Right decision – eventually

The Court of Appeal has blocked a mentally ill woman’s abortion after the Catholic church warned it would infringe her human rights.

Three senior judges overturned a ruling made on Friday that the woman, who is in her 20s and 22 weeks pregnant, should have a termination against her wishes because it was in her best interests.

44 comments on “Right decision – eventually

  1. It’s the craveness that turns my stomach. Pakis marrying their cousins an producing ‘tards by the bus load, not a peep. But show them a handicapped white girl up the duff and the full majesty of the law breaks the butterfly.

    Anna Raccoon frequently criticized the Orwellian “Court of Protection” which seems to exist purely to crush the helpless.

  2. Justice Nathalie Lieven seems a particularly unpleasant piece of work, even by the standards of the family courts.

    I could see (although I strongly disagree) why such an argument might be made at maybe 6 weeks. With the baby effectively at viability, and as far as we know perfectly healthy, why on earth would anyone other than a bunch of abortion activists be determined to deliberately kill it – even if they left it another month then delivered it, it would most probably survive to have a normal life, and the delivery would be little more traumatic than the abortion.

  3. It wasn’t quite clear did the church get involved in the appeal or were they making comment?

  4. Excellent! Now the British taxpayer will be on the hook for the child of a mentally deficient Nigerian woman.
    Perhaps the Catholic Church might be asked for a contribution?

  5. Jonathan

    By that inhuman logic – since significantly less than half of the adult population pay the same, or more, in taxes as they receive in return, we should be bumping off the majority, either in the womb or post partum. Sheesh!

  6. Not really, Recusant. Jonathan’s point is why do we bus in more such people? I’ve seen it countless times – the sick and disabled of the earth living here at taxpayer’s expense. And the expense is often vast and for decades at a time. I do wonder whether it is ever factored into those calculations showing just what a net financial benefit uncontrolled immigration is.

  7. @ Recusant

    Inhuman how? I simply believe that the British government should put the interests of British people, not foreigners, first.

    This unfortunate woman obviously didn’t get here under her own steam, so who brought her here and who permitted her entry to Britain? They should be held responsible for her, not me.

  8. Oh, and while we’re talking about it, why aren’t the police looking for whoever knocked up a woman with a mental age of 6?

  9. @Jonathan

    I think you will find that the plod are indeed quite interested in the circumstances regarding this baby’s conception, but that doesn’t mean that the state should be allowed to murder a viable baby because they don’t think that it’s mother can cope with it.

    Again, how we are on the hook for these people may be an interesting question, but it’s not directly relevant to the case in hand.

  10. I thought adoption agencies had queues a mile long of people looking to adopt a new born?

  11. The mother is going to take responsibility for the baby.

    God, surely we can have compassion for these poor people. If we are going to bring anybody to the UK, I’d rather it be someone like this than Muslim economic migrants who will despise us while screwing us.

  12. @DocBud:

    ” The mother is going to take responsibility for the baby.”

    How? She has a mental age of between 6 and 9. She thinks she’s getting a new doll.

  13. Wogs are their finest, both in the story and in the thread.

    Good to see Christian compassion and state sponsored eugenics thriving amongst my moral and intellectual superiors.

    Makes me proud to be an ‘Merican.

  14. Inhuman how? I simply believe that the British government should put the interests of British people, not foreigners, first.

    Jonathan –

    Substitute the word German for the word British and you have the sort of sentence once uttered by Adolph Hitler.

    That’s how you get to “inhuman”.

  15. Dennis, I thought Trump wants to put the interests of Americans first. No?

    And why shouldn’t he? Nothing Nazi about that. It’s a stupid, Godwinesque thing to say.

    And sorry, both you and DocBud are wrong. No one on this thread has supported eugenics.

    I am actually hotly in favour of the child being born. And very much against importing the unfortunates of the earth in the first place.

    RlJ raises the point about the Pak cousin marriage phenomenon and the consequences of that. It’s another case in point.

    There is no reason for us to do any of this.

  16. The mother of the poor woman is a midwife, a profession the UK is short of, so she would probably qualify to come based on the need for midwifes. The UK has capacity to show compassion to those who would not be well looked after in the land of their birth. If the UK did not import large numbers of RoPers who add nothing to the country, the cost of the small number of compassionate cases would be negligible.

  17. DocBud, that is not true. There are masses from sub-Saharan Africa – mostly Christian. And no shortage from places like Albania.

  18. “I thought adoption agencies had queues a mile long of people looking to adopt a new born?”

    I believe the children of mentally defective sub-saharans are likely to be difficult to place.

    Also what Jonathan and Mr Lud say. My taxes are too high and I have compassion fatigue.

  19. Dennis, I thought Trump wants to put the interests of Americans first. No?

    And why shouldn’t he? Nothing Nazi about that. It’s a stupid, Godwinesque thing to say.

    Bullshit. Don’t play stupid on this. You’re deliberately ignoring the context in which Jonathan’s statement was made.

    Donald Trump may want to put the interests of the nation and its citizens first, but he has never said that in doing so state-sponsored killing of lebensunwertes leben via a home-grown Aktion T4 was something to be considered or contenanced.

    And make no mistake, Nathalie Lieven’s decision was exactly that: Sentencing lebensunwertes leben to Aktion T4.

    If you want Britain to kill unborn human beings so you can save a dime on taxes, have the balls to say so and leave it at that. Don’t try to build false equivalences or pretend that others (such as Donald Trump and the rest of us septics) are ready to hop on that train.

  20. Dennis, I fear for your blood pressure.

    Jonathan can defend himself, I assume.

    But I took his remark as no more than a sardonic quip on the costs to us of such people.

    I don’t see any, “get thee to the gas chamber”, in short. I do not think it is there. I think you’ve got your knickers in a twist.

    I’ve made clear I support the birth of the child.

  21. But I took his remark as no more than a sardonic quip on the costs to us of such people.

    I’m sure a lot of German where thinking the same thing back in 1934 when the Nazis were drumming up public support for “racial hygiene”. And of course you don’t see any “get thee to the gas chamber”… You’re European. If history teaches us anything, it’s that Europeans never see it until its too late.

  22. But you have concentration camps on the border, Dennis; with children in cages. Just like the holocaust.

    See, wanky Godwinesque spluttering goes both ways.

    You’ve chosen to conflate Jonathan’s annoyance at UK taxpayers funding foreign deficients with the judge’s decision to terminate a viable human against nearly everyone’s wishes. It’s possible to be against both. You’ve made a mistake. You seem to like being an arse, so I expect you’ll keep making it.

  23. “The UK has capacity to show compassion to those who would not be well looked after in the land of their birth. If the UK did not import large numbers of RoPers who add nothing to the country…”

    You’re describing two groups who add nothing to the country. You want to allow in those you like and to hell with the rest; Jonathan doesn’t want to allow any of them in (to hell with them all). Therefore Jonathan is an evil piece of shit? Does that make you a slightly smaller piece of shit? Slightly less evil?

  24. The post and article says “mentally ill” not “mentally disabled”. ie, it’s a broken leg, not a missing leg.

  25. “state sponsored eugenics”: what are you drivelling on about? The newspaper report has no connection to eugenics. The case is reported as being about the health of the mentally ill, mentally defective mother, not about the state of the baby.

    “Adolph Hitler.” Christ, you’re as bad as the anti-Trumpers.
    “Nathalie Lieven’s decision was exactly that: Sentencing lebensunwertes leben to Aktion T4.” God, your reading comprehension skills need brushing up.

  26. Jonathan is so very right. We shouldn’t be in the hook for children of these people. So let’s kill it.

    And if the mother happemed to be, say, Jewish, all the better eh

  27. Or even, we shouldn’t be on the hook for the children of these people, but let’s not kill it?

    Which is what has happened.

    Don’t know why Jonathan’s getting all the bad press. I’m at least as big a bastard as he is.

    Sheesh. I’m a humanities type. And even my critical reasoning is better than some of what’s on offer here.

  28. If history teaches us anything, it’s that Europeans never see it until its too late.
    An American lecturing us on how long it took Europeans to begin to fight fascism. If only Septics could understand irony.

  29. ‘Nathalie Lieven’s decision was exactly that: Sentencing lebensunwertes leben to Aktion T4.’

    Maybe I was being a bit slow there: were you making a racist jibe about her German family background?

  30. Got to ask the obvious questions, how many healthy productive people should give up having children so that the mentally disabled can?

    Britain is rich as a nation. But there is only so much Labour available. Some of the Labour of healthy productive people is taken to pay for this. Ergo they have less money. How many cases like this can Britain afford before its not rich?

  31. Itellyounothing,

    It’s news because it is so rare. However, being mentally disabled does not cancel your basic human rights.

    PJF,

    To a large extent, those who have mental and physical disabilities do not have their basic human needs met in developing nations, it is therefore, in my opinion, quite reasonable to allow some of these people to be granted asylum in countries that do provide such basic needs (alternatively, it would be a better use of our foreign aid to directly help such people than line the pockets of Bangladeshi road maintenance companies, etc). We are under no obligation, however, to provide asylum to able bodied and minded people who want to come to the West for a better life.

    As for the tax argument, I’d rather have my taxes spent showing compassion to those less fortunate than us than funding carpetbaggers cashing in on the “climate emergency”, dishing out arts grants, buying the MoD 65p light bulbs for £22, building HS2, etc., etc.

  32. Doc Bud,

    Compassion is great. How much of other people’s money is your compassion worth?
    Roughly?

  33. @DocBud:

    ” I’d rather have my taxes spent showing compassion to those less fortunate than us..”

    Excellent, that’s most of the rest of humanity then. Seven billion people. Should they all come to Britain, or will you go to them?

    You seem to believe that the UK should be the world’s care home, I don’t.

  34. No mention made of the two fathers in this, the one who knocked up the girl and the hubby of the mum, where are they in this? Perhaps it’s time to make the responsible adults carry the load, instead of trying to mau-mau me with “compassion”! Also, mum may well be a midwife, she’s not going to do a lot of that while looking after a retarded daughter, and a newborn who may well have ‘issues’ as well, why do I see social services and the benefits office being a big thing in their future.

  35. Robert the Biker

    Excellent point.

    Then we are back to why should I have few or no children for this?

    How many unproductive people can even a rich society carry?

    Look at the birth rates of children from productive people. Those demographics suggest bad things for the UK’s future.

    Wealth is not our natural state. Being poor is.
    If we breed the productive out of existence, our descendants will be poor again and our 200 plus year experiment in rising living standards will be over.

  36. The outcomes for single-parent families are costly for taxpayers, and even more so for afro single-parent families, and probably more again for progeny of a mentally deficient afro single parent.

    An act of compassion can have many consequences, costs and repercussions. If the mental defective gives birth to a schizophrenic who murders UK citizens, will the bleeding hearts take responsibility? No, the cause/reason will be cuts to mental health services…

  37. Good point. Its not just the cost of importing delinquency and inadequacy, it’s the consequential impact of the progeny.

    We’ll never know. But my professional experience, which I have no reason to believe is not replicated by thousands of British lawyers, suggests the impact in terms of maiming, murder and immiseration can be compared only to a brutal rape and pillage invasion.

    We’ve absorbed it, and haven’t yet joined up the dots. But, hells bells. When we do, if enough of us are left…

  38. No, there enough folks with various group identities, for good odds on crimes against humanity sometime soon.

    I read a little of history and the last fifteen feel a bit to like the unequal peace of Versailles followed by the incompetent Weimar republic from the German side….

    Depressing thought.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.