Last updated on October 13th, 2023 at 08:08 pmReading Time: 2 minutes
Firstly, Unborn Lives Matter will most definitely be a deviation from my normal posts.
Secondly, I am neither pro nor anti abortion per se and I do think that it is correct and appropriate that option should be available under the correct circumstances. It’s a matter of choice, and fortunately I don’t need to worry about such choices.
It probably won’t have escaped your notice that a lady called Carla Foster was sent to prison for 28 months this week for inducing an abortion after the legal limit.
I have no issue with her wanting an abortion, as I understand it her personal circumstances were highly complex. I do, however, have an issue with her procuring an abortion, by way of medication, at 32-34 weeks.
It is generally accepted that a foetus is viable after 24 weeks. That is where my problem starts, not the fact that she wanted an abortion, and nothing to do with her bringing it about herself, and lying to do so. Her ‘baby’ was up to 10 weeks after the point where it would be regarded as viable. I don’t really have any religious views on the subject, but at that age, that child deserved the chance to live, and that is why I wholly agree with her prosecution.
There has been much argument and controversy since, about her 28 month sentence, with many supporters and activists complaining about the archaic, Victorian law, the Offences Against The Person Act of 1861.
The Offences Against The Person Act 1861
It may be a Victorian law, but it serves us well.
Every day, in every Court in the land, somebody will be convicted under different sections of the same Act.
Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm, s47. Grievous Bodily Harm, s18 and s20.
I don’t hear anybody complaining about the samr law being applied in that way.
s58 of the Act, the relevant Section, says this;
Every woman, being with child, who, with intent to procure her own miscarriage, shall unlawfully administer to herself any poison or other noxious thing, or shall unlawfully use any instrument or other means whatsoever with the like intent, and whosoever, with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman, whether she be or be not with child, shall unlawfully administer to her or cause to be taken by her any poison or other noxious thing, or shall unlawfully use any instrument or other means whatsoever with the like intent, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to be kept in penal servitude for life
That seems like the appropriate charge to me, and it should be noted that it carries the possibility of Life Imprisonment, because it involves the destruction of a life.
So what would these supporters and protestors have us replace it with? Or are we just supposed to legalise ‘child destruction’ which is effectively what it is.
If, however, their issue is just with the sentence imposed, then a) It wasn’t the maximum of Life Imprisonment and b) That is the responsibility of the Judge, apart from setting the maximum at Life Imprisonment the Act makes no recommendations whatsoever. She’s perfectly entitled to Appeal against her sentence if she so desires. Unborn Lives Matter