1
13pollitos
Guest
I fear it may be heading that way. What better way to help hide abuse of vulnerable people
Last edited:
British appeals court has reversed lower court ordering disabled woman to abort child
- Thread starter blackforest
- Start date
- Status
blackforest
Well-known member
That’s exactly the issue. The baby’s grandmother is a midwife, for heaven’s sake, and offered to do the child-rearing! But that wasn’t enough for the judge.
Oddly, “abortion” used to be a euphemism. Think about it. To “abort” simply means to end something, e.g. abort a mission. But the word got so often used for killing the unborn that it’s getting replaced by a new word, “termination.”
I find that odd. I terminated my pregnancies, too . . . . by going into labor and having babies.
We’re kidding ourselves if we think that eugenics died off. The movement is alive and well.
Oddly, “abortion” used to be a euphemism. Think about it. To “abort” simply means to end something, e.g. abort a mission. But the word got so often used for killing the unborn that it’s getting replaced by a new word, “termination.”
I find that odd. I terminated my pregnancies, too . . . . by going into labor and having babies.
We’re kidding ourselves if we think that eugenics died off. The movement is alive and well.
it is not just “sad” it is a true scandal: abortion against the mother’s choice! it cannot be in the best interest of her (nor of the grandmother who was a midwife agains abortion), it would be a true trauma! and leave a lot of anger inside this family against the justice and society. the court ruled with their own subjectivity and values not on respect due to the people dignity, that include their own differents values and beliefs.
a lot of children are born to women with limited capacities, we should find the best solution, but it cannot be a forced abortion for disabled women!
a State who rule this is not truly democratic (not surprised at all with GB)
before we had forced sterilization, now forced abortion
a lot of children are born to women with limited capacities, we should find the best solution, but it cannot be a forced abortion for disabled women!
a State who rule this is not truly democratic (not surprised at all with GB)
before we had forced sterilization, now forced abortion
L
Londoner
Guest
You are wrong to use the word “sentences”. If a court “sentences” somebody it means that it orders a punishment for an offence committed. This woman is therefore not being “sentenced” to have an abortion.
That said, I do agree that this is extremely worrying. The state’s having the power to decide who may and may not carry a pregnancy to full term and give birth to a live child does inevitably bring to mind some of the worst atrocities of the twentieth century. There are instances in which the state has a legitimate interest in making decisions about somebody’s healthcare (e.g. ordering a child to receive a blood transfusion against the wishes of parents who are Jehovah’s Witnesses), but I think that this clearly oversteps the proper remit of the state’s authority over the autonomy of individual citizens. It will be interesting to see whether the case is appealed.
That said, I do agree that this is extremely worrying. The state’s having the power to decide who may and may not carry a pregnancy to full term and give birth to a live child does inevitably bring to mind some of the worst atrocities of the twentieth century. There are instances in which the state has a legitimate interest in making decisions about somebody’s healthcare (e.g. ordering a child to receive a blood transfusion against the wishes of parents who are Jehovah’s Witnesses), but I think that this clearly oversteps the proper remit of the state’s authority over the autonomy of individual citizens. It will be interesting to see whether the case is appealed.
I live in the UK and I am very surprised. I am not aware of a precedent. It is not particularly unusual for courts to have to make decisions about what kind of medical treatment will be in the best interests of a person who lacks mental capacity, but I am not aware of a precedent for a court deciding that somebody should undergo an abortion contrary to her own wishes. By the way, the Court of Protection is an English court. It would be wrong to assume that the outcome would have been the same if the woman had lived in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
F
Finn
Guest
Could you please point me in the direction of the previous instance the court has enforced abortion? Thanks.
JoeFreedom
New member
We are living in the modern day Sodom and Gomorrah.
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
This is beyond the pale. Is there no one in her family who can help care for the baby? If not, perhaps the baby can be put up for adoption. If one is pro-choice, then be pro-choice: let her have the baby if she wants to!
Last edited:
L
Lea101
Guest
I do feel like this would honestly be reality. Horrible.
S
ShrodingersCat
Guest
Not really. It’s a consequence of how the UK in particular deals with such issues. The courts and the government are entirely separate in the UK. The court is making a (horrible) decision based on what it thinks is best for the woman, but it had nothing to do with the cost of healthcare for her.
B
Bluebright
Guest
I’m not either. I live in UK and don’t see Christianity openly shown in the government of the country of this supposedly Christian country. Admittedly the decline of morality is everywhere. Though 54 000 Brit’s did sigh a petition against this… that isnt really a lot of people considering our population still it is something. The people care even if the gov doesnt.
Ahh look at this… hardly a fair trial is it… judge is not unbiased then. Murder Disguised as Care | Obianuju Ekeocha | First Things
Ahh look at this… hardly a fair trial is it… judge is not unbiased then. Murder Disguised as Care | Obianuju Ekeocha | First Things
Last edited:
L
Londoner
Guest
And @ShrodingersCat and @(name removed by moderator):
To be fair, confusion may partly have arisen from the fact that it was an NHS trust that made the application to the court in the first place. To this I’d have to counter that if we had an insurance-based healthcare system, it would be simply be that private healthcare providers would make applications to the court, rather than NHS trusts doing so. Indeed, there is presumably no reason why private healthcare providers cannot already make such applications. Presumably such applications are few and far between because most cases complex enough to require intervention by a court will be under NHS care because of the resources involved.
I’d also point out that in this case the NHS trust’s application was opposed by the social services department of the woman’s local authority, i.e. an agency of the local government. So the judge is being asked to rule on a dispute between a publicly-funded healthcare system and an agency of local government. It’s by no means obvious that a judge would be prejudiced in favour of the NHS over the wishes of social services.
As is already rightly stated, British judges are entirely impartial. They are not elected and they are not appointed by politicians. If judges more often than not agree with doctors it is not because most doctors are employed by the NHS but because doctors have the professional expertise and experience to make decisions that are usually the right ones.
Where doctors come into conflict with families or with other professional people (e.g. social workers) it is only right that decisions have to be made by somebody, and the best people to make those decisions are judges. In the vast majority of cases, judges get it right. In the case, I think the judge has got it wrong. I hope that the family will take this to the Court of Appeal and, if necessary, the Supreme Court. I note that Mrs Justice Lieven has only been a high court judge for about five months (she was previously a deputy high court judge for around three years). Perhaps this exceptionally complex and sensitive case would have been better heard by somebody more experienced. Perhaps it wouldn’t have made any difference.
To be fair, confusion may partly have arisen from the fact that it was an NHS trust that made the application to the court in the first place. To this I’d have to counter that if we had an insurance-based healthcare system, it would be simply be that private healthcare providers would make applications to the court, rather than NHS trusts doing so. Indeed, there is presumably no reason why private healthcare providers cannot already make such applications. Presumably such applications are few and far between because most cases complex enough to require intervention by a court will be under NHS care because of the resources involved.
I’d also point out that in this case the NHS trust’s application was opposed by the social services department of the woman’s local authority, i.e. an agency of the local government. So the judge is being asked to rule on a dispute between a publicly-funded healthcare system and an agency of local government. It’s by no means obvious that a judge would be prejudiced in favour of the NHS over the wishes of social services.
As is already rightly stated, British judges are entirely impartial. They are not elected and they are not appointed by politicians. If judges more often than not agree with doctors it is not because most doctors are employed by the NHS but because doctors have the professional expertise and experience to make decisions that are usually the right ones.
Where doctors come into conflict with families or with other professional people (e.g. social workers) it is only right that decisions have to be made by somebody, and the best people to make those decisions are judges. In the vast majority of cases, judges get it right. In the case, I think the judge has got it wrong. I hope that the family will take this to the Court of Appeal and, if necessary, the Supreme Court. I note that Mrs Justice Lieven has only been a high court judge for about five months (she was previously a deputy high court judge for around three years). Perhaps this exceptionally complex and sensitive case would have been better heard by somebody more experienced. Perhaps it wouldn’t have made any difference.
L
Londoner
Guest
I think it’s likely that Obianuju Ekeocha, the author of that article, doesn’t understand a basic principle of the legal profession: that barristers are obliged to represent any client whose case falls within their field of expertise in a court where they normally appear subject to a few conditions that are largely to do with payment of fees and conflicts of interest with other clients or cases where the barrister may be giving evidence as a witness. The fact that a barrister has represented an organisation does not mean that he or she necessarily endorses that organisation’s aims or opinions. Nathalie Lieven practised at the bar for thirty years. In that time she will have represented all kinds of clients. It’s very unfair to make accusations of bias based on one or two cases.
Forced sterilization of disabled people had been done in many western countries decades ago, not only the USA and the UK.
I am not American, and I am also scandalized by this judgement, and sorry that is not the first time I see one that show a bad image of your country. this jugment is not something that is common in democratical countries - (of course, iF we don’t compare with Isis or something similar).
make a binar statement don’t work here.
I will not surprised if we see this sort of jugment in another liberal european country soon, as anglo saxon countries serves as cultural leaders, for good- and worst.
I am not American, and I am also scandalized by this judgement, and sorry that is not the first time I see one that show a bad image of your country. this jugment is not something that is common in democratical countries - (of course, iF we don’t compare with Isis or something similar).
make a binar statement don’t work here.
I will not surprised if we see this sort of jugment in another liberal european country soon, as anglo saxon countries serves as cultural leaders, for good- and worst.
D
Dougbro1
Guest
They are clearly pushing their boundaries in one way or another. They have already gone too far, but this is going even farther. Prayers offered! 
P
PJH_74
Guest
I the surface this ruling is peculiar to say the least, but we are also not privy to the full circumstances of the case. But lets take what we are told. It could well be that the Grandmother is talking on more than she could handle. It is conceivable removing the baby from the mother once it is born could be highly traumatic, she does have a diagnosis of a mood disorder. We also know nothing about the sperm donor.
So, if we are to truly be interested in the welfare of this child what resources are you willing provide? Live in care? Just saving a child is far from the whole picture. There are truly situations where bringing a child into the world is a highly untenable situation. We have to stop just focusing on getting the baby “through the door” but also through life, otherwise these situations tend to repeat themselves.
So, if we are to truly be interested in the welfare of this child what resources are you willing provide? Live in care? Just saving a child is far from the whole picture. There are truly situations where bringing a child into the world is a highly untenable situation. We have to stop just focusing on getting the baby “through the door” but also through life, otherwise these situations tend to repeat themselves.
P
PJH_74
Guest
No disagreement about preserving life. My question is what sources are you willing to combat this? I hope this is not your minimal standard. You certainly would not see a plaque at a Nazi death camp saying, at least some survived even if they were tortured, forced to burn bodies, bury the dead, submitted to amoral medical experiments, etc.
Last edited:
B
BartholomewB
Guest
An appeal court has overturned the verdict:
1
13pollitos
Guest
Praise Jesus! Keep praying for an end to the threat of abortion on our unborn.
- Status