does she prove she didn't know she was pregnant"? She has no need to. The burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt is on the prosecutor. It may be, perhaps, that you feel your courts have become a lottery where such principles no longer apply and if that's your point I'd agree, but you're barking up a different argument there which has nothing to do with Representative Franklin.

Mr Franklin represents a new mindset among the anti-abortion (pro-life, yeah, I know. What a crock) crowd these days, trying to make death of a fetus homicide.

And Mr Franklin is just the most recent of a long line of loonies put into the political arena by the good folks of Cobb County, GA over the last few decades.

I used to live there. I know these people.

Post by **spot** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 9:30 pm

LarsMac;1354989 wrote: Mr Franklin represents a new mindset among the anti-abortion (pro-life, yeah, I know. What a crock) crowd these days, trying to make death of a fetus homicide.
This may be a daft question but what other definition would you use, if you were anti-abortion? Surely it's the starting point of any anti-abortion debate, that the deliberate destruction of a fetus is homicide. In what way is that extreme? How else would an anti-abortion proponent be expected to view the issue? Go on, treat it as a serious question, I'm interested to see what you're proposing as an alternative.

From a historical perspective, by the way, "murder" is how abortion was treated by the 19th century English courts before it was legalized. Government murder statistics of the time even run two columns to distinguish the one from the other, I've seen them. On the other hand it didn't apply at conception, it applied from a legally-defined moment known as "quickening".

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:00 pm

spot;1354991 wrote: This may be a daft question but what other definition would you use, if you were anti-abortion? Surely it's the starting point of any anti-abortion debate, that the deliberate destruction of a fetus is homicide. In what way is that extreme? How else would an anti-abortion proponent be expected to view the issue? Go on, treat it as a serious question, I'm interested to see what you're proposing as an alternative.

From a historical perspective, by the way, "murder" is how abortion was treated by the 19th century English courts before it was legalized. Government murder statistics of the time even run two columns to distinguish the one from the other, I've seen them. On the other hand it didn't apply at conception, it applied from a legally-defined moment known as "quickening".

Sorry, I was not as clear as I should have been.

The effort is to get the definition into the body of law.

The problem is that it opens the door for a whole new way of looking at the problem. remember the line, "life begins at the moment of conception;" ?

Once the definition is law, then the police are duty bound to investigate each and every loss of even a zygote as a potential homicide.

If there is a shred of evidence that suggests the parent of intentionally acting in a manner that would have created the loss, there would be grounds for prosecution. The impact on the legal and law enforcement processes could be enormous.

I realize the intent is to stop doctor assisted abortions, but this takes the pendulum way too far the other direction.

While I agree that there must be a line, which cannot legally be crossed, this setting the line way beyond reasonable, enforcable boundaries.

And no matter what legal definitions are invoked, laws will never end abortion.

Post by **spot** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:51 pm

LarsMac;1354995 wrote: If there is a shred of evidence that suggests the parent of intentionally acting in a manner that would have created the loss, there would be grounds for prosecution.
We obviously live under different jurisdictions. In England all possibly-criminal acts, once detected, are investigated, but a prosecution is only ever taken to court if the Crown Prosecution Service decides there is enough evidence to provide a "realistic prospect of conviction", which means that "a jury or a bench of magistrates, properly directed in accordance with the law, will be more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged".

Do you see the "more likely than not" clause? They also have to pass a test that the prosecution is in the public interest. The court itself applies "beyond reasonable doubt" to come to its verdict in every criminal case.

And no matter what legal definitions are invoked, laws will never end abortion.Just as laws will never end murder either - both comments are equally and obviously true.

There are two rights involved with abortion, the right to pre-natal life and the right over one's own body. The second of those is, in my judgement, only a problem because women do not choose, in all cases, to conceive.

If the time ever comes when women can only become pregnant as a matter of conscious deliberate informed choice then abortion should have no place in the world. Just a subsequent change of mind isn't, in my opinion, enough to counter the other right to pre-natal life. But we're not at that happy position yet, and so the balance is not so clear-cut.

Some countries choose to legalize abortion, favoring one right, other countries take the opposite view. It's up to the citizens of each country to decide how their culture should be expressed. Meanwhile, in my opinion, the use of abortion as a routine means of contraception in some parts of some societies is a dire and loathsome moral abuse, and it's commonplace. To enable that particular abuse was not why abortions were legalized.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Mar 04, 2011 3:43 am

posted by spot

the use of abortion as a routine means of contraception in some parts of some societies is a dire and loathsome moral abuse, and it's commonplace. To enable that particular abuse was not why abortions were legalized.

I think if you look in to it you will find where abortion is used as a contraceptive there will be a correlation to areas where contraception is not freely available on demand - you know all the fuss when teenagers can be given contraceptive without the parents consent or where sex education in schools is criritised for promoting promiscuity and restricted when all the facts make it clear that the opposite is true - where girls are informed they tend not to get "caught" because they know the facts not the myths.

It's also the impositionmof religious beliefs by the back door. That's really wht this is. I believe sex outside of marriage and the use of contraceptives is wrong therefore I will try and prevent people being able to make a free choice. The only person that should be allowd to choose when to become pregnant is the woman it's not something that should be dictated to them. That's why you get all these daft abstinence programmes it's religious dictatorship by another name.

Post by **spot** » Fri Mar 04, 2011 5:24 am

You may be right about other countries but I don't think you can describe abortion in England and Wales as increased by daft abstinence programs or religious dictatorship. The information's available, a host of devices and tablets for contraception are available free on demand from GPs and even charity outlets. The huge figures for abortion relate, in my opinion, primarily to people who know it's there as a safety net and consequently don't bother with precautions at all.

Abortion Statistics, England and Wales: 2008 : Department of Health - Publications

Do you remember the terms under which abortion was legalized here? On medical grounds where it protected the health of the mother. Nothing to do with on-demand. What's it turned into? On-demand abortion.

200,000 per year, of which 1% results from screening for genetic complications. It's one fertile woman in fifty each year - not one in fifty over their lifetime, that's annually. And I say it's because it's treated as a means of contraception despite all the contraceptive provision that's in place. And I reckon it's a moral mess, because that's exactly what it ought not to be there for. It's not a lack of education or availability, it's a lack of ethical responsibility.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Fri Mar 04, 2011 6:31 am

spot;1355002 wrote:

Abortion Statistics, England and Wales: 2008 : Department of Health - Publications

Do you remember the terms under which abortion was legalized here? On medical grounds where it protected the health of the mother. Nothing to do with on-demand. What's it turned into? On-demand abortion.

I have to wonder what 'medical grounds' actually means. Does it just mean the women who are unable to actually carry a baby full term, or the ones that are at high risk of developing eclampsia or some other life threatening condition. Does it include the numbers of women who would be psychologically damaged if forced to have a baby, be it their young age, older age or just mentally unable to cope.

I totally disagree that it's being used by all women as a form of contraception, some might be but not many.

It's a woman's own personal choice and that's the way it should be, no man should ever have the right to dictate what's right and what's wrong, and that's me being sexist, until a man has to carry a baby for nine months putting up with all the changes and stresses that a body is put through, the raging hormones etc etc they have no right to say what is correct be it through the voice of religion or from a higher moral standpoint.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:30 am

spot;1355002 wrote: You may be right about other countries but I don't think you can describe abortion in England and Wales as increased by daft abstinence programs or religious dictatorship. The information's available, a host of devices and tablets for contraception are available free on demand from GPs and even charity outlets. The huge figures for abortion relate, in my opinion, primarily to people who know it's there as a safety net and consequently don't bother with precautions at all.

Abortion Statistics, England and Wales: 2008 : Department of Health - Publications

Do you remember the terms under which abortion was legalized here? On medical grounds where it protected the health of the mother. Nothing to do with on-demand. What's it turned into? On-demand abortion.

200,000 per year, of which 1% results from screening for genetic complications. It's one fertile woman in fifty each year - not one in fifty over their lifetime, that's annually. And I say it's because it's treated as a means of contraception despite all the contraceptive provision that's in place. And I reckon it's a moral mess, because that's exactly what it ought not to be there for. It's not a lack of education or availability, it's a lack of ethical responsibility.

It was a general comment - the OP was about an american state. However, the standard of sex education in the UK varies widely and you do have those who do their best to curtail it on religious grounds and raise complaint whenever they find out someone has been given the pill without the parents consent - even if they are over 16 - and do their best to curtail the activities of the clionics where teenage girls can go for free advice, or even something as simple as putting condom machines in public toilets raises their ire. The same type people object to education about safe sex education. If you look at areas where there is a high rate of abortion and the whether the standard of sex education is curtailed and contraceptives not freely available you will find a high degree of correlation. This notion that the teenage children of the lower orders procreate like rats and have no sense of responsibility and shouldn't have sex education as it encourages them to behave even more like rats while much beloved of the daily mail reader set is not one that stands up to much scrutiny. It's also incredibly patronising and offensive. Just compare us with the continenrt and in particular those countries whre teenage pregnancy and abortion are relatively low.

Where you have good sex education you have fewer teenage pregnancies. A simple fact the unco guid like to ignore. Where teengers can get their hands on contraceptives it doesn't mean they will nevessarily become more promiscuous. Indeed there are studies that show the age at which children become sexually active is higher where there is good sex education than it is in the UK. Girls are better able to stand up to pressure when they are better informed - but that means you have to accept the choice is theirs.

The notion that girl prefer abortion to using contraceptives might stand up if you had firgures for how many are on second or third abortions rather than one where they have been "caught". For some it's not always easy to talk to their parents or go against peer pressure, you need to see then as individuals not as appendages to the family.

It's not a lack of education or availability, it's a lack of ethical responsibility

So all those southern irish girls who come here out of necessity lack moral character do they? No doubt they should be made to suffer endless guilt for their promiscuity and their children brought up knowing they are bastards.

posted by spot

The huge figures for abortion relate, in my opinion, primarily to people who know it's there as a safety net and consequently don't bother with precautions at all.

Clearly that is not an opinion I can agree with. It's just not that simple.

Post by **spot** » Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:59 am

gmc;1355004 wrote: So all those southern irish girls who come here out of necessity lack moral character do they?Purely on a point of logic - no, it's a lack of availability. I don't think you can interpret my words into the conclusion you just drew there.

Where you have good sex education you have fewer teenage pregnancies. A simple fact the unco guid like to ignore.I note the point but I doubt its truth, I've certainly heard it innumerable times before though. I'd quite like to challenge anyone to find figures supporting that. It has all the hallmarks of propaganda. I agree that if it were true it would be a significant comment. I don't think you can just say "look at Holland", you're not comparing like with like. I think you have to find equivalents within the same society, where the only variable is the quality of sex education.

I'd also point out that my post wasn't concerned with teenage pregnancies which are a small proportion of what's happening, it discussed pregnancies across the board.

Post by **spot** » Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:16 am

Betty Boop;1355003 wrote: I have to wonder what 'medical grounds' actually means. Does it just mean the women who are unable to actually carry a baby full term, or the ones that are at high risk of developing eclampsia or some other life threatening condition. Does it include the numbers of women who would be psychologically damaged if forced to have a baby, be it their young age, older age or just mentally unable to cope.

I totally disagree that it's being used by all women as a form of contraception, some might be but not many.

Medical grounds quite rightly covers all of those conditions, yes.

What you're ignoring is the scale. I'll say it again. In every single calendar year, one in fifty of all the women in England and Wales of childbearing age is having an abortion. What proportion of women in England and Wales of childbearing age are actually pregnant during the course of that year? A minority, I'd guess, so the proportion both pregnant and having an abortion is more than just one in fifty. It's an astoundingly ugly figure.

I've not claimed anywhere that it's being used by all women as a form of contraception (which you claim I did) but I suggest the proportion of abortions in this country which qualify as mere contraception, as opposed to unanticipated medical grounds, is more than your "not many" piously hopes.

Post by **spot** » Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:27 am

gmc;1355004 wrote: The notion that girl prefer abortion to using contraceptives might stand up if you had firgures for how many are on second or third abortions rather than one where they have been "caught".

I produced the link to that figure earlier in the thread. It's on Table 4b "Legal abortions: number of previous abortions by age, 2008". One in three abortions is a second or subsequent one. If you add over 40,000 as being the first which will be succeeded by more, that means the majority of the women having an abortion are outside your "caught" category or at least outside of the "caught but never again" group. Does a majority balance in my favour qualify as "might stand up", in your book?

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:42 am

That's a lot of men who couldn't be bothered to put on a condom.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Fri Mar 04, 2011 11:37 am

spot;1355006 wrote: Medical grounds quite rightly covers all of those conditions, yes.

What you're ignoring is the scale. I'll say it again. In every single calendar year, one in fifty of all the women in England and Wales of childbearing age is having an abortion. What proportion of women in England and Wales of childbearing age are actually pregnant during the course of that year? A minority, I'd guess, so the proportion both pregnant and having an abortion is more than just one in fifty. It's an astoundingly ugly figure.

I've not claimed anywhere that it's being used by all women as a form of contraception (which you claim I did) but I suggest the proportion of abortions in this country which qualify as mere contraception, as opposed to unanticipated medical grounds, is more than your "not many" piously hopes.

So what does your 'on demand abortion' statement refer to then? With that you are implying that women are demanding contraception after the event. What women have are informed choices and rights, they can't demand anything, they have to prove continuation would be detrimental to themselves. How about a breakdown of how many women are in those statistics who have suffered a failure of their original form of contraception, something that is incredibly common.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:46 pm

spot;1355007 wrote: I produced the link to that figure earlier in the thread. It's on Table 4b "Legal abortions: number of previous abortions by age, 2008". One in three abortions is a second or subsequent one. If you add over 40,000 as being the first which will be succeeded by more, that means the majority of the women having an abortion are outside your "caught" category or at least outside of the "caught but never again" group. Does a majority balance in my favour qualify as "might stand up", in your book?

No it doesn't. Total number of abortions 195,296, total having a first one 130,581. That is hardly a majority, the assumoption that 40,000 will have a second one is not reasonable. If you look at those with more than one abortion about two thirds are 25 and over which rather suggests there is more likely something else going on than just let's have an abortion because i can't be bothered using conraceptive.

4.7.2 In 2008, 24% of abortions to women

aged under 25 were repeat abortions

(Table 11). Repeat unintended pregnancy

and subsequent abortion is a complex

issue associated with increased age as it

allows longer time for exposure to

pregnancy risks.

It's not reasonable to assume that all those have second abortions are using it as a means of contraceptive, even the younger ones. There probably are some that are but there is not enough data to make that a reasonable concluscion.

The main reason most take place are C

the pregnancy has not exceeded its

twenty-fourth week and that the

continuance of the pregnancy

would involve risk, greater than if

the pregnancy were terminated, of

injury to the physical or mental

health of the pregnant woman

(section 1(1)(a))

It really is not reasonable for you to conclude that the majority do so because of a cavalier attitude to what they are doing.

posted by spot

I note the point but I doubt its truth, I've certainly heard it innumerable times before though. I'd quite like to challenge anyone to find figures supporting that. It has all the hallmarks of propaganda.

I'd also point out that my post wasn't concerned with teenage pregnancies which are a small proportion of what's happening, it discussed pregnancies across the board.

The UK has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in europe it carries over in to the early twenties. It is not propoganda that is a fact. Comaprison with holland, austria sweden etc is a valid one. Similar ethnic group and culture but the big diffrence being attitudes to sex education. You usually find those who want to believe people have abortions as a means of contraceptive don't want to look at countries with more liberal attitudes to sex education because it conflicts with what they like to believe - it fits in with the view of a moral decline of society because of easier divorce and the greater acceptance of single parents. (general comment not directed at you personally).

Do you remember one of the other reasons abortion was legalised was because of the number of women dying at the hands of back street abortionists. The stigma of being an unwed parent has thankfully been much diminished, but as well as people goiing on about the abortion rate they also happily go on about young mothers living on benefits and a drain on society. Loose women and their bastard children. The words change but the sentiments the same. No matter how you dress it up at the end of the day it's should be the woman's decision imo.

posted by spot to betty boop

I've not claimed anywhere that it's being used by all women as a form of contraception (which you claim I did) but I suggest the proportion of abortions in this country which qualify as mere contraception, as opposed to unanticipated medical grounds, is more than your "not many" piously hopes.

If she will excuse me speaking in her place. You made this comment

And I say it's because it's treated as a means of contraception despite all the contraceptive provision that's in place. And I reckon it's a moral mess, because that's exactly what it ought not to be there for. It's not a lack of education or availability, it's a lack of ethical responsibility.

On the Irish girls

Purely on a point of logic - no, it's a lack of availability. I don't think you can interpret my words into the conclusion you just drew there.

True they come from a catholic country where contraceptives are not freely available. It's a safe bet the church would condemn them and they might find even find themselves thrown out by their families. Apart from the lack of availability clearly they have shown themselves to be lacking ethical responsibilty would you not say? Or maybe they just lacked the knowledge not to get pregnant in the first place - isn't it lucky they didn't get sex education that would have encouraged them to have sex. Actually some the most vehement feminists I have met have been from eire, they terrify their menfolk.

Bit off topic I'm just glad i live in a country where bigots like this guy get laughed at.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Mar 04, 2011 5:57 pm

spot;1354996 wrote: We obviously live under different jurisdictions. In England all possibly-criminal acts, once detected, are investigated, but a prosecution is only ever taken to court if the Crown Prosecution Service decides there is enough evidence to provide a "realistic prospect of conviction", which means that "a jury or a bench of magistrates, properly directed in accordance with the law, will be more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged".

Do you see the "more likely than not" clause? They also have to pass a test that the prosecution is in the public interest. The court itself applies "beyond reasonable doubt" to come to its verdict in every criminal case.

Just as laws will never end murder either - both comments are equally and obviously true.

There are two rights involved with abortion, the right to pre-natal life and the right over one's own body. The second of those is, in my judgement, only a problem because women do not choose, in all cases, to conceive.

If the time ever comes when women can only become pregnant as a matter of conscious deliberate informed choice then abortion should have no place in the world. Just a subsequent change of mind isn't, in my opinion, enough to counter the other right to pre-natal life. But we're not at that happy position yet, and so the balance is not so clear-cut.

Some countries choose to legalize abortion, favoring one right, other countries take the opposite view. It's up to the citizens of each country to decide how their culture should be expressed. Meanwhile, in my opinion, the use of abortion as a routine means of contraception in some parts of some societies is a dire and loathsome moral abuse, and it's commonplace. To enable that particular abuse was not why abortions were legalized.

We are actually quite in agreement, I believe.

I only argue about the legal aspect.

As stated before, we have to draw a line, somewhere, that must not be crossed. the argument is where to draw that line, legally.

I once stated that I would love to see a way that young people could be made sterile until such time as they can demonstrate that they are ready, and capable of being proper parents.

Obviously the legal, moral, and political aspects of such a notion render it to nothing more than fantasy, but I don't know of another solution.

Post by **spot** » Fri Mar 04, 2011 6:31 pm

What people are not facing up to is the sheer scale of abortion in England and Wales. The numbers are pitifully simple to estimate. The running total of female births has been around a third of a million a year for the last fifty years, ish. If 130,000 of those are having a first abortion every year then well over a third of all women will have had at least one abortion by the time they reach menopause. One in three. That's not "medical reasons", that's contraception.

It may, just possibly, mostly consist of contraception after best effort precautions failed but I honestly don't believe it is. In any event, the country can't describe itself as cultured. That "one in three" shows a total disregard for any decent values by a shockingly high proportion of the general population.

You'll note that nowhere have I suggested there should be a change in the law - I don't think there should be. I do think there should be a change in attitude. The missing educational component isn't how and when to put on a condom, it's ethical philosophy.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:59 am

spot;1355026 wrote: What people are not facing up to is the sheer scale of abortion in England and Wales. The numbers are pitifully simple to estimate. The running total of female births has been around a third of a million a year for the last fifty years, ish. If 130,000 of those are having a first abortion every year then well over a third of all women will have had at least one abortion by the time they reach menopause. One in three. That's not "medical reasons", that's contraception.

It may, just possibly, mostly consist of contraception after best effort precautions failed but I honestly don't believe it is. In any event, the country can't describe itself as cultured. That "one in three" shows a total disregard for any decent values by a shockingly high proportion of the general population.

You'll note that nowhere have I suggested there should be a change in the law - I don't think there should be. I do think there should be a change in attitude. The missing educational component isn't how and when to put on a condom, it's ethical philosophy.

You're not making an awful lot of sense. If the number of females born each year is around a third of a million and the number of women having a first abortion is 130,000 it is not reasonable to assume that a third of them will go on to have abortions.

If you take all the people in the UK the average number of legs they have is less than two. If we apply the same kind of logic to interpreting statistics that you seem to the manufacture of prosthetic limbs must be a major industry.

Nor is it indicative of a total disregard for any decent values in society any more than the divorce rate or tolerance towards homosexuality shows a decline in family values it's a bit more complex than that. Certainly the last people we should listen to are narrow minded, bigoted, religious groupies that take great delight in pointing fingers and shouting look at these dreadful people using abortion as a means of contraceptive - let's make all women criminals, sex is original sin anyway and they got us tossed out of paradise.

Post by **spot** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:45 am

I'll tell you what, you go away and play with the numbers. You'll eventually discover, if you do it rationally instead of hoping to get an acceptable answer, that "it is not reasonable to assume that a third of them will go on to have abortions" is wrong and that my statement is accurate.

1. A woman can only switch from "not had an abortion" to "had an abortion" once in her life. It's when she has her first abortion. 130,000 women a year are doing that in England and Wales.

2. There are between 300,000 and 350,000 newborn women in England and Wales every year.

Therefore 3. The proportion of those who will have a first abortion is somewhere over a third, if the current rate is constant.

Let me be specific about what the number means. It means that if you were able to check the health records of every fifty year old woman in England and Wales, you'd find a third of them have had at least one abortion.

A rate as high as three in a hundred would be disquieting, in my opinion. Three in ten is an abysmal condemnation of English cultural sensibility. You seem to be arguing that I have no business to find to these figures distasteful, as though there should be no duty of care from society toward the unborn. We shall simply have to disagree about it.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:28 am

What I'm saying is you are talking a load of cobblers, the extrapolation you make is not reasonable. You are right we shall have to just disagree about it.

Post by **spot** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:58 am

gmc;1355094 wrote: What I'm saying is you are talking a load of cobblers, the extrapolation you make is not reasonable. You are right we shall have to just disagree about it.Here's a reasonable sum. For a population of 54 million, assuming an active fertile window of 30 years, 200,000 abortions a year is 1.9% of active fertile women each year. What does compound interest of -1.9% a year do over 30 years? It reduces by 42%, which is slightly above my estimate of one in three.

Rather than sitting there wearing blinkers, why don't you give me an alternative calculation?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 12:57 pm

spot;1355096 wrote: Here's a reasonable sum. For a population of 54 million, assuming an active fertile window of 30 years, 200,000 abortions a year is 1.9% of active fertile women each year. What does compound interest of -1.9% a year do over 30 years? It reduces by 42%, which is slightly above my estimate of one in three.

Rather than sitting there wearing blinkers, why don't you give me an alternative calculation?

The bulk of the abortions and of the second and third abortions are at an age when many women are actively trying for families. There just may be a bit more involved than the casual use of abortion as a means of contraceptive. Your assumption that that is the explanation is just that - an assumption with no evidence to back it up merely a concluscion you prefer to draw. You do not IMO have enough evidence to draw that consluscion.

I have no intention of wasting my time bandying statistics with you, the statistics are a piece of information that without being put in context don't actually tell you very much. It is a statistically accurate statement that the average man in britain has less than two legs. You need more information for that statistic to tell you anything meaningful. It is the same with these statistics, without more detailed information about exactly why the abortions take place and why an individual has a second or a third you cannot draw any meaningful concluscions and certainly not the one that it is used as a means of contraception as a matter of choice.

You seem to be arguing that I have no business to find to these figures distasteful, as though there should be no duty of care from society toward the unborn. We shall simply have to disagree about it.

You find the figures distasteful, I don't think very much of them either as it happens but I am not prepared to condemn those women having abortions as uncaring, feckless, amoral individuals of little account. I have also very little tolerance of canting hyopocrites who actively campaign to prevent proper sex education and access to contraceptives even for those who are not members of their particular religious belief system prefering to throw up their hand in horror at the depraved society they live in. The approbium heaped by those same people on young unmarried mothers who choose not to have an abortion and have the child instead says a great deal imo about their own lack of moral character and basic human compassion. Compared to the carnage and misery that took place before abortion was legalised the present situation is a vast improvement, not ideal but an improvement. While there should be a duty of care to the unborn the rationale that a religious belief somehow gives you that moral authority is one I wholeheartedly reject.

The Uk is full of people who buy the daily mail and the news of the world so they can tut tut at the depraved goings on of the society we live in and hanker back to a utopia that never actually existed. I don't agree with you and you don't agree with me. That's fine let's leave it at that.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:15 pm

A rate as high as three in a hundred would be disquieting, in my opinion. Three in ten is an abysmal condemnation of English cultural sensibility. You seem to be arguing that I have no business to find to these figures distasteful, as though there should be no duty of care from society toward the unborn. We shall simply have to disagree about it.

Ahhh Spot you're funny. English cultural sensibility? How many times have I seen on this very forum the number of comments about girls/young women loafing off the welfare state getting pregnant all over the place etc etc.? Distasteful? Since when did a womans body and her personal choices ever have anything to do with you and your sensibilities? If a woman wants 3 abortions out of ten pregnancies that's none of your business and without those figures you've just stated you'd be none the wiser................It's secret womens business (as the indigenous population would say here)

My OP about the Bill being introduced has many and varied problems . In India and some Islamic and HIndu countries a family can actually kill a woman if she steps out of line. In this case A mans family, a womans huband, A womans' inlaws could actually have the power to prosecute/sue her. Another words if you want rid of your daughter in law this is the way to go about it. I had a termination of pregnancy when I was sixteen. Under a Bill like this my father (a staunch Roman Catholic) Could have had me sent to prison as a punishment under his own beliefs and canon laws. Fortunately I was only kicked out of home.

There are many ways in which to terminate a pregnancy other than a clinic or a doctor and they've been used since the dawn of time. ( I know of three herbs just off the top of my head and guess where these herbs were used most? Britain!)

English Sensilility? Holy crap.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:17 pm

You know what's really distasteful?????? The fact that three men just reduced women into a myriad of sums and figures.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:11 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1355379 wrote: You know what's really distasteful?????? The fact that three men just reduced women into a myriad of sums and figures.

Have watched with interest, without comment, untli now.

All these myriads of pregnant women reduced to sums and figures......pregnant being the word to focus on, needed some help to obtain that condition.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 5:44 pm

I was going to put in "takes two to tango " etc. but thought it was obvious...not to some so it seems. lol lol lol lol lol

Those who find it distasteful.....have a look at the world women live in. NOT THE MALE WORLD...but the female world.

Hey Bruv ...do you think it's just one man going around getting all these women pregnant? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL It could be a conspiracy.....a one man sperm army lol lol lol

Post by **spot** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 3:19 am

I'll re-iterate my point. Most of the terminated pregnancies under discussion are, in my opinion, the result of relying on the ease of access to abortion as a practical alternative to contraception, and it is about those that I'm expressing distaste. The opinion of history will, I expect, be entirely on my side.

I haven't even slightly suggested it's a fault of one partner over another. I have, however, said it's a fault. I haven't suggested the fault is personal, I regard it as societal. I haven't reduced women in any way, I've discussed society. I've also said I have no desire to see the law amended in this country or any other. A change in the law should be a matter for a country's citizens, not for armchair onlookers abroad.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 4:21 am

fuzzywuzzy;1355387 wrote:

Those who find it distasteful.....have a look at the world women live in. NOT THE MALE WORLD...but the female world.

When you talk of a MALE world opposed to a FEMALE world, you are talking about attitudes ?

And so as "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world" it is womens fault ?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Mar 13, 2011 2:22 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1355379 wrote: You know what's really distasteful?????? The fact that three men just reduced women into a myriad of sums and figures.

You do have a point. What I find distasteful is the way those who supposedly practice a religion where compassion is one of the main tenets just can't wait to take away the right to choose and stick the boot in and vilify someone making a decision that must be a horrendous one to have to make.

posted by spot

Most of the terminated pregnancies under discussion are, in my opinion, the result of relying on the ease of access to abortion as a practical alternative to contraception, and it is about those that I'm expressing distaste. The opinion of history will, I expect, be entirely on my side.

To suggest it is merely a convenient method of contraceptive for social inadequates is not a viewpoint I can agree with.

Post by **spot** » Sun Mar 13, 2011 2:27 pm

gmc;1355476 wrote: To suggest it is merely a convenient method of contraceptive for social inadequates is not a viewpoint I can agree with.Nor, indeed, could I. Where have I mentioned social inadequates?

Where, come to that, have I advocated taking away the right to choose?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:52 am

spot;1355478 wrote: Nor, indeed, could I. Where have I mentioned social inadequates?

Where, come to that, have I advocated taking away the right to choose?

You didn't. The words are mine. I used the wrong term in any case I should have said feeble minded. Once upon a time not so very long ago a girl having a child out of wedlock as a teen could be sectioned under the mental health act locked away as being unable to look after themselves.

This kind of law have the same kind of attituides behind them, women can't be trusted to behave responsibly therefore it must be unsured any miscarriage was not deliberately induced. I can't believe that half the voting population being female won't vote this character out of office and overturn the legislation.

You show imo the same kind of attitude. All these people using abortion as a form of contraception lack the moral judgement not to do so. That it is not their fault but society's may have validity for children and teenagers but at some point, no matter how crappy your enviromnent, you become responsible for what you choose to do in life.

Post by **spot** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 11:12 am

Moral judgment of the individual hasn't come into any of my posts, I'm discussing the cultural consensus within which individuals make their decisions.

History's verdict on that cultural consensus will, I suspect, be one of revulsion. The same might be equally true of slaughtering warm-blooded animals for food. People make their decisions in the framework society accepts at that moment.

Conforming within the contemporary framework can't ever be considered to fall short on moral considerations. The framework itself can, and no doubt will, change, at which the old state of society will be judged a moral outrage. How do we now view slavery, for example? Or drawing and quartering? Or imprisonment and transportation for advocating workers' unions? I'm quite confident the present rate of abortion in this country will face exactly the same response.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:31 pm

spot;1355515 wrote: Moral judgment of the individual hasn't come into any of my posts, I'm discussing the cultural consensus within which individuals make their decisions.

History's verdict on that cultural consensus will, I suspect, be one of revulsion. The same might be equally true of slaughtering warm-blooded animals for food. People make their decisions in the framework society accepts at that moment.

Conforming within the contemporary framework can't ever be considered to fall short on moral considerations. The framework itself can, and no doubt will, change, at which the old state of society will be judged a moral outrage. How do we now view slavery, for example? Or drawing and quartering? Or imprisonment and transportation for advocating workers' unions? I'm quite confident the present rate of abortion in this country will face exactly the same response.I share your sentiments, Spot.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 1:55 pm

spot;1355515 wrote: Moral judgment of the individual hasn't come into any of my posts, I'm discussing the cultural consensus within which individuals make their decisions.

History's verdict on that cultural consensus will, I suspect, be one of revulsion. The same might be equally true of slaughtering warm-blooded animals for food. People make their decisions in the framework society accepts at that moment.

Conforming within the contemporary framework can't ever be considered to fall short on moral considerations. The framework itself can, and no doubt will, change, at which the old state of society will be judged a moral outrage. How do we now view slavery, for example? Or drawing and quartering? Or imprisonment and transportation for advocating workers' unions? I'm quite confident the present rate of abortion in this country will face exactly the same response.

I don't think it a particularly good situation either. What I object to is the assumption being made that abortion is being used as a casual method of contraception. While it might be true in a few cases for the vast majority it is not. It is an assumption that doesn't stand up to more than five minutes thought and doesn't follow from the statistics. You might not be making a moral judgement but you do seem to show a sungular lack of empathy. That is my opinion and I'm sorry if it offends you.

Abortion is about a woman's right to choose when or when not to conceive and whether she should carry a baby to term or not and not have the choice taken away from her. Usually it the religious groups who feel they have the right to dictate.

Slavery is about people who have already had all rights taken away from them.

As to slavery, we still have it and where it is largely females trafficked in to the sex industry the victims are quite often sent to jail for prostitution. When it's forced labour the victims get little sympathy as illegal immigrants. It's a global problem but maybe if those who applied such energy to imposing their views on contraception on everybody applied the same energy to human rights they might do some good.