Quote Originally Posted by JamesWales View Post
I think we all know that Labour will have a lot of questions to answer on the grooming gangs inquiry, which is probably why they were reluctant to do it.

I don't think vile scum is appropriate at all, it's clearly an emotional topic. That said, it does strike me as a bit of a cultural war issue, and I'm unsure what the purpose of it was. The MP Tonia Antoniazzi said herself nothing changes.

If it truly is the case that someone could abort a healthy baby a week before it's due date then that obviously is outrageous, but I can't believe that's what's happened?
I don't think I agree with this change but it's certainly not a hill I'm going to die on any time soon in a 'real life' conversation.

It doesn't make sense to me to have a legal framework for abortion (which is built around the concept of viability) and then have consequence for breaching it.

I think my view on abortion is that it typically shouldn't happen past when a foetus is potentially viable, if anything the law should have moved again towards that than in the way it has. Rather than have the debate and present their argument, they seem to have skirted around it.

'June 2023, Carla Foster was sentenced to 28 months in prison for terminating a pregnancy between 32 and 34 weeks. She had obtained pills supplied in good faith, after a remote consultation during lockdown.

A month later, her sentence was reduced to 14 months and suspended. Sitting at the court of appeal, Dame Victoria Sharp said Foster’s was “a case that calls for compassion, not punishment”'

So it sounds like she lied to a doctor, potentially put his livelihood in jeopardy and then aborted her baby between 32 and 34 weeks. At 32 weeks it's a baby, this is wrong.

As for the compassion argument, I get it but is the criminal justice system built around that?

Happy to be proved completely wrong but it doesn't really sit right with me.