Vive La France!

Sponsored Links
An historical legal question! Before the 1967 Act, if a woman had an illegal abortion, is it just the person who carried out the abortion who committed a crime, or could the woman herself also be prosecuted for e.g. "inciting" the abortion? I'm finding it surprisingly difficult to Google an answer.
It seems a woman could be prosecuted directly back in the day.


Back then they were called children
 
Sponsored Links
It seems a woman could be prosecuted directly back in the day.

I've copied the section you linked below. Can you talk me through it? The first bit (in bold) seems to cover the crime of intentionally causing your own miscarriage by your own actions, the second bit (in italics) seems to cover another person deliberately causing a pregnant woman to miscarry. I just can't see the bit which says that when a pregnant woman allows somebody else to deliberately cause her to miscarry, that makes the pregnant woman herself guilty.

Presumably some sort of joint enterprise or conspiracy would apply.

But my question was really about what used to happen in practice. I've heard of the "backstreet abortionist" being prosecuted, but what happened to the woman herself.

58 Administering Drugs or using Instruments to procure Abortion.

Every Woman, being with Child, who, with Intent to procure her own Miscarriage, shall unlawfully administer to herself any Poison or other noxious Thing, or shall unlawfully use any Instrument or other Means whatsoever with the like Intent
, and whosoever, with Intent to procure the Miscarriage of any Woman, whether she be or be not with Child, shall unlawfully administer to her or cause to be taken by her any Poison or other noxious Thing, or shall unlawfully use any Instrument or other Means whatsoever with the like Intent, shall be guilty of Felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the Discretion of the Court, to be kept in Penal Servitude for Life or for any Term not less than Three Years,—or to be imprisoned for any Term not exceeding Two Years, with or without Hard Labour, and with or without Solitary Confinement.
 
Last edited:
That's not what the law says.
(Table 3 in ‘Abortion statistics January to June 2022: data tables’).

The vast majority (99.9%) of abortions carried out under ground C alone were reported as being performed because of a risk to the woman’s mental health. These were classified as F99 (mental disorder, not otherwise specified) under the International Classification of Disease version 10 (ICD-10).

Hope the above helps.
 
no such thing

a pregnant women has a foetus, which under 24 week is not conscious
More strawmen from Notch.
You never give up, do you.
Killing a foetus in the womb ends human life.
You were a foetus once.
Although, seeing as how you have turned out.
Maybe abortion is justified in some cases.
 
a pregnant women has a foetus, which under 24 week is not conscious
Consciousness in a child doesn't begin until long after its born.

So another of your spurious justifications for infanticide debunked.




Article from a scientific journal...


. New research shows that babies display glimmers of consciousness and memory as early as 5 months old
 
Plenty of secular females are pro life.
Stop kidding yourself.

'plenty'? Lol. A few brainwashed obedient drudges.

The overwhelming majority of women (and men) of this world, are pro-abortion boyo. Even in the USA. Nothing in your religious babble will EVER change that.
One of the stupidest, cruellest things you could impose upon the females of this world, is to restrict their access to abortion. The moron right wing c**ts in the USA are actively trying to limit access to Mifepristone, as we speak. Scoundrels.

Vive La France!
 
You can only have a termination in the UK if there is a risk to the mental or physical wellbeing of you, the foetus or your family.
Wrong. There are other grounds which the assessment considers. Financial and environment is also assessed.


Your (strawman) posting the figures for abortion, will not change that, boyo. The law states....
Section 1 (2) of the Abortion Act, which states that doctors may take account of the pregnant woman’s actual or reasonably foreseeable environment when making a decision about the impact of the continuance of a pregnancy on a woman’s health. Here again, the law bestows upon doctors a gatekeeping role in terms of deciding who may have an abortion, but within that role provides for a great deal of latitude in making their decision. The law does not state that doctors ‘must’ take account of a woman’s environment, but that they ‘may’ do so. There is an implicit recognition that it is not always possible to separate the mental or physical health effects of abortion from a woman’s wider social circumstances - such as her income, her housing situation, her support network. Doctors may take all this into account in determining whether to authorise an abortion
It's just simpler to put it down to mental issues. Stick that in your strawman.
 
The overwhelming majority of women (and men) of this world, are pro-abortion boyo. Even in the USA. Nothing in your religious babble will EVER change that.

You should hear them talk in Christian forums if you want to hear real babble towering o'erhead: bible quotes flying through the air like bricks; language that'd make a nun blush. I used to look forward to one in particular named 'Dominica', an Aussie girl, who'd launch into the most unhinged ravings on the subject of abortion - anyone who disagreed was marked for special treatment by her 'minions', led by a laconic Texan named 'Corporation Sin' who'd use a boot prog to knock people off the chat link then block them from returning.
Free entertainment, from my pov, as i found a prog that rebounded from the attack and maintained the link, much to his irritation. :cool:
This is a vicar's tea party in comparison.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top