"The unidentified woman, who lives in London, is in her 20s and has the mental capacity of a 6- to 9-year-old child.... 'I am acutely conscious of the fact that for the state to order a woman to have a termination where it appears that she doesn’t want it is an immense intrusion,' Justice [Nathalie] Lieven said in her decision. But the judge said she had to act in the woman’s 'best interests, not on society’s views of termination.'... The jurist said that though she was aware that the woman wanted to keep the baby, she was not sure the woman had any sense of what having a baby 'meant.' 'I think she would like to have a baby in the same way she would like to have a nice doll,' the judge was quoted by British news outlets as saying.... She also said she thought the woman would suffer more if the baby was brought to term and taken away to foster care or for adoption than if pregnancy was terminated. The woman 'would suffer greater trauma from having a baby removed,' the judge said, adding, 'It would at that stage be a real baby.'"
From "U.K. Court Says Mentally Disabled Woman Must Have Abortion" (NYT).
You may be thinking this sounds like Buck v. Bell, the U.S. Supreme Court case in which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote the unbelievably cruel line "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." But the British judge is following the idea that she's doing what is best for the pregnant woman, not (at least not overtly) the idea of sparing society the burden of new, undesirable citizens.
But it's mind-boggling to think that forcing a woman to have an abortion is doing her a favor — on the theory that she's not able to properly analyze the nature of her own suffering. Her wanting the baby magnifies the suffering of abortion but the judge still thinks that suffering is outweighed by the suffering of having the baby. Why isn't the suffering you choose for yourself inherently better, even if it hurts more?
This decision is, of course, horrible to those who are anti-abortion, but it also violates the principles that underlie the right to have an abortion: personal bodily autonomy and freedom of conscience.
UPDATE: An appeals court has overturned this decision. New post here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
155 comments:
personal bodily autonomy.
Let's focus on this.
How did this even end up in court for judge to decide?
The stunning hypocrisy of the "pro-choice" crowd, who cannot find it in themselves to condemn this evil is notable. An "incredibly complex" situation, my foot. The British government is murdering a black baby, and we can expect silence from our pro-infanticide, pro-eugenics betters.
Grandmother is willing to adopt : where is the separation and trauma?
It would be a real shame if our leftists are unable to tear the baby asunder for "parts" and organ harvesting.
Secular British elites would like to abort the retarded Mother, too, if they could.
Not the first judge to play god.
Why are the interests of the woman paramount?
We are social creatures and society in general has an interest in who belongs to it.
Men are properly seen as expendable, generally.
Women are also, in their own way.
Personal comfort or even happiness - these are depraved idols.
By the judge's logic, why would giving the baby away be any worse than giving a doll away?
Judges often have to play God.
That’s part of the job.
The question is what sort of God, what will guides their judgement.
What's clear is that the judge and jury have no sense of what a baby is.
The god-leftwing-STATE knows what is best.
A chunk for those unable to access:
A spokeswoman for the British group Abortion Rights, which she said campaigned “to keep options open for the many women who willingly choose to end their pregnancies,” described the case in a telephone call on Sunday as not unprecedented but “really sad and complex.”
The group’s chairwoman, Kerry Abel, said in an emailed statement: “As heartbreaking as this case is, it is opportunistic for anti-choice organizations to use it to attack a woman’s right to choose. One in three women will have an abortion in the U.K. for many, many individual reasons, and we shouldn’t undermine free, safe, legal abortion based on one difficult case.”
The woman was under the care of a National Health Service trust, which sought the court’s permission for doctors to perform the abortion, the court was told. The council that employs the social worker had also asked for a decision.
Both the woman and her mother, identified by news reports as a former midwife from Nigeria, are against terminating the pregnancy, with the older woman offering to care for the child, according to the court and news media reports. The woman’s lawyers and a social worker also objected to terminating the pregnancy.
It was not immediately clear whether the woman and her lawyers had the option of appealing the decision.
That's pro choice for you
1st you get to choose
Then they get to choose
Does this mean a judge can also prevent a woman from having an abortion?
If the mentally disabled woman is a devout Catholic, it might cause her even more psychological harm to have an abortion. She might go through the rest of her life believing that her soul is forever dammed to Hell. Also, unless there is compelling evidence that the grandmother would not be a fit parent, the judge's decision makes no sense. (If the outcome is supposed to be what is in the best interest of the mother and the baby.)
no, it doesn't work like that, remember what they did to Charlie (last name escapes) it's like George Bernard shaw possesses them,
To answer my own question:
In a horrific abuse of power by the medical profession, an NHS trust is asking a judge to allow them to perform an abortion on a mentally-ill woman who is 22 weeks' pregnant – despite her mother saying she will care for the child.
Prof. Althouse's liberal friends, whom she has supported and defended for entire career, never cared about women's autonomy. She has been a useful idiot her whole life, and now, as she totters toward the grave, she has two choices: realize that her lifelong politics has been destructive folly, or continue to death in illusion. Let us hope that she chooses wisely.
Buwaya: are you serious or troll?
You completely left out the fact that the mother was willing to take the child, her grandchild, and the state is still killing it.
Article is unclear whether mom, grandmother or both are willing to step up.
loudogblog: "If the mentally disabled woman is a devout Catholic, it might cause her even more psychological harm to have an abortion. She might go through the rest of her life believing that her soul is forever dammed to Hell."
That is just icing on the cake for the leftists.
So... The judge ordered a mandatory abortion, because this black woman was too stupid to be able to raise a child.
Can we all assume that phase 2 will be deciding that ALL black women are too stupid to be able to raise a child? Or, maybe not ALL black women; maybe all women with IQs below 100?
What's phase 3? prohibiting abortions for all women with IQs over 100?
Moloch Baal Surtur, I don't know if the last is a deity,
Coming to America in the Near future. Just need a few more Liberal SCOTUS Judges. Maybe Biden or Warren will do the trick.
That's my wish for the USA. That every illegal alien can come to America, anytime they want, and have themselves and their babies taken care of my the US Government. And then have a disabled Kid aborted.
Some disagree. But that's not who we are.
Althouse: But it's mind-boggling to think that forcing a woman to have an abortion is doing her a favor — on the theory that she's not able to properly analyze the nature of her own suffering.
Maybe you weren't paying attention: abortion is all about a woman not being held responsible for her actions, as if she were a child that is not accountable for the poor choices she makes.
A woman knows that intercourse carries a risk of pregnancy yet she CHOOSES to take that risk. She also knows that birth control is not 100% effective but CHOOSES to accept that risk too. And when she up pregnant by "accident", she complains about her CHOICE, as if she doesn't expect to be held accountable for the CHOICES she already made.
Abortion has always been about holding women to a lesser standard of accountability than men. And now you are shocked to see women treated like irresponsible children? Maybe you weren't paying attention.
Oh, someone comes up with "Think of the black babies".
Except Blacks vote 85% Democrat NO MATTER WHAT.
The "Democrats are the REAL RACISTS" meme only appeals to white Boomers. Blacks don't care. They're voting Democrat - NO MATTER WHAT.
If the mentally disabled woman is a devout Catholic, it might cause her even more psychological harm-
I'm surprised NIH is not trying to put the woman "out of her misery" like they are her baby.
The "Democrats are the REAL RACISTS" meme only appeals to white Boomers. Blacks don't care. They're voting Democrat - NO MATTER WHAT.
There was a movie with Melissa Gilbert about this stuff. It took place in the 30s I think. Tho the woman might have been mentally older.
This is an epic failure to avoid calling a fetus a life or identifying that the act of abortion itself carries with it substantial risk of mental harm - even in women who are staunchly choosing to have an abortion.
You can say anti-abortionists are "seizing" on the opportunity, or you can identify that perhaps this is the type of case which demonstrates the principles behind anti-abortionist thinking.
Either the fetus is a life or it's not. If it's not, there's no complexity - a ward of the state is being told a clump of cells should be excised for the patient's own good. Done. Simple. No complexity.
The ugly reality of course is that the reason pro-abortionists and the judge agonize over this is because it is more than a clump of cells, the baby is wanted, and the state choosing to end that unique DNA path is choosing to terminate a life. Prevent a life from existing.
People want to crush this story because it so clearly illustrates the moral quandary of pro-abortion - that in order to support abortion, you must ultimately feel there is no life or life value of a fetus prior to it's delivery from the mother/first breath. Because otherwise you are simply ascribing subjective life value to something in order to fit your desired outcome.
This judge is a murderous thug. And a rapist. And the doctor who is forcibly intruding into this woman's body is also a rapist.
but the judge still thinks that suffering is outweighed by the suffering of having the baby.
Didn't O'Bama's Abortionist in Chief rule that the COSTS of abortions are outweighed be the COSTS of raising children ?
“The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception,” Sebelius said.
Rcocean said... Blacks don't care. They're voting Democrat - NO MATTER WHAT.
Well, they seem to think it's a Good Thing that the Overwhelming majority of aborted kids are black
The back story Q is how did she become pregnant?
Is something being covered up?
Abortion will remove DNA evidence if there was abuse!
Ann says “but“. That “but” has a John C Calhoun feel to it, to me. Wasn’t that *exactly* his argument? Better off a slave even if you don’t think you'll like it.
The pregnant woman is Catholic, of African origins, as is her mother who supports her daughter's wish to have the grandchild born...
They should appeal to new mother and fellow newcomer Megan McCardle for help letting the baby live.
Ann is pro abortion, I'm pro life. This is one of those interesting articles she posts because it goes against the idea of choice. You have to admire her for that.
The woman should have the baby and the father who had his brief moment of pleasure ought to be required to fulfill his manly duties of provision and support until the child is old enough to take care of herself (around 16 years old). The judge is not authorized to kill an innocent human being.
For a man to pay the next 16 years on one moment of pleasure sucks, but that's sometimes (rarely) how bad choices work out. You make a bad choice, man up.
I am not innocent. I have sent multiple texts while driving. If one day I slam into a pedestrian while texting, I know I will lose my job, will probably go to jail for manslaughter, and possibly lose the respect of the woman I love. It makes one think about the consequence of every action.
The "choice" of the woman is irrelevant in Britain: she is genetically inferior, to them, and therefore the abortion must be carried out.
The eugenic roots of the abortion movement are exposed to the light. If leftists had an ounce of integrity, they would scream about murdering a woman's children against her will. But the act is important. Not just for harvesting the baby, but for purifying the British population of subhumans.
Let the eugenicist supporters know: they will get theirs soon enough.
This is just another step toward the state demanding abortions of the undesirable and soon the deplorable. This is where abortion will bring England and soon enough the UK.
Lay this abomination at the feet of Planned Parenthood and feminists like Althouse.
Wait, wait. This week all the progressives' Facebook memes have been telling me that it's evil to separate families. Liberty.
Word "father" not found in article.
This is aligned with Pro-Choice thought, where there is a belief that a woman does not possess the mental capacity to comprehend the reproductive process, and that a women's life is worth more to society as a taxable commodity, as a token piece to social progress, than as a mother.
This is an affront to human rights-oriented persons... people, who understand that human life evolves from conception, and should not be subject to summary judgment, cruel and unusual punishment, on the pretense she is deemed unworthy of life or a "burden" to the mother or father.
Naranayan,
Yo soy un hombre sincero
de donde crece la palma
-Jose Marti
Marti was an old enemy of the family, but generations have wiped out malice.
But he describes us well, also.
I mean it. A man is nothing without obligations, and few of these are defined by law. There are times when a man has to suffer, a time when he must die, though no law compels. In the old days men died over points of courtesy.
These obligations cover a vast range, and from the past to the future. You owe your ancestors for one thing, a debt that can only be repaid by becoming one of them.
And so also women. The obligations are different.
Our cultural breakdown is in part because of the loss of this understanding of the webs of obligation in which we must live.
Having worked with this population for almost a decade - I'd suggest letting her have the baby, putting the infant up for adoption, and giving her one of those animated fake babies in place of the real one. She may not know the difference and everyone is happy. Plus she'll have a 'baby' that can handle the level of care/attention she's able to give.
Shared responsibility: mother and child. The "my body, my choice" is a straw man... straw clown argument, really. There is no presumption of violating a woman's space and similar political myths.
We must respect a woman's right to choose, if that woman is Justice Nathalie Lieven.
"Well, they seem to think it's a Good Thing that the Overwhelming majority of aborted kids are black"
Yeah, sorry for going off-topic. But give Black people some credit. They vote 80-90% Democrat election after election. NO MATTER WHAT. They know the D's used to be segregationists. Ike/Nixon passed the 1957 Civil Rights bill. The D's filibustered a more expansive Civil Rights bill in 1958/1959. And blacks voted 65% D in 1960 - with "segregationist" LBJ On the ticket!
Blacks consider the Democrats THEIR PARTY. Their daddy's voted D. Their Granddaddies voted D. Their Great-Granddaddies voted D. Its just useless to say "The D's are the REAL RACISTS". They ain't voting R. They won't even vote R if you nominate a black candidate. They ain't stupid. They got reasons.
A wise judge would have cut the baby in half.
It just looked like a bad situation to her. No general rules seemed to work. It's the sort of thing women are good at.
If the judge were male, you'd look for what system he's thinking of.
So that it's a woman judge means it's not a precedent, and the complaints can't be general.
> This week all the progressives' Facebook memes have been telling me that it's evil to separate families. Liberty.
All left wing ethics are situational and chosen for their utility in advancing the power and control of the left.
They'll cut the baby into parts after the abortion.
Read "a woman's right to choose" as a male's systemizing of a woman being the one who's good at a particular individual situation, and the judge falls right in the same claim. Except the judge is the woman who's chosen to determine the particular situation in this case, owing to mental incapacity of the pregnant woman.
It's still a woman choosing what's best, and so actually lines up with the real pro-abortion argument.
Women just don't men choosing. Men abstract and make rules that shouldn't apply in general, to abortion.
I would have thought that protection of society is the foremost reason behind all laws including, of course, all those that punish individual bad behavior.
Naharanyan asks a good question in the first comment, and (I believe) has the answer in a later comment. But here is the quote from the article: "The woman was under the care of a National Health Service trust, which sought the court’s permission for doctors to perform the abortion, the court was told. The council that employs the social worker had also asked for a decision." [back to my comment] It is unclear to me who the "social worker" is, but apparently an employee of the council (which I think is a local provider of social services in England) and so the council (or the social worker acting for the council) was also a party requesting intervention.
It is discomforting to me (in my mid-60s) that I might grow old(er) in a country with "Medicare for all" in which government agents can petition the courts to terminate my life, and courts might grant that ability to the government, over the objections of me and my family. If I'm out of bounds here please explain why and explain clearly and carefully.
Nathalie Lieven's report on increasing judicial diversity
Let the muslims burn Britain to the ground. Between this monstrosity and the prior judge refusing a child medical treatment by leaving the country, perhaps Sharia is an upgrade. I hope that judge gets pancreatic cancer.
At least in California, having sex with a women who is this mentally disabled would be rape.
This gives some of the backstory on the judge. Notice it is a white pro-abortion (and I bet a lesbian) judge killing a black baby.
Sometime I wish I got to decide things, but I'm most often happy that nobody asks me. This is one of the latter.
Nobody over there has tried comparing this family of imbeciles to the inbred royal family. How can one be valuable and the other not.
sigh...
The Left's policy - abort your babies, but import Muslims (UK) and Mexicans (US).
This judge is evidently a solid leftie and feminist, a devout follower of their gid, Satan. Soon to come to our shores under medicare
It’s positively diabolical, on a plane of evil comparable to almost any individual act of terror perpetrated by the Nazis.
And I fully expect, in my childrens’ lifetime if not my own, that the “progressives” will have implemented a regime under which ALL pregnant women will be forced to undergo abortion if the parents fall short of a certain ranking on a government-mandated assessment along the lines of China’s “social credit” score.
If the mother or grandmother or father placed a bullet between the eyes of the individual responsible for this travesty, and I sat on the jury, there would be no conviction. Of course, the “progressives” have drawn up some wicked plans for doing away with jury trials too, as we see in Belgium this week.
Althouse wrote: "...it also violates the principles that underlie the right to have an abortion: personal bodily autonomy and freedom of conscience."
When you abandon the basic principle that all life is sacred, even a 22 week old fetus, then don't be all surprised when YOU lose "personal bodily autonomy and freedom of conscience". If humanity is defined at the whim of the mother, than humanity is defined at the whim of the State.
AGAIN. who's being injured here? Unless I can figure out who is being injured this is just as random as picking a name at random and executing them.
Thanks to Jack Wayne for the link. By an African (Nigerian?) author. I am an American Methodist, and the Methodist Church is in the midst of a a huge uproar over whether the church should ordain gay people as Ministers. The biggest schism is between American (mostly suburban, but also urban and rural) congregations who are supportive of gay pastors in the church, and African and Africans in America congregations who are very "socially conservative" and opposed to gay pastors. I don't want to open up a discussion of the bible-teaching on gay pastors here. But -- related to the Jack Wayne link -- there is a schism just beginning to be visible between the left-leaning US/European elites, who naturally believe that because they themselves are pro-immigrant and anti-racist, it follows that the immigrants of color will be natural allies. But the immigrants of color themselves have their own thoughts and ideologies, and those thoughts and ideologies don't always coincide with those of the left-leaning US/European elites.
replying to iowan2 at 5:58: The public health service, and British social services system, and the tax payers in general are "who is being injured." As I say in my earlier comment, this is troubling to me as I consider my reliance on public health care system (Medicare).
This, and your post on one child families immediately before, make one pause to consider how effective the overpopulation thesis of the 60/70s time period was integrated and became part of the cultural unconscious in the "developed world"
I used to put some aspects on our modern day population -outlooks down to the success of the woman's movement which moved middle class urban women into the workforce (poor rural women always worked) and the same era's technological/medical advancements. And maybe even a little bit on the self-absorption aspect that crept in during the same time period.
But there's something seemingly in the water. It is like we are purposeful in trying to "reduce our eco footprint" so any concern affecting repopulation, State policy (or programming) tends to favour that which will produce less of the next generation. You see it across a number of subjects.
"But it's mind-boggling to think that forcing a woman to have an abortion is doing her a favor — on the theory that she's not able to properly analyze the nature of her own suffering."
It is the logical endpoint of the judicial theory of pregnancy as affliction. If a woman can "choose" to abort her child because she believes doing so will enhance her enjoyment of her life, then a court can also choose to abort that child, on the same logic. If the court thinks you would be better off employed, it will order you to find employment. If the court decides you would be better off as a drug addict, then the court will arrange for you to become addicted. If the court thinks you would be better off if your baby were dead, it will kill your baby.
It's a human life.
Moral relativism be damned.
Question for prochoice people: if it could be demonstrated that forced abortion in cases like this was the inevitable result of pro choice plus government provided health care, would you reconsider your position on either issue? I assume most pro choicers favor some sort of government health care like ACA or single payer of some sort.
If you believe in abortion you should have no problem with this decision. Abortion advocates basically assert that the fetus won't know what hit it, and since there's no awareness, there's no foul.
The mentally disabled woman will also presumably have little awareness that the fetus was taken from her and destroyed, so again, no awareness, no foul.
Prince "Chicken Little" Charles is suspect in any definition of imbecile.
the fetus won't know what hit it, and since there's no awareness, there's no foul
Perhaps up to the 5th week, before the presumptive development of consciousness.
The mentally disabled woman will also presumably have little awareness
The -- mentally disabled? -- woman and abortionist, has little comprehension of the evolution of human life. Awareness that follows with comprehension of the reproductive process with the first choice, the second choice, and even the third choice.
Here's to the wicked solution and progress.
We and the British just celebrated the D Day Invasion as part of the war to end Nazism and now comes this British court ruling that there are lives not worthy of life. This won't end well.
But the judge said she had to act in the woman’s “best interests, not on society’s views of termination.”
The Body
Cathy go home - without your daughter
In a welfare state - you'll be well looked after
And it's easy now - this other person
Is off your back - not a burden
We want - We want your body
We want - We want your body
Body!
When you run about - without precautions
You'll get diseases - need abortions
And up till now - no vaccination
Can give you back your reputation
"So that it's a woman judge means it's not a precedent, and the complaints can't be general."
Yeah, I think you got it. Its not abortion or not abortion or judges forcing abortion. Its all about women vs. Men. Just turn the whole thing over to Women. Let them elect "Women Abortion judges" who can decide what women can have babies, which ones require abortions, and which ones can decide for themselves.
Problems solved. Of course, all these women would NOT give up the right to vote in other areas. Instead, they'd poke about trying to figure out what else interested them. Economics, Foreign Policy, Immigration, etc. being too boring, they'd need another key issue.
If I were King I'd allow women to vote in State and local elections and reserve to the states cognizance over education, social issues, etc.
But of course that would never work. One tomboy women would complain, and then all her "Sisters" would complain too because - how dare they keep their sisters out of the boys tree-house. And we'd be back where we started.
D-Day ended the a war against Germany. If Hitler had renounced "Nazism" the war would've still go on. IT was just just a rerun of WW 1.
end Nazism and now comes this British court ruling that there are lives not worthy of life
Selective-child and recycled-child. Perhaps, social justice and aborting baby privilege. Medical and social progress.
Women must never be made to feel bad about, or responsible for, anything, ever.
It will be a surgical abortion, right? An invasive procedure that will leave the mother scarred, vulnerable to develop uterine cancer and dysfunctions, and likely incapable of bearing a child in the future... but, she's dumb, and made the socially unaware choice, which has been remedied by the judge.
The judge ordered an abortion. So then what happened?
Did they drag her out of the courtroom, restrain her, transport her to a hospital, sedate her?
Or does she have an appointment for all that?
I guess nudging her wasn't cuttin' it.
on the theory that she's not able to properly analyze the nature of her own suffering.
I guess the suffering of the baby doesn't come into play at all?
In my line of work, you see lots and lots and lots of innocent young babies brought into lives of utter pathology and dysfunction. I'd be lying if I said the occasional RU-486 joke wasn't made around the water cooler (a morbid sense of humor is necessary to do the job for any length of time). But the notion of a state-ordered abortion is repugnant. If an infant is born, and there are serious concerns about its safety or well-being, then the state is certainly justified in intervening and placing that child in protective custody. Even that is a terrible situation, but this is ghastly.
In my line of work, you see lots and lots and lots of innocent young babies brought into lives of utter pathology and dysfunction.
So you're a college professor?
@Bob Boyd:
So you're a college professor?
Ha. No, I see real victims.
What do you do?
British judges are a particularly loathsome lot. Something ghoulish about them.
British toddler Alfie Evans not allowed to leave country [for medical treatment], UK court says
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/25/health/alfie-evans-appeal-bn/index.html
Terminally ill boy [Charlie Gard] denied 'potentially life-saving' treatment by NHS 'would be given it in any US hospital'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/03/terminally-boy-denied-potentially-life-saving-treatment-nhs/
@Bob Boyd:
I own a psychological practice, but we mostly do contract work for the Department of Children and Families and the Department of Juvenile Justice.
This thread is awesome. All threads about abortion are the best.
This thread like all of these threads has a bunch of dumb people and a bunch of monsters.
You would think at this point people would question what kind of powers they want to give to the government.
But you people just don't think too deeply. This is the object lesson. But all you people can do is bleat about banning abortion.
I wonder if she wore her Black Cap when she pronounced the sentence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_cap
Oh, one of those guys.
Kidding. I have a sister whose in that line of work. My hat's off to you.
The Left will cheer this because, hey, one more dead baby.
It's like a tick mark in their "win" column.
@Bob Boyd:
Kidding. I have a sister whose in that line of work. My hat's off to you.
Thanks. I haven't been in the trenches for some years now. My role is mainly administrative and supervisory these days.
Soon democrat judges in the US will decide that republicans must have abortions for their own good. Laugh now, but be forewarned.
Put the BABY up for adoption.
You can go here to sign a petition that's being sent to the UK's Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, asking him to intervene in the case.
"This thread like all of these threads has a bunch of dumb people and a bunch of monsters."
People her seem to be writing honest opinions. The thoughts here are a pretty good representation of what you find in a church, a bar, a ballgame or at the office. There is always a dysfunctional jackass at church, the bar, ballgame, the office who thinks everyone is dumb or a monster.
My role is mainly administrative and supervisory these days.
My sister has worked her way up to that stage too now, after many years, but she's seen a lot.
Most people would become discouraged or hopelessly cynical, I think, but she really has made a difference for some kids. I guess she's able to focus on that. Anyway, I couldn't do it.
Justice Lieven makes Nazis killings look good. They at least had a Aryan race that neede protecting. The murderess Justice only has her since of being God to protect.
Will the judge allow her to have a doll?
The most important thing is how the judge feels about herself after being put through this. She's the one with credentials, after all.
All of the democrats running for prez support post birth infanticide.
Justice Lieven makes Nazis killings look good.
After Stalinists and Maoists and that cycle of redistributive and retributive change of Hutu vs Tutsi in recent times, a new standard of social progress.
Sorry, Professor, "personal bodily autonomy and freedom of conscience" has always been a big leaf for the abortion industry's desire for eugenics and profit.
"The death penalty has now been abolished in the United Kingdom, ..."
Somebody ought to inform Justice Nathalie Lieven.
Pro-Abortion movement has always been based on lies, why should it change now? Never been about a woman's right to choose, only her right to change her mind.
Shadows of Nuremburg.
Limited Perspective said...
"This thread like all of these threads has a bunch of dumb people and a bunch of monsters."
People her seem to be writing honest opinions. The thoughts here are a pretty good representation of what you find in a church, a bar, a ballgame or at the office. There is always a dysfunctional jackass at church, the bar, ballgame, the office who thinks everyone is dumb or a monster.
So do you want the government to ban abortions or do you want the government to force you to have them?
Got anything else you want 47% of the population to be able to force you to do or not to do?
Strange. You'd think the folks who dress up in those Handmaid's Tale outfits would have something to say about a government forcing an invasion of a woman's body against her reproductive will.
So.....would sterilizing her and people with her disabilities be a good idea? Seems like this judge would say yes.
"Got anything else you want 47% of the population to be able to force you to do or not to do?"
That's a fair question aside from the percentage. I would guess California would be something like 60% voting against my interest. Yes, I am forced to pay far more to my fellow citizens of California than I receive in benefits. I gave my children a private education while paying a good amount of taxes to the public schools.
Any suggestions on how to rectify the wrong of a illiberal governance?
Would be a legitimate refugee.
So, when should the State intervene? At conception, the fifth week with the presumptive emergence of consciousness, the first trimester, when the woman is judged incapable of exercising her conscience, when the child is a life deemed unworthy of life, or a progressive ("living") standard to birth and beyond? The Pro-Choice apology is a straw clown dressed as a straw man adorned with ethical garments.
Let's remember that this isn't something happening in a Communist or Fascist country, or in some uncivilized backwater. It's happening in England. England, our mother country. England, from which we inherited our understanding of human rights and decent government. If in 2019 an English judge can decide that the interests of the Welfare State justify killing an unborn child against the wishes of her mother and family, how long before the same decision will be made in our country?
Who gets to choose? Ask Winston Smith.
You may be thinking this sounds like Buck v. Bell, the U.S. Supreme Court case in which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote the unbelievably cruel line "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
I think if you examine the historical record, you'd find that Justice Holmes & his fellow eugenicists thought that what they were doing was not only best for society at large but was also best for the "lower orders" whose birthrate they wished to reduce.
All great evils are done in the service of the greatest good.
I preferred the ruling in the original German.
This decision is, of course, horrible to those who are anti-abortion, but it also violates the principles that underlie the right to have an abortion: personal bodily autonomy and freedom of conscience.
Sucker! There are no principles that underlie the right to have an abortion. Abortion is a good in itself, something that all people should wish to attain. Everything else was just excuses for the rubes.
People standing three quarters the way down the slippery slope still cannot see the bottom.
Maybe look down instead of keeping your head in the clouds?
". . . but it also violates the principles that underlie the right to have an abortion: personal bodily autonomy and freedom of conscience."
Individual choice is not important to the Left. The pro-abortion people who think that it is kinder not to bring a child into the world boldly say that are aborting (or countering inception) in the interests of the child.
Thank you for deciding to write this post.
Buwaya earlier mentioned the real and perceived obligations that bind us in the society we inhabit. Just this morning I read an essay by Roger Kimball about the life and influence of Charles Reich, requiescat in pace, who I had forgotten about entirely. He wrote all sorts of nonsense about levels of consciousness and 'a new state of freedom', and nonsense, but did fairly accurately foretell, in many ways, our nation's post-1960s future.
Margaret Sanger would be so proud. One less "unfit".
Don't forget, the left doesn't really believe in personal bodily autonomy or freedom of choice. It will only use those as window dressing when defending policies they favor, but will deny them if and when people make the "wrong" choice.
As this UK judge is saying, the state gets the final word over someone's body and if it doesn't like their choice, or even their guardian's choice, it will overrule them. Can't wait for the forced gender transition surgeries imposed on unwilling children with unwilling parents by psychologists who "know better" what is in the child's best interest. Guaranteed that's a thing within 5 years, if not sooner.
Like gspencer points out, not only does Britain push abortion before birth, they also push abortion after birth. Whatever it takes to have a dead baby.
it also violates the principles that underlie the right to have an abortion: personal bodily autonomy and freedom of conscience
I missed the part where Planned Parenthood and NARAL and all the other pro-abortion groups and people were outraged over this.
And let's not forget that a court has no power or ability to actually do an abortion. Compelled abortion happens only because some pro-abortion medical person performs it.
At least the judge is being open and honest about exactly what the nature of the "choice" is.
The "choice" is NOT to not be pregnant or to otherwise "terminate a pregnancy" or to control one's body, etc. The choice is to NOT HAVE A BABY. The fact of pregnancy and bodily autonomy are secondary.
@Buwaya - what is your emotional response to this poet's sentiment?
I see 180 degrees from your post upthread.
http://pc.blogspot.com/2007/08/westerner-by-badger-clark-1947.html?m=1
If she has the mental capacity of a 6-9 year old she doesn't grasp the responsibilities of being a parent but she bloody well understands what a baby is. Watch little girls playing with siblings, cousins or family friends- even at 6 these little girls act like mommies and help take care of the babies. The state is going to murder her child and she can do nothing to stop them- how is this different from the hellholes of history in which women had their children snatched away from them, just because?
To me the most important thing about the decision is that it is anti-family.
However, a significantly retarded person must be in someone's care - either their family, a specialist organization, or the state. That's just axiomatic. So someone other than the girl has to make this hard decision. It might be the right decision or the wrong decision, but my point is someone has to make it, and making any decision in these situations means many people will disagree. If she was in her grandparent’s care, and they had made the decision to abort, we wouldn’t be hearing anything about it.
In this case it is (effectively) the state, apparently disregarding the views of the family. So I would say the root of the problem is the girl being in state care, not the actual decision.
Regarding the decision itself, I am not so sure it is clearly wrong. Maybe a family would or could make the same decision. I am anti-abortion, but if we had a severely retarded child, my wife and I would really wrestle with this decision. I would probably want her to have the child and adopt it out if possible, but that would depend a lot on what we thought the effect on her and us would be. It’s hard to be certain unless you have a severely disabled child and have had to make, and live with, those sort of horrible decisions. We might decide to compel her to have an abortion. I don’t know. But I wouldn’t assume the decision is contrary to her interests or badly motivated.
Mental capacity of a 6 to 9 year old. With a mother willing to take over care of the baby when it's born. Something seriously wrong with the pro-abort crowd, who are getting more repulsive by the day.
My younger sister was born when I was seven. I knew the seriousness of caring for a baby at age seven. I was able to help feed my sister and change her diapers. At age seven. And eight. And age nine, as we both grew.
The NHS has a nasty habit of denying care, negligence, or outright killing patients. It doesn't surprise me that it would ask to force an abortion on someone like the Red Chinese.
--Robooh said...
However, a significantly retarded person must be in someone's care - either their family, a specialist organization, or the state. ----
And yet they have huge swaths of able-bodied lay-abouts allowed on the dole while the state lays down the welcome mat of welfare for migrants from around the world.
I think this :
cyrus : As this UK judge is saying, the state gets the final word over someone's body and if it doesn't like their choice, or even their guardian's choice, it will overrule them.
gets to the heart of it. This case is only incidentally about abortion. The central point is who decides ?
It is already well established in English Law that the State is the super parent, when it comes to children. The actual parents are not the true, final, legal parents who get to decide things on their children's behalf. They are merely stand ins for the super parent - the State - which can overrule them when it feels that the actual parents are wrong.
The key legal words - which should send a chill down your spine if your State legislature decides to use them - are "the best interests of the child." You need to understand the implications of those warm and cuddly sounding words.
In reality when a decision needs to be made on behalf of a child, there may be several decisions that are quite reasonable. Choosing "the best" is a matter for each person's judgement, and may take into account their values, so that one decision cannot be measured mathematically against another by a third party observer.
If English Law provided that the parents decision could be overruled by the State if it was "unreasonable" then there'd be nothing to complain about. The point of "best interests" is that the judge has no option to say - yes the parents' decision is reasonable though it's not the one I would have made myself, so I won't intervene.
"Best interests" requires the judge to impose the decision that she personally thinks is best, even if the parents' decsion is, even in the judge's view, perfectly reasonable. "Best interests" simply turns the whole thing over to the judge's personal view. That's the legal trick that usurps the real parents.
This same trick works just as well for the mentally handicapped. It would be easy enough for the woman's mother to continue to be her guardian if the woman had a low mental age, and easy enough to leave an abortion or no abortion decsion to her. But that would be inconsistent with the central principle. The State is the parent.
And you can see where this goes in the end. The State is parent of all children. The State is the parent of all the mentally handcapped. The State is the parent of all old folk with dementia. And when it comes down to it, if you - healthy 45 year old adult, with no mental problems at all - start taking decisions that the State thinks are bad for you, you'll find out that the State is your parent too.
The fine detail of this case is abortion. The broad brush strokes are the other answer to New Hampshire's motto "Live Free or Die." The third option is "Surrender."
The English have surrendered.
‘This hurts me and the unreal baby more, than it hurts you”
‘You will thank me later”
Justice Lievin is an evil woman. Only evil people decide who is lebensunwerte leben.
Anyone else see a racial angle to this? This is being done to a first or second gen Nigerian immigrant, right?
Anyone else see another, sinister, argument within the article?
"There was no evidence in this case that the woman’s fetus is impaired."
So what? Impaired people have no right to live?
I can still remember when the left ridiculed Sarah Palin's allegation of "Death Panels."
I would be less concerned if many libs I know didn't have a "Stupid people shouldn't breathe" bumper sticker or similar philosophical outlook. How long until they determine denying climate change is a problem so large we need to radically change the world immediately (or denying self identifying genders, or whatever the future hysteria might be) is indicative of being too stupid to procreate or even live?
It would save so much suffering if we just had comprehensive testing on all pregnancies, and then forced abortion for any babies that looked suspicious. Also, if they had the wrong color eyes.
Anyone else see another, sinister, argument within the article?
"There was no evidence in this case that the woman’s fetus is impaired."
So what? Impaired people have no right to live?
Good catch. The article also notes that this baby is "wanted", ie someone is willing to raise it, as if that's a condition that's been met to avoid any need for abortion. People make that mistake all the time, often with good intentions.
These days when the topic of abortion crops us, I always remember that the people who launched that obscene attack on Justice Kavanough were activists that worship at the Altar of Abortion. That's who launched those missiles, the people that want sex so bad they are willing to kill for it. We should not allow ourselves to be surprised by their depravity again - someone who supports killing their own child is capable of anything.
it also violates the principles that underlie the right to have an abortion: personal bodily autonomy and freedom of conscience
The sheer audacity of this argument has always amazed me: don't you dare violate their right to choose what's done to their body while they choose what's done to another's body.
Transhuman, and a weird quasi-religion: Pro-Choice, or code of ethics (i.e. relative, circumstantial, selective). Although, even under Pro-Choice, liberal societies do not recognize an open-ended choice to abort a human life. The apology for "choice" or selective-child, a woman's right to exercise her conscience or lack thereof, is a straw clown dressed as a straw man.
the left ridiculed Sarah Palin's allegation of "Death Panels."
A progressive slope, surely. The evidence shows that the issues are progressive prices, not costs, and immigration reform (e.g. mass migration, refugee crises) in lieu of emigration reform, where the former ensure unaffordable and unavailable medical care.
The reason the judge didn't use Holmes' reasoning is because she knows better. It's what she meant though, isn't it obvious?
@Fen
It's a Meritocracy and they're making Progress, so don't worry. The good/smart people have to manage the rest of us somehow, so we don't stink up the joint. Right? They have to be tough with us, but remember, they do it out a sense of self-importance. Would they admire themselves so much if what they were doing wasn't wonderful? Okay, probably, but as they often remind us, no generation in the history of the world has had credentials from finer institutions. Naturally, there will be complainers, but we're lucky to have good/smart people who are willing to step up and do what needs to be done. What if they just said to hell with it and left us alone? Then where would we be?
Althouse,
Do you sense the gravity pulling you down the slope?
Can you regain purchase?
Is there some handhold available?
Told you so!
Enjoy the ride.
Adolph Hitler is smiling
AOC will demand the Dems adopt this ruling as part of the Party's platform!
@Lee Moore, you sum it up well. With this case, along with Charlie Gard and other similar cases, it has become clear that the U.K. is a totalitarian state masquerading as a democracy. For the left, giving people the right to kill their own children wasn't bad enough. Now, in the U.K., the state has assumed the right to kill children despite even their parents' objection.
There may be just enough time, if we act now, to pass laws — and more importantly, constitutional amendments — that clearly and explicitly prevent the government from engaging in this kind of monstrous behavior. Otherwise, I fear we are doomed to follow the same path.
She was overruled.
Post a Comment