Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Cabaal

wokingvoter wrote: »

It's terrifying type think that my daughter could go online and buy drugs to induce an abortion.
Absolutely anything could have happened to that girl once she took those tablets.

Potentially something could have happened to her,
More the reason why safe legal abortions should have been provided.

Throwing the aborted baby in the bin afterwards, knowing that it would attract the attention of flat mates, when she could have so easily disposed of it more discreetly, would indicate that she is a very vulnerable person who hopefully now will get some counselling for what I would imagine are many many issues she is dealing with in her life.

To be honest you don't know that and its pretty underhanded to speculate like that, perhaps stick to the facts here.
What we know here is she wanted an abortion, something that any other UK citizen in England, Scotland or Wales can avail of, and she was denied it due to backwards laws in Northern Ireland. She did not have the money to travel so she opted for something she could afford.

MrPudding

Absolam wrote: »

I don't believe it's illegal to travel to commit murder. It's illegal to conspire to commit murder. It's illegal to attempt to commit murder. But travelling to commit one in and of itself? I don't think so.

Of course travelling to commit a crime is a crime, it is part of the attempt, it is an inchoate offence, and I am pretty sure you know this, so I am wondering why you deny it...

Irish and English law is reasonably similar on this. Where there is an intention to commit an offense and the act taken are more than merely preparatory then the offence is committed.

If an abortion is murder (which some posting on this thread, and many on the abortion thread in the other forum believe) then I would suggest there is a strong argument to suggest, booking an appointment at an English murder centre for a murder to be committed against your unborn baby, buying tickets to travel and then going to the airport and attempting to board the flight could be consider attempted murder. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

MrP

PopePalpatine

Cabaal wrote: »

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/04/05/it-takes-a-vigil/

[.IMG]http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/IMG_0640.jpg[/IMG]



[.IMG]http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/12963748_1145529292133671_3806698951854232232_n-1.jpg[/IMG]



https://www.facebook.com/events/1704134989868897/

Never fear Carol, it turns out that we DO have nutjobs on this island who think the woman convicted up north was let off too lightly:

Bernadette Smyth/Precious Life's Facebook page wrote:

Today in a Belfast Court a 21-year-old woman from Northern Ireland has been given a three month suspended sentence after pleading guilty to two charges (namely procuring her own abortion by using a poison, and of supplying a poison with intent to procure a miscarriage.
It is understood from Court reports that the defendant bought drugs on the internet to induce a miscarriage on 12 July 2014. Her little boy aged between 10-12 weeks gestation, was later found in the bin of a house she shared with two other people.

Director of Precious Life Bernadette Smyth said that Judge McFarland has seriously undermined the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 which clearly states under section 58, that “Every woman, being with child, who, with intent to procure her own miscarriage shall unlawfully administer to herself any poison or other noxious thing […] shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to be kept in penal servitude for life.
“The woman in this case accepts that she committed a crime by procuring her own abortion by purchasing abortion pills online.

Precious Life is very shocked that this judge’s sentencing was so manifestly lenient in respect of such a serious crime, and is very concerned that this court judgment could set a very dangerous precedent for similar cases.
“Precious Life will be writing to Mr John Larkin QC, the Attorney General for Northern Ireland, and Mr Barra McGrory QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, to have the matter referred back to the Court of Appeal.”

wokingvoter

Cabaal wrote: »

Potentially something could have happened to her,
More the reason why safe legal abortions should have been provided.



To be honest you don't know that and its pretty underhanded to speculate like that, perhaps stick to the facts here.
What we know here is she wanted an abortion, something that any other UK citizen in England, Scotland or Wales can avail of, and she was denied it due to backwards laws in Northern Ireland. She did not have the money to travel so she opted for something she could afford.

What we know is that she threw the aborted baby in the bin and left it there. There was no logical read for her to do that.
If your trying to pretend that she didn't do that, then that's illogical too
Her flat mates were sufficiently concerned as to contact the authorities.
Or do you want to pretend that they didn't?
I don't understand why particular aspects of s case can be mentioned here and others can't.

The Randy Riverbeast

wokingvoter wrote: »

What we know is that she threw the aborted baby in the bin and left it there. There was no logical read for her to do that.
If your trying to pretend that she didn't do that, then that's illogical too
Her flat mates were sufficiently concerned as to contact the authorities.
Or do you want to pretend that they didn't?
I don't understand why particular aspects of s case can be mentioned here and others can't.

After a week. If I found a body in a bin I wouldn't wait a week. Better put the bins out tonight....wait, I forgot about that body I found. I should probably pop into the gardai next time I'm passing.

Cabaal

wokingvoter wrote: »

What we know is that she threw the aborted baby in the bin and left it there. There was no logical read for her to do that.
If your trying to pretend that she didn't do that, then that's illogical too

She was railroaded into a awful situation by a government and health system that failed her by not providing services that she would be entitled to anywhere else in the UK.

Its likely she was in a distressed state after the abortion, I'm not trying to pretend she didn't do what she did at all.

Also to be honest what other means to you think she can use to dispose of the fetus? She can't drop it into a doctors to have it disposed with the other biohazard material because she knew they'd report her, she threw it in with the household waste. Her flat mates obviously then cared enough about it to report it a week after they found it.

Her flat mates were sufficiently concerned as to contact the authorities.
Or do you want to pretend that they didn't?
I don't understand why particular aspects of s case can be mentioned here and others can't.

You have previously decided that she has many many other issues in her life, thats completely speculation on her overall life and mental health by you and is pretty poor form.

Many Irish women decide to opt for pills over travel, it doesn't mean they have issues in their life. It merely means they don't have the money to travel to the UK. That in no way makes them mentally unstable or living life with many many issues.

wokingvoter

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

After a week. If I found a body in a bin I wouldn't wait a week. Better put the bins out tonight....wait, I forgot about that body I found. I should probably pop into the gardai next time I'm passing.

Although I'm struggling to understand what your trying to saying, I would imagine it was the foul aroma from the bin that alerted the flat mates. I didn't want to mention that but as your obviously having trouble getting your head around what happened here I'd better spell it out for you.
Smell alerts flat mate. Tiny body of baby boy is uncovered. What do you expect them to do?

Cabaal

wokingvoter wrote: »

Although I'm struggling to understand what your trying to saying, I would imagine it was the foul aroma from the bin that alerted the flat mates. I didn't want to mention that but as your obviously having trouble getting your head around what happened here I'd better spell it out for you.
Smell alerts flat mate. foetus is uncovered. What do you expect them to do?

You've read the story right?

The male foetus, which was between 10 and 12 weeks, was later found in the bin of a house she shared with two other people....

Police were alerted after the woman's two housemates contacted police, a week after finding blood-stained items and a foetus in the bin of the house they shared in south Belfast

So they found the items/fetus and then waited a week before contacting Police, they did not locate them a week after the event and then contact the Police straight away.

The Randy Riverbeast's post is spot on in relation to what they said. Clearly they were not overly concerned at first if they waited 7 days before doing anything

oldrnwisr

Absolam wrote: »

Yes it's my calculation. As I said, the transcript shows "The study took in a 30 year period and involved about 30 cases in all. Only 7 fitted into the category of 17 weeks or less gestation at the death of the mother. Of those there were two survivors, one of whom died at 30 days post delivery."
2 out of 7 is 28%. Whether you feel the information that was in the transcript was factually incorrect ...

No, I don't "feel" that the information is wrong, I have demonstrated that it is. I already posted a link to the actual paper in post #1324 and yet you have continued, even after being corrected, to quote the incorrect information quoted by Dr. Brian Marsh in the trial.

Absolam wrote: »

or misleading because of how it was compared, makes no difference to the fact that it was in the transcript.

No, the misleading part was not the comparison in the transcript. The misleading part was your restatement that there was a "28% survival rate" which implies something not put forward by either witnesses in the trial or the authors of the paper. The attempt to mislead was entirely yours, not the transcript.

Absolam wrote: »

Whether or not Doctors may choose to use the literature to draw conclusions with any kind of what they think is statistical power, or even simply use what they can learn from the literature to try and make decisions that may increase the possibility of viability of unborn children in similar circumstances, I can't say; I'm not one of them.

But statistical power isn't a matter of subjective choice as you claim here. It is a calculated metric of an experiment. A study centred around 8 (or even 30) cases doesn't have the statistical power to draw meaningful conclusions from because the possibility that the observed effect was due to random chance cannot be excluded. This may enlighten you further.

Statistical power

Statistical power calculator

Absolam wrote: »

At the very least, the case allowed the High Court to draw parallels with judgements where life support was withdrawn from born persons, both adult and child, demonstrating a parity with and consistency in similar judgements with regards to the right to life for both born and unborn, insofar as in all cases the right to life does not necessarily entail that life must be preserved and prolonged at all costs no matter what the circumstances (re a Ward of Court (witholding medical treatment) (No. 2) [1996] 2 I.R. 79), so Doctors may, at their discretion, decide to withdraw somatic support whether the patient is born, or unborn (Re A (A Minor) [1993] 1 Med L Rev 98).

Actual hyperlinks to sources your argument relies on would be useful in this case. Without said links we only have your word to go on that the above named cases say what you say they do (or that they even exist).

Absolam wrote: »

Luckily I wasn't looking to persuade anyone they should attach any significance to the study; it was Dr Marsh testifying to the High Court who was doing that. Which demonstrates (as I said) that there was some consideration being given to just how likely survival might be, not that it was a foregone conclusion.

Actually Dr. Marsh does no such thing. He doesn't attach any significance to the study other than to demonstrate to the court the paucity of evidence on cases like this. He makes explicit reference to the cautions of the authors:

"The paper itself made the point that the number of reported cases was too small to determine the rate at which intensive care support for the mother could result in a healthy infant."

to which he adds his own view about how little information there is:

" There were in addition, he believed, many cases where reports had not been submitted, probably because they had not had successful outcomes."

ProfessorPlum

Absolam wrote: »

Luckily I wasn't looking to persuade anyone they should attach any significance to the study; it was Dr Marsh testifying to the High Court who was doing that. Which demonstrates (as I said) that there was some consideration being given to just how likely survival might be, not that it was a foregone conclusion.

"Luckily I wasn't looking to persuade anyone"

Well that is fortunate, because you certainly haven't been doing a very good job!
And as to most of the medical testimony - like you the judges have no medical expertise, so much of the testimony is to set the scene and supply background information. After all, since none of the medical evidence or opinion was dissenting, the doctors certainly weren't trying to persuade each other. And if the Heidleberg study didn't exist, the outcome of the case would have been no different.

Absolam wrote: »

I must admit, I didn't notice anything in the transcript about an open wound to the brain, just one to the head (or skull, depending on which of the mentions you choose)?

Really? Didn't you. Because it's mentioned several times. Ah, but perhaps with your lack of medical expertise you didn't notice it. The woman had a surgical operation on her brain, which had no blood flow. Unless a miracle had happened, there is an open wound to her brain. But Dr Colreavy's testimony makes it clear:

"This site has not closed and on examination there is a hole in the skull with brain tissue extruding."

"the presence of a rotting brain which is leaking to the outside",

Absolam wrote: »

[/B] Still, regardless as you say, given there's no evidence they had the extragavance of later evidence, and that N.P.s wound had not progressed quite so much, I still can't see any real reason to think any of the Doctors involved knew from the outset that there was no hope of saving the child. Or even that they thought so.
I suppose see above as well so.

I see that open brain wound re-appearing there! But to cut to the chase; you don't know what they knew. We can both speculate about what we think they might have, or even ought to have, known, but you don't know, no more than I do. The Doctors certainly knew by the time the court case concluded, but on the 3rd of December, I think it seems unlikely they knew it would become so.

Oh come on now. I know they knew the gravity and hopelessness of the situation because the doctors involved are well qualified, experienced and certified as experts. Ask any 1st year surgical trainee what the inevitable evolution of an open wound with no blood supply is and even they will tell you.

Absolam wrote: »

Hmm. Well, there is the fact that in the transcript it says "The plaintiff was advised by the medical staff at the hospital that it was intended to maintain this regime of treatment for the duration of the pregnancy of N.P." which would indicate (at least) that they intended to maintain the pregnancy. And obviously after that, as I pointed out before, it says that "On the 17th December, 2014 a tracheostomy operation was carried out on N.P. to facilitate the continuation of maternal organ supportive measures in an attempt to attain foetal viability." which to me indicates they thought they could attain foetal viability. Now I know; you say it means no such thing, as a trachoestomy is standard for any patient who is being ventilated for anything other than a very short period. So at least you agree there was an intention to provide ventilation for more than a very short period. That you directly refute the statement (an attempt to attain foetal viability) in the transcript is not something that I think I need argue I'm afraid; I'm sure you'll understand that I'd prefer the testimony entered into the Court record over your own version of what happened at the time?

They were required by law to maintain the pregnancy, in an attempt to attain foetal viability. Certainly doesn't mean they thought they could do it!

Absolam wrote: »

Well, the recent legislation obviously happened quite some time after the Courts provided the judgments that led me to that conclusion, but still I came to the conclusion from reading this:
"The Court is therefore satisfied, in the circumstances of this case, that, in the best interest of the unborn child, it should authorise at the discretion of the medical team the withdrawal of ongoing somatic support being provided for N.P. in this tragic and unfortunate case."
and this
"It would be wholly contrary to the interests of A., as they may now be, for his body to be subjected to the continuing indignity to which it was currently subject"
Still, when I read this: ""(b) Where a directive-maker lacks capacity and is pregnant and her advance healthcare directive sets out a specific refusal of treatment that is to apply even if she were pregnant, and it is considered by the healthcare professional concerned that the refusal of treatment would have a deleterious effect on the unborn, an application shall be made to the High Court to determine whether or not the refusal of treatment should apply." I think of the ruling in the case we've been discussing, which said that ' in the best interest of the unborn child, the Court should authorise at the discretion of the medical team the withdrawal of ongoing somatic support. The Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act might have said 'a deleterious effect on the health of the unborn', but it doesn't, it says 'a deleterious effect on the unborn'. I'd suggest that an act that is in the best interest of the unborn child is not at act that has a deleterious effect on the unborn child. I imagine a Court will have an opportunity to rule on the notion at some stage.

???? You typed up your conclusion earlier today. That Act has been in force since before this morning, and the bill has been under discussion for several years now!


"so Doctors may, at their discretion, decide to withdraw somatic support whether the patient is born, or unborn (Re A (A Minor) [1993] 1 Med L Rev 98)."

"I imagine a Court will have an opportunity to rule on the notion at some stage."


So you agree that it will go to the courts rather than being entirely left up to the discretion of the doctors. I agree. So does this barrister http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/eight-amendment-abortion-rights-2685815-Mar2016/

wokingvoter

Cabaal wrote: »

You've read the story right?




So they found the items/fetus and then waited a week before contacting Police, they did not locate them a week after the event and then contact the Police straight away.

The Randy Riverbeast's post is spot on in relation to what they said. Clearly they were not overly concerned at first if they waited 7 days before doing anything

So are you suggesting that they acted out of malice when they contacted the police? What would make you think that?

Cabaal

wokingvoter wrote: »

So are you suggesting that they acted out of malice when they contacted the police? What would make you think that?

I never suggested such a thing,

I'm merely pointed out the fact that they were obviously not as concerned as outraged as some people might want to make out, if they were they never would have waited 7 days.

oldrnwisr

wokingvoter wrote: »

It's terrifying type think that my daughter could go online and buy drugs to induce an abortion.

Except that she doesn't even have to go that far, if she were so inclined. There are a multitude of "home remedies" which can have abortifacient effects including castor oil and Vitamin C, but each with varying degrees of risk.

wokingvoter wrote: »

Absolutely anything could have happened to that girl once she took those tablets.

Yes, that's one of the reasons why we need safe access to abortion services. In studying maternal death in pregnancy, the WHO have identified that approximately 13% of all maternal deaths are due to attempts to procure backstreet or unsafe abortions.

wokingvoter

Cabaal wrote: »

She was railroaded into a awful situation by a government and health system that failed her by not providing services that she would be entitled to anywhere else in the UK.

Its likely she was in a distressed state after the abortion, I'm not trying to pretend she didn't do what she did at all.

Also to be honest what other means to you think she can use to dispose of the fetus? She can't drop it into a doctors to have it disposed with the other biohazard material because she knew they'd report her, she threw it in with the household waste. Her flat mates obviously then cared enough about it to report it a week after they found it.





You have previously decided that she has many many other issues in her life, thats completely speculation on her overall life and mental health by you and is pretty poor form.

Many Irish women decide to opt for pills over travel, it doesn't mean they have issues in their life. It merely means they don't have the money to travel to the UK. That in no way makes them mentally unstable or living life with many many issues.

Sorry, but nobody who didn't want them to be discovered would throw the baby and the bloodied items into the communal rubbish bin. That just doesn't make any sense. She could have bagged it all up and sealed it and put it more discreetly into a wheelie bin. Any wheelie bin. Discreetly would be the key.
I think her flat mates were sufficiently worried about her demeanour a week later to contact the authorities.

wokingvoter

Cabaal wrote: »

I never suggested such a thing,

I'm merely pointed out the fact that they were obviously not as concerned as outraged as some people might want to make out, if they were they never would have waited 7 days.

You or I really have no idea why they waited a week
I doubt very much it was malicious
I know a lot of girls in that age group and the most likely scenario is that they were very concerned that she seek medical attention, which there's no doubt she needed, and they felt they had no choice when she refused.
This combined with the possibility that her general demeanour was causing concern.
I'm presuming that in western countries where these pills are legal that they are prescription only and there is follow up care?

MrPudding

wokingvoter wrote: »

Sorry, but nobody who didn't want them to be discovered would throw the baby and the bloodied items into the communal rubbish bin. That just doesn't make any sense. She could have bagged it all up and sealed it and put it more discreetly into a wheelie bin. Any wheelie bin. Discreetly would be the key.
I think her flat mates were sufficiently worried about her demeanour a week later to contact the authorities.

So presumably, irrespective of the stress, emotional pressure, medical problems or any other issues you might be suffering from, you would never do anything that doesn't make sense?

You have no idea what this poor girl was going through. She found herself in a situation she could not handle and forced to do something she likely did not want to do. You do not know what her emotional or mental state was or what she was trying to deal with, but you still feel qualified to declare that her acts should have "made sense"?

I hope neither you nor anyone you know ever finds themselves in this position, but know this, if you ever were I would treat you with considerably more compassion than you are showing.

MrP

volchitsa

wokingvoter wrote: »

Sorry, but nobody who didn't want them to be discovered would throw the baby and the bloodied items into the communal rubbish bin. That just doesn't make any sense. She could have bagged it all up and sealed it and put it more discreetly into a wheelie bin. Any wheelie bin. Discreetly would be the key.

You don't know that it wasn't. The flatmates knew she had been pregnant, and we have no idea how much searching they had to do to find the fetus. I'm not sure why you think what you suggest would have more discreet than what she did. If only because you don't know that she didn't do exactly what you describe.

wokingvoter wrote: »

I think her flat mates were sufficiently worried about her demeanour a week later to contact the authorities.

Could you explain what sort of demeanour you think she displayed that would have led "worried" flatmates to go to the police about her?

It sounds as though you think they felt they were in danger from her. Is that what you meant?

wokingvoter

MrPudding wrote: »

So presumably, irrespective of the stress, emotional pressure, medical problems or any other issues you might be suffering from, you would never do anything that doesn't make sense?

You have no idea what this poor girl was going through. She found herself in a situation she could not handle and forced to do something she likely did not want to do. You do not know what her emotional or mental state was or what she was trying to deal with, but you still feel qualified to declare that her acts should have "made sense"?

I hope neither you nor anyone you know ever finds themselves in this position, but know this, if you ever were I would treat you with considerably more compassion than you are showing.

MrP

Why don't you read the thread before you answer? Nowhere have I been disrespectful to this girl! I think she left the items to be found by the flat mates as a cry for help because she was feeling so sick! But you just go right ahead and be outraged and offended by that because sure, what else would you do?

MrPudding

wokingvoter wrote: »

Why don't you read the thread before you answer? Nowhere have I been disrespectful to this girl! I think she left the items to be found by the flat mates as a cry for help because she was feeling so sick! But you just go right ahead and be outraged and offended by that because sure, what else would you do?

I did actually read the thread, but I have reread your comments and I know realise that I have misunderstood them, and for that I apologise. I had picked up completely the wrong tone form what you were saying.

Move along now...

MrP

wokingvoter

volchitsa wrote: »

You don't know that it wasn't. The flatmates knew she had been pregnant, and we have no idea how much searching they had to do to find the fetus. I'm not sure why you think what you suggest would have more discreet than what she did. If only because you don't know that she didn't do exactly what you describe.



Could you explain what sort of demeanour you think she displayed that would have led "worried" flatmates to go to the police about her?

It sounds as though you think they felt they were in danger from her. Is that what you meant?

No I think that they felt she needed medical attention. Anyone whose lost a baby in any way needs medical attention afterwards, but I would imagine if these pills are normally prescription only, that there was an increased concern about her. I would have thought that was a given.
She was also probably emotionally upset. I would be , would you? Your hormones are bound to be all over the place. If she was my flat mate I'd be very worried too. Nobody wants a tragedy.

Delirium

Thousands protest in Warsaw against proposed abortion ban

Thousands of people have attended a pro-choice rally outside parliament in Warsaw after the leader of Poland’s ruling party backed a call from Catholic bishops for a full ban on pregnancy terminations.

Poland already has one of the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe. Official statistics show only a few hundred abortions are performed every year, but pro-choice campaigners say underground abortions are common.

The debate around reproductive rights in Poland has been building up for months. The conservative Law and Justice (PiS) party, which came to power in October, plans to tighten regulations to bring them into line with the Catholic church’s teachings, infuriating liberals and women’s rights activists.

Chanting “keep your hands off the uterus” and “my body, my business,” the protesters waved wire coat-hangers, a crude pregnancy termination tool widely seen as a grim symbol of underground abortions.

“Even Iran’s abortion laws are more liberal than this proposal. That’s why we must protest,” said Marta Nowak, one of the protesters at the rally, which was organised via social media by the leftwing Together party.

volchitsa

wokingvoter wrote: »

You or I really have no idea why they waited a week
I doubt very much it was malicious
I know a lot of girls in that age group and the most likely scenario is that they were very concerned that she seek medical attention, which there's no doubt she needed, and they felt they had no choice when she refused.

Would you normally go to the police to persuade your friend to get medical attention? Would they not be aware of the danger that the "cure" would harm her far more than whatever they thought was wrong with her anyway?

And I'm puzzled as to what "care" she needed that was so urgent that it required her being hauled up before the judge. And whether she got it.

This combined with the possibility that her general demeanour was causing concern.

Well, I wonder how bad her symptoms were, when they said that she was blase about the abortion. It sounds from that as though that was what was wrong - that she wasn't upset enough for them. And yes, I'd call that malicious.

I'm presuming that in western countries where these pills are legal that they are prescription only and there is follow up care?

I think that depends on the country, in some places they are now sold OTC, and presumably follow up care depends on whether or not the woman is having excessive bleeding or whatever.

volchitsa

wokingvoter wrote: »

No I think that they felt she needed medical attention. Anyone whose lost a baby in any way needs medical attention afterwards, but I would imagine if these pills are normally prescription only, that there was an increased concern about her. I would have thought that was a given.
She was also probably emotionally upset. I would be , would you? Your hormones are bound to be all over the place. If she was my flat mate I'd be very worried too. Nobody wants a tragedy.

I'm just puzzled that the expression of this "concern" was to report her to the police. People have committed suicide due to being under investigation by the police, so if you were already worried about someone's mental state, going to the police about them would only make sense if you thought they were going to harm someone else.

But perhaps you would call the police rather than a doctor or emergency (medical) services if you thought someone was about to kill themselves?

wokingvoter

volchitsa wrote: »

Would you normally go to the police to persuade your friend to get medical attention? Would they not be aware of the danger that the "cure" would harm her far more than whatever they thought was wrong with her anyway?

And I'm puzzled as to what "care" she needed that was so urgent that it required her being hauled up before the judge. And whether she got it.



Well, I wonder how bad her symptoms were, when they said that she was blase about the abortion. It sounds from that as though that was what was wrong - that she wasn't upset enough for them. And yes, I'd call that malicious.




I think that depends on the country, in some places they are now sold OTC, and presumably follow up care depends on whether or not the woman is having excessive bleeding or whatever.

Well do we know that the flat mates went directly to the police or did they alert a hospital who then alerted the police?
If they did quite deliberately alert the police that a crime had been committed then, that would speak to me that the flat mates were very militant right wing possibly Presbyterian ant abortion activists.
Are they likely to be sharing a flat with another girl who made no effort to hide the fact that she had an abortion?
Once again, doesn't make any sense.

wokingvoter

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm just puzzled that the expression of this "concern" was to report her to the police. People have committed suicide due to being under investigation by the police, so if you were already worried about someone's mental state, going to the police about them would only make sense if you thought they were going to harm someone else.

But perhaps you would call the police rather than a doctor or emergency (medical) services if you thought someone was about to kill themselves?

Well that's one of the theories I'd be bouncing around
That they were afraid she was behaving in such an irrational fashion as to cause concern about the possibility of suicide

One eyed Jack

Cabaal wrote: »

Its likely she was in a distressed state after the abortion, I'm not trying to pretend she didn't do what she did at all.

...

You have previously decided that she has many many other issues in her life, thats completely speculation on her overall life and mental health by you and is pretty poor form.

It doesn't appear to have stopped you speculating though?

Cabaal wrote: »

You've read the story right?

You appear to have read the story too, and chosen to put your own speculative spin on it -

Clearly they were not overly concerned at first if they waited 7 days before doing anything

It's not clear at all that they weren't overly concerned, as the article mentions that they agonised over what to do for a week before they went to police. I'm not suggesting what they did was right, but then we have the advantage of hindsight. If I had found the remains in the bin, knowing what had happened, I would likely have a crisis of conscience about what the best thing to do in that situation would be too.

I probably wouldn't go to the police, but then if I were the girl I wouldn't dispose of the remains in a household bin either (I say that now, but at 19 I wasn't thinking like I do now either).

volchitsa wrote: »

Could you explain what sort of demeanour you think she displayed that would have led "worried" flatmates to go to the police about her?

Her flatmates according to the article suggest that she was "blase" about having just had an abortion (and they had discovered the remains in the bin the next day), which contradicts Cabaal's earlier assertion that she was likely in a distressed state. So, if Cabaal can assume that, why would it be unreasonable for her flatmates to expect that she would be in a distressed state, and yet she didn't appear to be in a distressed state?

The fact that she wasn't, coupled with the discovery of the remains in the bin... I'm not sure I'd have been thinking rationally about the right course of action under those circumstances either, and the article doesn't say what age her flatmates are, but since we're all assuming stuff here, it's also reasonable to assume her flatmates were around the same age as she was at the time, and they may have thought they were doing the right thing and made some bad decisions too.

Her flatmates made a bad call IMO, but having thought about it, I condemned their actions on first hearing about the case. Now, I'm not so sure.

volchitsa

wokingvoter wrote: »

Well do we know that the flat mates went directly to the police or did they alert a hospital who then alerted the police?
If they did quite deliberately alert the police that a crime had been committed then, that would speak to me that the flat mates were very militant right wing possibly Presbyterian ant abortion activists.
Are they likely to be sharing a flat with another girl who made no effort to hide the fact that she had an abortion?
Once again, doesn't make any sense.

I'm guessing there's a reason why you seem determined to rewrite your own version of this event, but what the newspaper's all say is that the flatmates contacted the police, not a doctor or a hospital.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/04/northern-irish-woman-suspended-sentence-self-induced-abortion
And would medical staff not be hindered by confidentiality rules anyway?

But perhaps you have information for another source, in which it would be good if you'd share with the rest of us. Because I've no idea why you think the flatmates must be Presbyterian, the only person I've see so far complaining that the sentence isn't harsh enough is that mad pro-life woman Bernadette Smyth, who afaiaa is Catholic.

volchitsa

wokingvoter wrote: »

Well that's one of the theories I'd be bouncing around
That they were afraid she was behaving in such an irrational fashion as to cause concern about the possibility of suicide

Try calling the police about someone you are afraid is likely to kill themselves, do you know what will happen?

Here's a hint : they won't send a police car, they will tell you to call a doctor.

frag420

wokingvoter wrote: »

No I think that they felt she needed medical attention. Anyone whose lost a baby in any way needs medical attention afterwards, but I would imagine if these pills are normally prescription only, that there was an increased concern about her. I would have thought that was a given.
She was also probably emotionally upset. I would be , would you? Your hormones are bound to be all over the place. If she was my flat mate I'd be very worried too. Nobody wants a tragedy.

Do you call the police when you need medical attention?

I hope nobody in your house ever gets sick.........

Absolam

MrPudding wrote: »

Of course travelling to commit a crime is a crime, it is part of the attempt, it is an inchoate offence, and I am pretty sure you know this, so I am wondering why you deny it...

Actually travelling to commit a crime isn't an inchoate offense of itself; there are three inchoate offenses relating to murder:conspiracy, attempt and incitement.
As far as attempt goes, the physical aspect of an attempt should be defined as an act which is close to the completion of the target criminal offence and the mental/fault aspect of attempt should be defined as intention that an act constituting a criminal offence be completed. This ensures that the defendant really was trying to commit the target offence. Travelling alone doesn't come anywhere near; which is why every traveller isn't routinely arrested for attempted murder.

MrPudding wrote: »

Irish and English law is reasonably similar on this. Where there is an intention to commit an offense and the act taken are more than merely preparatory then the offence is committed.

And I'm sure you're aware the requirements are greater than simple intent. To put it more succinctly:
"However, if an act is incomplete, the existence of a mens rea cannot convert it into an offense. In this sense, merely having a “guilty mind”, i.e. thinking about killing someone, and partially acting upon that (i.e. driving to their residence) but then backing down will not result in prosecution."
Which clearly points out that the act of travelling alone, without commiting the offense, at best is no more than preparatory (and at worst is entirely unrelatable), and doesn't convert the will to commit an offense into an offense.

Looks like Cabaal is going to have to get his placard painted, but maybe you'll keep him company?

MrPudding wrote: »

If an abortion is murder (which some posting on this thread, and many on the abortion thread in the other forum believe) then I would suggest there is a strong argument to suggest, booking an appointment at an English murder centre for a murder to be committed against your unborn baby, buying tickets to travel and then going to the airport and attempting to board the flight could be consider attempted murder. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

That would amount to considerably more than simply travelling to commit murder though wouldn't it? It includes wilful direct preparation for the act of murder itself; booking the appointment at the murder center, or to follow the form; the death is a natural consequence of the defendant's voluntary act (booking the murder center, not booking the flight), and the defendant foresaw that consequence as being a natural consequence of her act (as in the murder centre is a centre that provides murders, rather than an airline, which provides flights).

MrPudding wrote: »

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

In which case I suspect your career as a DPP is likely to be short, but filled with interesting if unsuccessful prosecutions.

And that's before we even get to considering how many of those who do consider abortion to be murder consider it to be morally a murder, whilst being perfectly aware that according to the law it's not legally a murder...