Medical Questions > Debate Forums > Abortion Debate Forum

Woman Convicted of 7 Month Abortion

User Profile
A WOMAN has been convicted of deliberately aborting her seven-and-a-half-month-old baby.


Maisha Mohammed, 22, showed no emotion as a jury at Manchester Crown Court convicted her after considering the evidence for less than 90 minutes.


Mrs Mohammed was then remanded on bail and will be sentenced on May 24 after reports had been prepared by the probation service.


She was convicted following what was a landmark prosecution of the crime of child destruction. The Crown alleged she had aborted the baby, probably during a trip to Liverpool during a half-term school break.


Prosecutor Neil Fryman told the jury it was not known if Mrs Mohammed, of Wray Gardens in Levenshulme, Manchester, had carried out the abortion on herself or whether someone else terminated her pregnancy.


But it was alleged her motive was that the child was illegitimate, having been conceived during an affair while her husband was in Ethiopia.


The case centred around medical evidence after a midwife, who had examined Mrs Mohammed just weeks before the trip to Liverpool, concluded that she could hear a foetal heartbeat during two sonic aid scans.


Mrs Mohammed did not give evidence herself during the trial, but, when quizzed by police, claimed she had miscarried the child.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/new s/s/1006/1006766_woman_convicted_over_seve nmonth_abortion.html
Did you find this post helpful?
|

User Profile
replied May 13th, 2007
Experienced User
What a shame this poor lady felt the need to abort due to the backwardness her culture adheres to (that illegitimate children are a big no-no). Again, however discomforting her abortion may be, it was still her choice: the foetus was occupying her body, so she had the choice and the right to do as she pleased with it.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 13th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
Re: Woman Convicted of 7 Month Abortion
diamond splinter wrote:
A WOMAN has been convicted of deliberately aborting her seven-and-a-half-month-old baby.


Maisha Mohammed, 22, showed no emotion as a jury at Manchester Crown Court convicted her after considering the evidence for less than 90 minutes.


Mrs Mohammed was then remanded on bail and will be sentenced on May 24 after reports had been prepared by the probation service.


She was convicted following what was a landmark prosecution of the crime of child destruction. The Crown alleged she had aborted the baby, probably during a trip to Liverpool during a half-term school break.


Prosecutor Neil Fryman told the jury it was not known if Mrs Mohammed, of Wray Gardens in Levenshulme, Manchester, had carried out the abortion on herself or whether someone else terminated her pregnancy.


But it was alleged her motive was that the child was illegitimate, having been conceived during an affair while her husband was in Ethiopia.


The case centred around medical evidence after a midwife, who had examined Mrs Mohammed just weeks before the trip to Liverpool, concluded that she could hear a foetal heartbeat during two sonic aid scans.


Mrs Mohammed did not give evidence herself during the trial, but, when quizzed by police, claimed she had miscarried the child.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/new s/s/1006/1006766_woman_convicted_over_seve nmonth_abortion.html


how sad.. that makes me sick!
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 13th, 2007
Active User, very eHealthy
Kypros wrote:
What a shame this poor lady felt the need to abort due to the backwardness her culture adheres to (that illegitimate children are a big no-no). Again, however discomforting her abortion may be, it was still her choice: the foetus was occupying her body, so she had the choice and the right to do as she pleased with it.



Quite obviously she did not have the right or she would not of been in court.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 13th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
What if it really was a miscarriage?

Hypothetically speaking, you can hear a fetal heartbeat just hours before a stillbirth.(later miscarriage)

This makes me uneasy, that she 'could' have miscarried, but there is no evidence that it happened either way :/
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 13th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
There certainly seems alot of circumstantial evidence in play here. They don't even know if she did it, or if someone else did it. All they have is a motive, and a midwife who heard a heartbeat "weeks before". Is that enough?

I wonder what the jury demographics were, and what kind of sentiment is in that area regarding abortion. She might not of even had a chance. Some might even be thinking "we'll set an example" or something. Court cases are so subjective. Or I've read too many John Grisham novels.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 14th, 2007
Active User, very eHealthy
She was tried in manchester court 90% of manchester are pro choice but thats has nothing to do with it it was a judges descion not a jury descion
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 14th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
Carifairy wrote:
What if it really was a miscarriage?

Hypothetically speaking, you can hear a fetal heartbeat just hours before a stillbirth.(later miscarriage)

This makes me uneasy, that she 'could' have miscarried, but there is no evidence that it happened either way :/


my baby was kicking around in the morning and i had a miscarriage just hours later at 21 weeks and 5 days. hearing the heartbeat weeks before doesn't mean anything.

however if she had a miscarriage; where is the fetus/baby?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 14th, 2007
Experienced User
cowboys wrote:
Kypros wrote:
What a shame this poor lady felt the need to abort due to the backwardness her culture adheres to (that illegitimate children are a big no-no). Again, however discomforting her abortion may be, it was still her choice: the foetus was occupying her body, so she had the choice and the right to do as she pleased with it.



Quite obviously she did not have the right or she would not of been in court.


No, my belief is that she did have the right, though this right is prohibited because of our anti-individualism Government.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 14th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
Kypros wrote:
cowboys wrote:
Kypros wrote:
What a shame this poor lady felt the need to abort due to the backwardness her culture adheres to (that illegitimate children are a big no-no). Again, however discomforting her abortion may be, it was still her choice: the foetus was occupying her body, so she had the choice and the right to do as she pleased with it.



Quite obviously she did not have the right or she would not of been in court.


No, my belief is that she did have the right, though this right is prohibited because of our anti-individualism Government.


Aborting a baby at 7 months old might be a legal right (that is absolutely ridicules) And it is unmoral! And very very sad!
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 14th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
diamond splinter wrote:
She was tried in manchester court 90% of manchester are pro choice but thats has nothing to do with it it was a judges descion not a jury descion


The article says "jury at Manchester Crown Court convicted her after considering the evidence for less than 90 minutes." I don't know anything about English law (other than it's the basis for our own), but is a jury there the same as here?

I'm just surprised they would convict someone such circumstantial evidence. I wonder if that will be reflected in the sentencing?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 14th, 2007
Active User, very eHealthy
Birch wrote:
diamond splinter wrote:
She was tried in manchester court 90% of manchester are pro choice but thats has nothing to do with it it was a judges descion not a jury descion


The article says "jury at Manchester Crown Court convicted her after considering the evidence for less than 90 minutes." I don't know anything about English law (other than it's the basis for our own), but is a jury there the same as here?

I'm just surprised they would convict someone such circumstantial evidence. I wonder if that will be reflected in the sentencing?


sorry my mistake tbh i,m surprised they convicted on lack of evidence
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 14th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
She clearly had to wait so long until she had found a place to finally get a semi-safe abortion... that poor young woman is my age! I wish we knew the whole story though, all her reasons, etc, why she had to wait so long. I personally don't care, but I think the court/jury needs to hear that information. They need to know that women don't just wake up one morning and say "i'm gunna abort hee hee!"
|
Did you find this post helpful?