Sarah Catt-I'm confused
 

Woman jailed for taking drugs to abort baby within week of expected birth | UK news | The Guardian
So she successfully hid a pregnancy from her husband, gave birth to a dead baby whilst he was at work and went on holiday a couple of days after?
Also-if it was a labour inducing drug she took-why was the baby stillborn?If it was an ABORTION inducing drug, then why did it work at such a late stage-unless she took more than double the usual dose-surely that could kill her as well as the baby?
Also, where IS the baby-police haven't found it and she hasn't revealed what she did with it-there isn't being much done to find it possibly because this is not a murder charge?If she is lying and the baby was NOT stillborn and she killed it after birth, then it should be a murder charge?

I don't know-seems there's a lot more to it than is reported on ... :confused:
Apologies if in wrong section!

Re: Sarah Catt-I'm confused
 

Sounds a touch ill to me, never heard of anything like it before.

That is not saying I condone what she has done.
:(

Re: Sarah Catt-I'm confused
 

i suppose it brings into the question, the right of abortion,
Earliest surviving premature baby goes home to her parents | Mail Online

by current law, 24 weeks, but this is a baby exactly what the judge described

Re: Sarah Catt-I'm confused
 

No she's definitely a nut job. No matter what they make the legal limit, there's going to be grey areas. My obvious response is, if she wanted rid of the baby why not just get it done earlier-but there's the mental health issue I suppose :/

Re: Sarah Catt-I'm confused
 

Im sorry but I think that she knew full well the legal limits of a termination, she has been through it before, this was either deliberate or she as well as being is seriously messed up in the head! I would like to know what she has done with that child! And with no disrespect to.you sugarmouse, but a mental health issue, surely its a mental health issue terminating a baby at 39weeks, why not see to it sooner, when she first found out! Give the child up for adoption again, I don't know how she could of done that though having 2 then already 1 for adoption, they should whip her bits out so she can't have any.more. oh sorry that would be against her human rights, that poor kid(s) didn't get any. Don't get me wrong I'm not against terminations, free choice and circumstances and all that but come on!

Sorry rant over :p

Re: Sarah Catt-I'm confused
 

Why say 'No disrespect' , you're agreeing with me on the rest of the post as far as I can tell!

Re: Sarah Catt-I'm confused
 

I think the poor girl should be pitied not put in jail.

Re: Sarah Catt-I'm confused
 

Sorry Jim thats one of the reasons society's gone to the dogs in my view.:rolleyes:

Re: Sarah Catt-I'm confused
 

What surprises me, amid all the sensationalism, is that there is actually a legal limit to when a woman can obtain an abortion in the UK. Or that there are still legal obstacles to a woman's right to a legal, safe medical procedure. In Canada, there is no abortion law. Things are as they should be: it's a matter concerning a woman and her doctor. The State does not, and cannot interfere.

Re: Sarah Catt-I'm confused
 

I didn't know that ^^ until I explored the subject once a few years when studying. It is weird given how Canada had very strict abortion rules until quite recently really. I don't get emotional about abortion as some people do, if anything I wish it was more common lol.
Does Canada have a publicly funded health system, as we do?

Re: Sarah Catt-I'm confused
 

Of course we have publicly funded health care ... we're civilized, ain't we;) It's not all moose, bears, and lumberjacks.:D

Re: Sarah Catt-I'm confused
 

What's the abortion situation in the States, Eric? We hear far more about abortion, or rather anti-abortion, concerning that country.

Re: Sarah Catt-I'm confused
 

As far as I know, it's more of a constitutional and political issue than a question of a woman's right to a safe medical procedure ... and, of course, it's tied into question of who funds abortions. Also, the anti-abortion movement is opposed to "planned parenthood" ... and, by the way, rights for gays., publicly funded health care, etc. On the up-side, Roe vs Wade is still holding firm. The Supreme Court stated that a woman's right to an abortion is guaranteed by both the 9th and 14th ammendments (I didn't check this; I'm on a kick of using my memory rather than Google). But the US Supreme Court, unlike ours, is a political as well as a legal entity; so, this could change. Canadian Supreme Court Justices are selected on merit, not on their political affilliations ... and, of course, given the size and the diversity of our country, they reflect regional differences. The simplest way of putting it is that Republicans oppose abortion, Democrats support it. Republicans believe in the sanctity of human life, and, of course, the death penalty:confused:

Re: Sarah Catt-I'm confused
 

Ha! that last sentence is a killer if you'll pardon the pun...

I was wondering about time limits in the US but a bit of googling (BTW good for you relying on memory rather than google - use it or lose it!) tells me that each state is different -aaarrrrgghhh! Seems several states want to ban/criminalise abortion if/when Roe vs Wade is overturned... and anti "planned parenthood" means that even birth control methods would be illegal. So much for civilisation...:(

Re: Sarah Catt-I'm confused
 

Lol :)
My ex was Canadian. I loved his accent. We didn't speak much of abortion thankfully.
THAT is why I was asking , lol
Totally is ! :D