http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/sep/21/sarah-catt-abortion-legal-rights-pregnant?INTCMP=SRCH

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/18/judicial-machismo-sarah-catt-britain-medieval?INTCMP=SRCH

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/20/sarah-catt-punishment-god

I'm pro-choice, however these articles have made me severely uncomfortable. As far as I could see, the defense did not claim that Sarah had a mental illness. Additionally, she allegedly showed no remorse, pleaded guilty and refused to disclose where she hid the body. The father was aware of the pregnancy but the affair ended during this time.

The body disposal is surely what mostly constitutes this being a criminal offence. Who are we to say what really happened with no forensic evidence? Bear in mind, she took a labour inducing pill, not a standard medical abortion pill such as you'd get with an early abortion. She may very well have murdered a live baby - not to mention could have potentially tortured the infant (who are we to know otherwise?). To me, terminating a viable baby who bears no risk to the pregnant womans health is infanticide.

I am a liberal at heart, but has it gone so far that we can excuse a woman for doing something so morally reprehensible (in my opinion?) Even criticising the judge for his religious beliefs?

A segment on her past, which may possibly indicate a pattern in her behaviour:

"It seems, according to newspaper reports, that she has had a long history of emotional problems: in 1999, while at university, she hid her first pregnancy from her family then gave the baby up for adoption immediately after the birth. Later, in a relationship with Stephen Catt whom she went on to marry, she had an abortion at the legal limit of 24 weeks with his agreement. She then tried to abort her next baby, a girl, but was beyond the legal limit to do so. Pregnant yet again, she kept this a secret from Catt until the birth.

In this latest tragic twist to her troubled life and gynaecological history, Mrs Catt became pregnant in 2009 as the result of an extra-marital affair. She booked an appointment at a local branch of a Marie Stopes abortion clinic but discovered during a scan a day earlier at St James Hospital in Leeds that the baby was already 29 weeks old – too advanced for a legal abortion. After internet searches, she ordered an abortifacient drug from India and is thought to have taken it on 25 May 2010 at home, when her husband was away. She told a psychiatrist that the baby, a boy, had been stillborn and that she had buried it. The following day she went on a family holiday to France."

Crazy, awful case but please tell me there's some like-minded people out there who think this is a step too far for womens rights? I know no-one is in clear support of her actions but to excuse this as 'a desperate way out' (with no solid evidence to back this up) when a man slipping an abortion pill in a womans drink would be an incomprehensibly evil bastard entitled to plentiful prison time (and obviously, quite rightly so!) seems horrendously questionable. Yes, the baby was still in HER body, but that baby would also have had a fantastic chance of surviving outside of the womb. And how can we excuse the disposal of the body?

Imagine if this baby was truly wanted by the father, would people be stating the same arguments? http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/submit?selftext=true#

EDITED TO ADD: These are the statements from the judge when she was sentenced:

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/sarah-louise-catt-sentencing-remarks-17092012.pdf

Allegedly, her lover was willing to leave his wife to start a new life with her and she declined. This may well have been a wanted baby from his end after all.