Vive La France!

[Brigadier]

How is the possibility that a fertilised egg will not develop into a viable life a rational reason for abortion?

As I didn't say that, why are you asking me?

 

[space junkie]

But they do have legal status and protection. A child capable of being born alive is regarded as a child. Destroying one is a crime: "child destruction". Is your view that they have no rights until they are born?

Your claim is in direct contradiction to Noseall's comment (supported by references to the Science and Technology Select Committee):

... If this was in any doubt in 1967, it has been clearly established (and frequently reiterated since) that the foetus is not a legal person. It "cannot, in English law ... have any right of its own at least until it is born and has a separate existence from the mother".[11]11 This is likewise the position under the Human Rights Act (1998). While Article 2 of the European Convention states that, "everyone's right to life shall be protected by law", the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly refused to accept an understanding which would include the fetus as enjoying a "right to life". As the European Commission of Human Rights has noted:

Here is more of the text for your perusal:

• The "life" of the foetus is intimately connected with, and cannot be regarded in isolation from, the life of the pregnant woman. If article 2 were held to cover the foetus and its protection under this article were, in the absence of any express limitation, seen as absolute, an abortion would have to be considered as prohibited even where the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a serious risk to the life of the pregnant woman. This would mean that the "unborn life" of the foetus would be regarded as being of a higher value than the life of the pregnant woman.[12] 12

This reasoning has recently been confirmed in Vo v France.[13] 13 As a Court of Appeal judge has summarised: "on its true construction Article 2 is apt only to apply to persons already born and cannot apply to a foetus".[14]14

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmsctech/1045/1045we06.htm

So I assume you have references to back up your claim, and you will be happy to provide those references?

 

[noseall]

But they do have legal status and protection. A child capable of being born alive is regarded as a child. Destroying one is a crime: "child destruction". Is your view that they have no rights until they are born?

No crime if the terms of the Act are followed or if the woman's life is in danger.
The rights and health of the woman trump all.

 

[noseall]

But they do have legal status and protection. A child capable of being born alive is regarded as a child. Destroying one is a crime: "child destruction". Is your view that they have no rights until they are born?

Not my view.
One personal note, I would not like to have to choose between child or mother.
Probably mother. It would be up to her in any case.

 

[blup]

Because, at the time, there is no guarantee that natural and viable life will result. And therefore, no knowledge that "the event" will result in life.

You responded as above to vinty's argument that life began at conception, the moment the sperm fertilised the egg. So how does the fact there is no guarantee the fertilised egg will result in a child capable of being born make vinty's argument redundant, or, if you will, remove viability as a justification for a termination. Just trying to understand the thought process.

 

[motorbiking]

The rights and health of the woman trump all.

Not in all cases.

You cannot legally abort at 25 weeks a healthy unborn child on socio-economic grounds. So the Woman's rights are not unlimited.

 

[noseall]

So I assume you have references to back up your claim, and you will be happy to provide those references?

It's all in the Twelfth Report. You can find the list of people that gave evidence or submissions, via the contents section.

 

[noseall]

Not in all cases.

You cannot legally abort at 25 weeks a healthy unborn child on socio-economic grounds. So the Woman's rights are not unlimited.

True, but not what I said.

 

[space junkie]

You responded as above to vinty's argument that life began at conception, the moment the sperm fertilised the egg. So how does the fact there is no guarantee the fertilised egg will result in a child capable of being born make vinty's argument redundant, or, if you will, remove viability as a justification for a termination. Just trying to understand the thought process.

If I may, Vinty's argument could only stand if the fertilised egg, the embryo, became a foetus.
Only then would there be any possibility of it eventually becoming a child.
So Vinty's argument about the fertilised egg does not stand.

 

[space junkie]

So I assume you have references to back up your claim, and you will be happy to provide those references?

It's all in the Twelfth Report. You can find the list of people that gave evidence or submissions, via the contents section.

I was addressing motorbiking with that comment.

 

[noseall]

Nonsense, conception has feck all to do with it. The rights of the woman trump all. If you are in any doubt, read the text below....



2.1. It has been suggested that, with the exception of a small number of extremists, there is broad agreement that while fetal life deserves respect, its protection cannot take priority over the rights of the pregnant woman.[2] 2 Legal developments since 1967 have made it abundantly clear that, with the glaring exception of the regulation of abortion, this correctly captures the position at English common law and under the Human Rights Act (1998). Namely, the fetus is not a legal person, and its interests cannot trump those of the pregnant woman.

• 
  
• If this was in any doubt in 1967, it has been clearly established (and frequently reiterated since) that the foetus is not a legal person. It "cannot, in English law ... have any right of its own at least until it is born and has a separate existence from the mother".

 

[space junkie]

Not in all cases.

You cannot legally abort at 25 weeks a healthy unborn child on socio-economic grounds. So the Woman's rights are not unlimited.

You could if the health of the woman were considered to be at risk.
The Act allows the doctors to assess that risk.

 

[motorbiking]

thats no socio-economic grounds then is it.

 

[motorbiking]

I was addressing motorbiking with that comment.

Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929

An Act to amend the law with regard to the destruction of children at or before birth.

www.legislation.gov.uk

It's also discussed in the report.

A piece of law written in 1929, effetely evolved beyond its intention due to medical science. It was clear from the comments on the second reading that the goal was to prevent the mother from causing the death of the child during or just before birth. Until 1929, that was not covered by the offences against the person act. But medical science evolved and up until about 1990 there was substantial risk legally, given that viability is now around 23-24 weeks.

 

[space junkie]

The Appeals Court Civil Division also only recognises a child as a person after birth, not before.

Abstract​

KIE: A local British health authority, fearing for the welfare of the fetus of a mentally disturbed woman whose first child had been made a ward of the court and put up for adoption, sought to make the unborn child a ward of the court. The case came before the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, after the health authority appealed the dismissal of its application. The Court found that it could not exercise wardship, because it had no jurisdiction over unborn children. Until the child was born, thereby reaching the status of a legal person, wardship was necessarily incompatible with the mother's liberty. The Court dismissed the application, suggesting that Parliament create legislation with proper procedural safeguards to deal with this issue.

Re F (in Utero) - PubMed

Re F (in Utero)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov