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

Re: Sarah Catt-I'm confused
 

100% Spot on cashy

Re: Sarah Catt-I'm confused
 

I agree with Sugarmouse on this, and I'm confused too. If (and it's a big if as far as I can see) the baby was born dead then she has nothing to gain by hidings it's whereabouts now. I suspect there is more to this, that she has actually killed the baby and that's the reason behind her not revealing the body. Would also suggest that her husband ( who is apparently standing by her through this) gets himself some new specs or starts taking a lot more notice of what's going on, can only think that they didn't have a very close relationship if he missed that baby bump.:confused:

Re: Sarah Catt-I'm confused
 

I can agree with you, but more than we can know, unfortunately this 'terrible' woman, should she have been picked up earlier by our caring society?
It's not as if it's the first time she's shall we say been a little peculiar?
She seems to have some fear of pregnancy, perhaps child birth? She certainly doesn't seem maternal.
I can't imagine the pain of child birth, but to put yourself through an abortion at such a late stage?
Why? Unless you're ill? Horrid.
:confused:

Re: Sarah Catt-I'm confused
 

Also, the pain of childbirth is often said to be worse in a still birth if it WAS a stillbirth-a baby will naturally TRY to be born, it will work its way down the birth canal. A dead one won't.
An abortion inducing drug is quite different to a labour inducing one!The former usually has a first stage dose that stops the foetus from thriving, then a second one to make the body give birth to it.
I agree, regards killing the baby. A dead baby was found in Bradford around the same time or slightly before it became knowledge-can only assume the police have dismissed any connection.
And yes, if I developed a baby bump I would be rather concerned if a husband did not notice. Maybe she told him she'd eaten too many pies recently...

Re: Sarah Catt-I'm confused
 

my missus, was/is quite slim, and with all 4 of ours she didnt really "show" until last couple of months, then straight back in her jeans to come home in.

we new a larger lady once who didnt know she was pregnant, until 8 months, apperantley some women continue having a menstral cycle, of some kind, during pregnancy

edit: all 4 babies were in the 7lb odd bracket, and normal weight and length

Re: Sarah Catt-I'm confused
 

Maybe she did just tell him she'd eaten too many pies, then! :D

Re: Sarah Catt-I'm confused
 

Husbands are not the only ones not to notice a pregnancy apparently...

BBC News - Baby birth shock for soldier on Afghanistan deployment

Re: Sarah Catt-I'm confused
 

Would have been bigger news had it been a male soldier.

Re: Sarah Catt-I'm confused
 

Ya had to smile when I heard that, you can imagine couldn't you, 'excuse us mr Taliban, can you knock hostilities on the head for a while we have a lass here trying to give birth':rolleyes:

Re: Sarah Catt-I'm confused
 

Ooops ...

Judge in late abortion case linked to conservative Christian charity | Law | The Guardian

Re: Sarah Catt-I'm confused
 

I would think that any woman in Sarah Catt's situation would be unhinged, I can't imagine anything worse than doing what she did, she must have been in a dreadful place and not able to make a logical decision. I think she should be pitied and given a lot of help. Otherwise if she did what she did deliberately it doesn't bear thinking about.

Re: Sarah Catt-I'm confused
 

She obviously did it deliberately, you don't "accidently" order abortion inducing drugs off the internet. You don't sit in front of your PC and search all about it and whether you can be prosecuted or not for it.

Yep, I'll agree she's got some serious issues going on but she's still a conniving ,hard-hearted and devious woman in my book.

Re: Sarah Catt-I'm confused
 

I don't know Lindsay, I think that she must have been a certain type of person in the first place to have even thought about doing what she did. The baby would have most certainly lived if it had just been born naturally at that stage, so the drug she took must have been designed to kill it, there isn't enough detail in the report to say, but the length of sentence would suggest that what she did was very calculated, I don't know how anyone of sound mind could do such a thing.

Re: Sarah Catt-I'm confused
 

I don't honestly see how, if yeh do summat very calculated, as it seems by the sentence as yeh say, How yeh can be away wi the fairies?:confused:

Re: Sarah Catt-I'm confused
 

I don't know Cashman, it just seems to me as a mother that you couldn't be in your right mind to do what she did at the stage of pregnancy she was at - she would have had to give birth normally and even if she really didn't want the baby there is a level of instinct there at that stage which would have made her want to protect it, I just don't think there's enough information in the report to be able to start to understand the situation. And she couldn't have suddenly at that stage in her pregnancy have decided to get rid of the baby unless something extremely traumatic had happened which had made her reasoning unbalanced - just my opinion, the entire thing is confusing me.

Re: Sarah Catt-I'm confused
 

The thing is a jury sat through a trial listened to all the evidence (not just read reports from papers ect)and found this woman guilty of a crime, end of.