Person or not a person?

[BMS]

Outrage at jail sentence for woman who took abortion pills later than UK limit

Mitigation plea signed by medical groups was sent to judge, while BPAS chief executive said sentence was ‘shocking and appalling’

www.theguardian.com

I think prison is harsh, but its an offense against the person.

What do you think?

 

[Eightcrackers]

Outrage at jail sentence for woman who took abortion pills later than UK limit

Mitigation plea signed by medical groups was sent to judge, while BPAS chief executive said sentence was ‘shocking and appalling’

www.theguardian.com

I think prison is harsh, but its an offense against the person.

What do you think?

It's a person if the pregnant woman in question, thinks it is.

IMO.

 

[BMS]

It's a person if the pregnant woman in question, thinks it is.

IMO.

And if the pregnant women thinks its a giraffe?

Not only is this against the law, but it is an offense against the person act. So the offspring is the person.

Thanks for responding btw

 

[Eightcrackers]

And if the pregnant women thinks its a giraffe?

She's wrong.

Not only is this against the law, but it is an offense against the person act. So the offspring is the person.

I was asked what I thought - I don't care whether or not the law thinks it's a person; I don't.

 

[Temujin]

She's wrong.

I was asked what I thought - I don't care whether or not the law thinks it's a person; I don't.

The law is quite clear, in the UK at least. Supreme Court ruling is that the unborn child, no matter how far advanced in gestation, is not a person. The only person involved in an abortion, is the pregnant person.

The recent case of a woman prosecuted under the Offences against the person Act, does not alter this. The person she offended against is the same person anyone who procures an illegal abortion offends against, i.e. herself.

 

[Eightcrackers]

The person she offended against is the same person anyone who procures an illegal abortion offends against, i.e. herself.

And the idea of offences against the self, is ludicrous, IMO.

 

[Temujin]

And the idea of offences against the self, is ludicrous, IMO.

I agree. Which is why suicide is no longer illegal. Alternatively, it's ludicrous to have prosecuted this woman. It's the provider who should be prosecuted, or better subject to regulations apart from the criminal.

 

[BMS]

She's wrong.

Why?

I was asked what I thought - I don't care whether or not the law thinks it's a person; I don't.

fair enough, you would.say the law is wrong. I would say the law is right in this case.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Why?

Because species is a matter of genetics, not opinion.

 

[BMS]

And the idea of offences against the self, is ludicrous, IMO.

Fair enough, but the OP was a bait for Temujin who always responds with the law, and is almost always wrong.
Now he has responded with supreme court law as though the woman hasnt been found guilty of offence against the person act and sent to prison.
It just exposes Temujin's double standards, denial and ignorance.

But thanks for your response, though I disagree with your opinion

 

[BMS]

Because species is a matter of genetics, not opinion.

Genetics is the same whatever the opinion, but you said it was down to the woman to decide, not genetics. You have changed your story

 

[Eightcrackers]

Genetics is the same whatever the opinion, but you said it was down to the woman to decide, not genetics. You have changed your story

You asked

And if the pregnant women thinks its a giraffe?

I said she'd be wrong - she gets to decide whether or not it's a person, not whether or not it's a giraffe.

Whether or not an unborn is a person, its species is human.

 

[Temujin]

And the idea of offences against the self, is ludicrous, IMO.

I should add that the specific section of the Act includes these words:
"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"

Which demonstrates that whoever the person is who is offended against, it isn't the foetus, since it doesn't matter whether or not she is even pregnant!!

 

[BMS]

You asked

Yes and I agree with you that its because species is genetics as is male and female.

I said she'd be wrong - she gets to decide whether or not it's a person, not whether or not it's a giraffe.

But she may do, its just that the law says its a person

Whether or not an unborn is a person, its species is human.

Is your opinion, but the law says otherwise in this case

 

[BMS]

I should add that the specific section of the Act includes these words:
"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"

Which demonstrates that whoever the person is who is offended against, it isn't the foetus, since it doesn't matter whether or not she is even pregnant!!

That doesn't mention person. That is you imagining what the law says and ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Interestingly enough this law that you have quoted says the woman may be with child, which is very interesting because you have repeatedly claimed the unborn offspring is neither a person nor a child or recognised in law.

 

[BMS]

The question of the OP is for us to discuss whether prison is the best outcome for this, NOT for Temujin to demonstrate to everyone how wrong he is and continue to peddle the misinformation

 

[BMS]

Come out Temujin whereever you are.
Tell us about the law again.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Outrage at jail sentence for woman who took abortion pills later than UK limit

Mitigation plea signed by medical groups was sent to judge, while BPAS chief executive said sentence was ‘shocking and appalling’

www.theguardian.com

I think prison is harsh, but its an offense against the person.

What do you think?

She murdered a person. Why do you think prison is harsh in such a case?

Unless she was forced into it, and if she was, the person who forced her into it should be in prison---but---all things being equal, why is a woman who murdered a person and is now in prison, harsh from your view?

And the thing is--if this woman wanted to have an abortion so desperately, why did she wait? Was the legal limit not enough time to decide whether her offspring lives or dies?

 

[romishpopishorganist]

The question of the OP is for us to discuss whether prison is the best outcome for this, NOT for Temujin to demonstrate to everyone how wrong he is and continue to peddle the misinformation

What other alternatives would you suggest if not prison?

 

[romishpopishorganist]

It's a person if the pregnant woman in question, thinks it is.

And if she does not think it is a person, then, it isn't a person and she gets to kill it?

What is and is not a person depends on the arbitrary whims of someone else? THAT is your argument?

Why should we not bring back slavery based on this? The Aryans would argue that black people aren't people. On what basis do we reject their argument, but turn around and when a woman makes the exact same argument regarding her unborn offspring, all of a sudden we have to accept the argument?