Appeal Court (UK) rules that an unborn child is ‘not a person’


#1

Court rejects compensation claim from disabled child whose mother drank heavily during pregnancy

The Court of Appeal today has ruled against a girl who was born disabled because of her mother drinking during pregnancy, ruling that she was only an “organism” in the womb.

The 17-page judgment in the case of “CP” v Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority was handed down by Lord Justices Dyson and Treacey and Lady Justice King at the Royal Courts of Justice.

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2014/12/04/appeal-court-rules-that-an-unborn-child-is-not-a-person/


#2

I want to say something, but words fail me. :(:mad:


#3

Ludicrous.


#4

Are they really using independence as a test for personhood?! How bizarre.

My adopted brother has fetal alcohol syndrome. It’s a terrible, terrible thing for everybody involved. It’s heartbreaking. I’d bet my next paycheck this girl will be dependent her whole life so maybe she will never get to enjoy the rights of “persons”.


#5

:eek: I’m not sure that appeals court is made up of persons either. People have hearts and minds. They don’t seem to have demonstrated either.


#6

Didn’t they used to say the same think about Black people?


#7

It is, and I think the article does a good job of letting Prof Jack Scarisbrick explain why it’s absurd. Not that the judicial Godzilla has the ears to hear it. Just keep stomping civilization.


#8

These are the sticky wickets that inevitably crop up when the agenda drives the truth. It is so sad when supposedly intelligent people are allowed to make significant judgments when so severely blinded.


#9

This ruling is because of compensation having to be paid…but I think worse than that is all the babies being aborted in the U.S.!

They are not considered to be human, either. :mad:


#10

I too think he did a good job. His arguments are so obvious it’s hard to believe that they need to be stated. I’ve yet to hear a coherent argument to the contrary that doesn’t lead to infanticide and killing the disabled (which the UK allowed just recently).


#11

Me too…Too sad for any words.


#12

This is the same legal position as that found in the famous Roe v Wade decision handed down by the US Supreme Court in 1973. No one has been able to overturn that decision because they do not understand the law behind it.

In brief, a “person” is a persona, from the Latin for “mask”. This persona, which you will use for all interactions with the Govt, is created when the Birth of the baby is registered. The Birth Certificate has two crucial bits of information which every Govt agency must obtain before it can take action.

These are: Name and Date of Birth. Before a baby is born, neither one of these exist, therefore the persona, or “person” does not exist. Thus, for purposes such as insurance compensation, it cannot apply if the statute awarding it applies only to persons.

In general, all modern statutes, save those punishing murder, apply only to persons. You can still go to jail for murdering an unborn baby. But this does not get used against abortion. Only on occasion when someone’s violent act causes a miscarriage resulting in the death of the baby.


#13

Everybody, raise your hand if you’re an organism!


#14

So it’s Ok to kill a baby prior to their birth certificate being issued?


#15

Unbelievable. This story was in the media recently, related to the case which may have some bearing on ‘ensuring’ its’ outcome.

breakingnews.ie/world/case-could-make-it-illegal-for-women-in-the-uk-to-drink-alcohol-during-pregnancy-649744.html

Drinking during pregnancy could become a criminal offence in the UK, women’s charities have said.
A council in the North West of England is seeking criminal injuries compensation for a six-year-old girl with ”growth retardation” caused by her mother’s alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
If the Court of Appeal agrees that the woman committed a crime it could pave the way for pregnant women’s behaviour to be criminalised, according to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (bpas) and Birthrights.
Ann Furedi, chief executive of bpas, and Rebecca Schiller, co-chair of Birthrights, said: “Making one particular form of behaviour during pregnancy into a criminal offence would lay the ground for criminalising a wide range of other behaviours because they may too pose a risk to the health of the baby.
“When we consider that the taking of necessary medication, such as treatment for epilepsy or depression, or the refusal of a caesarean section could be seen to fall into the category of maternal behaviours that may damage the foetus, the trajectory of such an approach is deeply worrying.


#16

Wow. This really chills the blood…


#17

Did I say that?

I said that was the legal position which allowed for such actions. Until Christians understand this legal position, they will never be able to change the laws that presently provide no meaningful protection for the unborn baby.

As the saying goes: “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.”


#18

Of course we understand the legal position. This sounds like a first year law student trying to impress people with their newfound legal insight.


#19

So if you understand it, then how come every other post on this thread expresses shock and dismay at the decision?

Yes, I’m new here, so I have yet to figure out who the trolls are. But given my experience in other forums it would not surprise me to learn that my attempt at informing people was immediately latched onto by the lurking trolls whose role it is to stifle all meaningful discussion.


#20

Because we are disgusted by the the law and find the callous disregard for human life revolting


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.