“They were not mothered well,” we say of the destructive adult, the despairing adult, the self-loathing adult. “They did not have a good start in life.”

And yet there are countries where we do not allow mothers to wait until they can give their child a good start in life. We force them to carry to term babies they already know they will struggle to raise. We prevent them from getting older, wiser, healthier, more settled. We believe motherhood is a magic that will work anywhere; that a woman’s love, patience, time, sanity and money will, somehow, never really run dry. We believe that pregnant women are, in some way, superhuman.

But to believe that is not to be respectful to women and motherhood. It is to be utterly inhumane.

In two weeks, Ireland votes on whether to repeal the 8th Amendment and allow legal abortion up to the 12th week of pregnancy. Currently, Ireland has the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe – it is illegal to seek an abortion even if your pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. [J4MB: We doubt these crimes account for even 1% of unwanted pregnancies.]

It is a cruel and unusual punishment to tell someone who has been the victim of a crime [J4MB: 99%+ of these women were NOT the victims of a crime] that, as a consequence of that crime, they must now carry their attacker’s child to term, labour to deliver it and then raise it, or else give it up for adoption. Rape in Ireland is punished with an average ten-year sentence. By way of contrast, the woman or child the rapist attacked will have to spend the rest of her life wrestling with an emotional paradox that even the greatest philosophers and psychologists would struggle with: comprehending that your blameless, unknowing child is the product of sexual hatred.

It is a cruel and unusual stance for a country to take – to insist that its women must, legally, grit their teeth and cope with whatever a single crime or mistake hands them. [J4MB: Ah. Crime or “mistake”. There we have it. Mistakes including women’s failures to take responsibility. God forbid women ever have to face the consequences of their actions or inactions.]

For that’s what this vote is, at its very core, in its bones: whether it will allow its female citizens the right to say, “I tell you this, now, in all honesty – I cannot be a mother. I am too young. I am too old. I am too tired. I am too poor. I am too traumatised. I am too scared. I have been told it might kill me, and I wish to follow the advice of my doctors. [J4MB: I couldn’t be arsed, like Caitlin Moran, to use contraception when having sex with my husband on holiday, so now taxpayers must pay for my resulting unborn child to be killed.] Contrary to what all the banners say, I am not someone who is careless, blithe and dismissive of the potential for life. [J4MB: The evidence would suggest otherwise.] It is the exact opposite – I am someone who values it so highly that I tell you now, in all truth: I would not be able to do this job properly. It would be a risk, a gamble. I wish to resign, before the stakes rise too high. There is no magic in motherhood. That is a lie. Just a female human being, here, saying, I can’t do this. I don’t want to.”

The rejoinder to this is often, “But if this all seems too much, could you not just give birth – and then have the child adopted?”

But this, again, does not respect motherhood. To live the rest of your life knowing there is a child of yours out there, being raised by others. Fearing every day she might be misunderstood; that he wonders who you are; that she wonders why you did not wish to keep her. [J4MB: He or she would much rather be killed in the womb, than cause you any anxiety over your decision. Got it.] Again, only someone blithely disrespecting of motherhood – of the minds and hearts of women – could believe you could let a child go so simply. That you could be legally ordered to make a child, against your will, then give it to others – and that this would be preferable to a safe, legal medical procedure, practised in two-thirds of the world, with not a single recorded negative effect to those societies. [J4MB emphasis. 10+ million unborn children killed in the UK alone – not “negative effects”? OK. Got it.]

This is not a risky change Ireland considers this week. It does not face potential economic or social peril. It is a small consequence, really: to finally, properly, respect motherhood and women. [J4MB: It’s time to finally, properly, respect unborn children.]

But that is everything.

Mr Caudwell, 65, said after the judgment: “Over the last three years I have been to hell and back as a consequence of a series of vindictive and completely baseless allegations made against me in the course of high-profile legal proceedings with . . . Nathalie Dauriac. She waged what felt like a campaign of terror in an effort to extort £20 million from me in the clear expectation that I would ultimately surrender and settle out of court. She was totally wrong in that assumption. I am delighted that Nathalie has been found by the judge to have been, in his words, dishonest, combative, aggressive and argumentative.”

The court was told that Mr Caudwell had put £700 million of his fortune into Signia Wealth. The judge described him as emotional but clear and articulate and said he had given reliable evidence despite suffering from Lyme disease, which can impair memory.

Ms Dauriac said yesterday that she had written to Lord Justice Vos, the chancellor of the High Court, to ask him to look into judicial attitudes towards professional women. She said: “During the trial there was also evidence showing that I and other female employees of John Caudwell were subject to written abuse by senior management. We were called many names, including ‘sociopath’ and ‘nasty bitch’.

“I am shocked that Mr Justice Smith should not consider this material to the case and I believe the judicial system needs to do more to ensure that women are protected from such abuse.”

The open letter to Stephen Toope, the vice-chancellor, says that “upholding a criminal standard of proof actively discourages survivors and victims of sexual harassment, rape and assault from engaging with the disciplinary procedure”. Students said that changing the system “will give survivors and victims of sexual assault more confidence to access it”.

They added that “by requiring cases to be proven ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, the university is implying that there is unlikely to be consequences for perpetrators in disciplinary cases pertaining to sexual misconduct, unless the survivor goes to the police”.

Students told Professor Toope that the criminal standard of proof placed “undue burden on someone who has experienced a traumatic event”. The letter was written by the Cambridge University Student Union Women’s Campaign. However, according to the student newspaper Varsity, the university committee in charge of discipline said it was unclear whether the letter represented the view of the broader student body.

The Office of Student Conduct, Complaints and Appeals (OSCCA) said that if “the student body wants the university to use the balance of probability as the standard of proof when considering allegations of student misconduct” then it “should be accepted by the university community”. However, it said that it was “unclear” whether this was “the view of the student body”.

The OSCCA has released a series of proposals to make the rules “clear and accessible” for students. Its consultation document noted the open letter to the vice-chancellor about changing the standard of proof.

In February the university released figures for sexual misconduct complaints after creating an anonymous reporting system, which has since been adopted by other institutions.

Of the 173 complaints 119 were allegations by students of misconduct by other students. Two students have made complaints about staff and seven staff members have complained about the actions of colleagues.

Graham Virgo, professor of English private law and pro-vice-chancellor for education at Cambridge, said at the time: “It supports our belief that we have a significant problem involving sexual misconduct — what we now need to ensure is that those who have been affected receive the support and guidance they need.”

The University of Cambridge declined last night to comment on the letter or the issues it raised, saying that it was engaged in a consultation process.