• About
    • Privacy Policy
  • GSW
  • In Dad’s Shoes
    • An Overview
    • Invitation
    • Media
    • Photos
    • Press Release
    • Soft Launch
    • Speeches
    • Summary
  • Media Coverage
  • Parliamentary Debates
  • Voice of the Child Podcasts

Researching Reform

Researching Reform

Daily Archives: March 26, 2012

Conflict stems from life, not life after marriage

26 Monday Mar 2012

Posted by Natasha in Children, Family Law

≈ 8 Comments

At Researching Reform, one of our firm beliefs is that divorce is not the enemy. It is a tool which when used efficiently, can help preserve the fundamental emotional skills a parent needs to make sure the welfare of the child remains paramount. It can help create healthier behaviours and bonds between family members and it can pave the way for a happy future for children and parents alike.

So when this survey by 4Children was published, which suggests that a staggering 60% of families report serious or frequent conflict in the home, we thought it was an important thing to share. There is no mention here of divorce, with the focus being on domestic violence within the home and citing external pressure such as economic ones relating to insufficient levels of income and unemployment as the fuel for creating conflict in the home.

It is of course very easy to blame divorce as the rot destroying families, but many of us know already that family breakdown is  a very complex affair. And the report knows this too. Aptly entitled, The Enemy Within, it is very carefully prepared into 7 chapters, with titles such as “Conflict and violence: Undermining parents’ ability to parent”, which look set to be very interesting reads. We will be reading the 55 page report in full a little later today, but wanted to post it for you now.

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Question It!

26 Monday Mar 2012

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform

≈ 3 Comments

Yes, it’s that Monday time again, Spring has sprung and everyone forgot to wind their clocks forward yesterday and missed brunch. At least, that’s what happened to us.

But all this talk of biological clocks and new beginnings brings us neatly to our question of the week, for which we have Mr Geek to thank for drawing our attention to what is probably the most controversial article of 2012 so far, on after-birth abortion, written anywhere, across the globe.

The article we are talking about is none other than the piece written by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva which makes the suggestion that killing newborn babies is no different from abortion. Not surprisingly, it has caused something of a furore, and the authors have since received death threats for writing it, but they are misunderstood. All they are trying to do is raise the observation for debate and you can see why it is such an important debate by reading the article linked above.

In it the article explains that there is very little difference in status between a foetus and a newborn but it is the wider implications of a view like this potentially allowed to run its course, that could have an impact on social engineering in the future, especially in a world where resources are limited and the world’s population appears to be growing at a rate that is hard to cater for.

We are told that “The paper, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?” pays particular attention to fetuses and newborn children with disabilities and the psychological burden they might represent for their mothers.” Furthermore, “the authors say that “to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

The authors go on to say the following: “They argue that the potential of quality of life for children with certain pathologies may not be equal to that of a “normal child.”” And finally, “They classify the life of a newborn child as “equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally-relevant sense.” In this way they put after-birth abortion in the same category as regular abortion, and as such argue that it should be a “permissible” practice “in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

But what if there is more to this article than meets the eye?

Post writing this blog post this morning, Researching Reform had a chat with a very senior lawyer and asked them whether they had themselves read this article. They had, but the point they made following on from that was nothing short of a revelation. When we asked him what he thought the motivation might be behind such a controversial premise, he thought it was more than possible that the authors were trying, in a very devious, roundabout way, to set the scene for a compelling argument which focused on the idea that abortion should be illegal and that the two authors themselves, he suspected, were possibly practicing catholics.

Then we started to consider the thought and began to notice some rather odd things about the article. Firstly, the two authors appear to be Italian and whilst not all Italians are devout catholics, the possibility that they are is not too remote, in a country where a nation is still relatively religious on the whole. The second thing was the obvious gap in the article, which fails to address abortion post the current time limits – why had they not discussed this before jumping the gun and moving straight to the most extreme example of abortion, post-birth abortion? (We may stand corrected as we have not yet had the chance to read the whole article). And thirdly, the chilling way in which the authors chose to frame the status of both fetus and newborn: “They classify the life of a newborn child as “equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally-relevant sense.” This is clearly not a legal, nor a medical definition and is certainly a weakness in their argument, should the authors be trying to suggest that after-birth abortion is akin to pre-birth abortion. But by causing outrage at the thought of a newborn baby being killed, they may have just succeeded in shaping the perfect prelude for their ulterior motive: a complete ban on abortion, across the world.

So, what do you think? Should after-birth abortion be allowed? And what do you think might be the motivation behind this article?

Possible answer: This debate seems to jump the gun, as there is surely a debate that needs to be had about abortion post the current recommended time limits. However, we are disturbed by this debate. Any woman who has held a child in her womb for 9 months will tell you that you develop a bond. This bond needs to be discussed within the context of this debate, before we lose our humanity, altogether.

We searched online for photos for ‘after-birth abortion’ but the results upset us so much that we couldn’t face posting one on the blog. So we chose a happy, bouncing baby, instead.

We're as shocked as you are, baby-pie....

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 7,494 other followers

Contact Researching Reform

Huff Post Contributer

For Litigants in Person

Child Welfare Debates

March 2012
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  
« Feb   Apr »

Children In The Vine : Stories From The Family Justice System

Categories

  • Adoption
  • All Party Parliamentary Group on Family Law and The Court of Protection
  • Articles
  • Big Data
  • Bills
  • Case Study
  • child abuse
  • child abuse inquiry
  • child welfare
  • Children
  • Children In The Vine
  • Circumcision
  • Civil Partnerships
  • Consultation
  • Conversations With…
  • Corporal Punishment
  • CSA
  • CSE
  • Data Pack
  • Domestic Violence
  • Encyclopaedia on Family and The Law
  • event
  • Family Law
  • Family Law Cases
  • FGM
  • FOI
  • forced adoption
  • Foster Care
  • Fudge of the Week
  • Fultemian Project
  • Huffington Post
  • Human Rights
  • IGM
  • Inquiry
  • Interesting Things
  • Interview
  • Judge of the Week
  • Judges
  • judicial bias
  • Law to lust for
  • legal aid
  • LexisNexis Family Law
  • LIP Service
  • LIPs
  • Marriage
  • McKenzie Friends
  • MGM
  • News
  • Notes
  • petition
  • Picture of the Month
  • Podcast
  • Question It
  • Random Review
  • Real Live Interviews
  • Research
  • Researching Reform
  • social services
  • social work
  • Spotlight
  • Stats
  • Terrorism
  • The Buzz
  • The Times
  • Troubled Families Programme
  • Twitter Conversations
  • Update
  • Voice of the Child
  • Voice of the Child Podcast
  • Westminster Debate
  • Who's Who Cabinet Ministers
  • Your Story

Recommended

  • Blawg Review
  • BlogCatalog
  • DaddyNatal
  • DadsHouse
  • Divorce Survivor
  • Enough Abuse UK
  • Family Law Week
  • Family Lore
  • Flawbord
  • GeekLawyer's Blog
  • Head of Legal
  • Just for Kids Law
  • Kensington Mums
  • Law Diva
  • Legal Aid Barristers
  • Lib Dem Lords
  • Lords of The Blog
  • Overlawyered
  • PAIN
  • Paul Bernal's Blog
  • Public Law Guide
  • Pupillage Blog
  • Real Lawyers Have Blogs
  • Story of Mum
  • Sue Atkins, BBC Parenting Coach
  • The Barrister Blog
  • The Magistrate's Blog
  • The Not So Big Society
  • Tracey McMahon
  • UK Freedom of Information Blog
  • WardBlawg

Archives

Cancel

 
Loading Comments...
Comment
    ×
    loading Cancel
    Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
    Email check failed, please try again
    Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
    Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
    To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
    <span>%d</span> bloggers like this: