Rog Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 “Miss Jepson, the curate of St Michael's church in Chester, won permission in December 2003 to challenge the refusal of the police to bring charges against doctors involved in the abortion which was carried out in 2001. The legal limit for abortions, unless there is risk of serious disability, is 24 weeks. Jim England, the Chief Crown Prosecutor for West Mercia CPS, said that the doctors who authorised the termination had decided in good faith that there was a "substantial risk" that the child would be seriously handicapped if he or she was born. "In these circumstances I decided there was insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and that there should be no charges against either of the doctors," he said” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...7/ixportal.html Strikes me that this woman should have kept her dam fool mouth shut. Not content with raising this issue to the police in the first place only to have them investigate the circumstances and decide not to take any action she then went on with her obsessive persecution. The parents must have been going through hell prior to reaching their decision to terminate, they reached their decision, they convinced doctors to perform the termination, and they now have to recover from the ordeal especially as it was a late termination. To then have this sanctimonious bitch of a woman come along and stir up the pot shows cruelty and selfishness beyond belief. Quite apart from it being none of her business her whole attitude flies totally in the face of the vary nature of her chosen trade as a Christian cleric. She has shown dam little Christian compassion in this matter. Fortunately the law has made the right decision for once. She should be ashamed of herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addie Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Quite frankly, this is a desperatey difficult subject. I think that Ms Jepson had a special reason for being so against the abortion decision. Link What of the other children are born with cleft lip and palate? How must it feel to grow up in a community that discarded babies that had the same problems that you had yourself. How worthless must that make a child feel? When I was a child I had a friend who had a cleft lip and palate. The thought that with different parents/doctor or in different times, he would be destroyed in the womb, is just to awful to contemplate. We haven't enough medical evidence to judge this. There may have been other problems with the baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addie Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Sorry, forgot to add this The Cleft Lip and Palate Association One in every 600-700 children in the UK is born with a cleft lip and / or palate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 How about directing some of that hatred at a pair of parents unwilling to make the extra effort to care for a child with only a relatively slight handicap Rog? The baby was clearly wanted, otherwise it would never have got to this late stage. I'm not quite sure where I stand on abortion overall. I think there are plenty of cases where it's a very valid course of action. For some, it's just another method of contraception and I think that and this convenience abortion are examples when it's not. I don't quite see how parent's would go through hell over this decision. To me, it's been taken with their own interests in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speckled Frost Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Rog, your arguments don't hold up in context of the law as it stands. They're arguments against abortion as a whole. The 24 weeks isn't an arbitary guideline but the law. This could become a slippery slope and doctors can't be seen to just flaunt the law. A cleft palate in itself is hardly a major disability and, while in can be an indicator of down syndrome, don't those with this condition end up living fulfilling lives anyway? I'm not going to get into a debate on abortion, I avoid it along with capital punishment as it makes me dizzy while we all go around in circles, but the law is there. It either needs to be adhered to or otherwise changed or scrapped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted March 17, 2005 Author Share Posted March 17, 2005 The crux of the issue that I raise is not the abortion though God alone knows that's a difficult issue under any situation, it's the interference of that woman into what was a private matter that was obviously fraught with difficulty and just making the parents go through additional suffering simply because she thought that she had the right to. If she had taken up the issue of abortion as an issue in its own right and maybe quoted the particular case but in anonymity then that would be reasonable - at least in my opinion, but to interfere in the way that she did is - again in my opinion - unforgivable and shows to me she has little understanding of the spiritual charity that her beliefs ad following promote. I think that her behaviour has been despicable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kite Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 how did she find out about the case anyway. surely these things are private. It was none of her business, she should have to pay all the court costs now. A cleft palate in itself is hardly a major disability and, while in can be an indicator of down syndrome, don't those with this condition end up living fulfilling lives anyway?thats as may be but its still a good enough reason for anyone to have an abortion, not everyone is prepared to cope with a child with those sort of disabilities if a woman wants an abortion that is her right, noone has the right to tell her when and if she can. unless you want to go back to the times of backsteet doctors performing illegal aboritions and women dying of trying to do it themselves with a coathanger and perforating their womb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman8180 Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 ........if a woman wants an abortion that is her right, noone has the right to tell her when and if she can...... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> at any time during gestation? or within the previously mentioned 24 weeks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kite Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 aborting of disabled foetuses is allowed right up until birth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 not everyone is prepared to cope with a child with those sort of disabilities Bet you there's a ton of childless couples who would take one with open arms. Cosmetic abortion is a very dangerous thing to start getting into. It's the main reason they wont tell you the sex of your child over here when you're pregnant. Apart from the fact that it opens them up to litigation for compensation for clothes and stuff bought in advance if they get it wrong (sigh) but people abort boys because they want a girl and vice versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman8180 Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 aborting of disabled foetuses is allowed right up until birth. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I got that bit, was just wondering whether you believed there should be a time limit for 'free choice' abortion as opposed to one for clear medical reasons. But maybe we don't want to get into the whole debate right now...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speckled Frost Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 Going back to the orignal point. I believe it's important for this grey area of abortion law to be addressed. What constitutes sufficient handicap to carry out an abortion after 24 weeks? How effective are the guidelines for doctors? Can acting 'in good faith' really continue to be a defence? There could be a gradual erosion of the law whereby there will eventually be a window shop mentality with having kids. There maybe some distress to the woman who had the abortion but she wasn't the one on trial. By addressing this now it could clarify the situation and ensure this mess isn't repeated, whether it weighs in the pro or anti abortionists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kite Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 not everyone is prepared to cope with a child with those sort of disabilities Bet you there's a ton of childless couples who would take one with open arms. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> if it was their own child yes, but the ton of children sitting waiting to be fostered or adopted all over the world who are perfectly healthy seems to show not if it isnt their own.manxman I do think there should be some limits, but every case is different and aborting a child you cannot cope with due to discovering its disabilities at a late stage is preferable to an unwanted severely disabled child being born as for 'sufficent handicap' that is for the parents to decide surely? they will be the ones who have to cope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted March 18, 2005 Author Share Posted March 18, 2005 I have to admit that my thoughts were more concerning that dam woman sticking her nose into a matter that had nothing to do with her and must have turned an awful situation into a nightmare. My own take on abortion is that it is something that the woman involved in has the absolute right to decide for herself and that all anyone should do is to help her in whatever she decides. No one should try to make her decide one way or another least of all some church type from ANY church. I would even go one stage further. If a child is born with anything beyond trivial disabilities then it should be the mothers decision if that child should be nurtured or simply provided with palliative care and allowed to die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speckled Frost Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 Again Rog - what constitutes 'trivial disabilities'? You and Kite are effectively advocating disability cleansing. Boiled down into a Darwinian survival of the fittest then sure, but in a civilised society that is unacceptable. Kite obviously doesn't feel any unborn child at any point has a right to life - fair enough. But by allowing abortion carte blanche it will surely provoke a lack of social responsibility. To say an unborn disabled child has no right to life could then permate through and devalue the rights of disabled people generally. A lot of hard work has gone into removing the stigmas and discrimination disabled people face. Having such disregard for unborn disabled children/foetuses would surely undermine that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.