Yes, there was that woman in the US who got done for having a few sips of champagne. She was arrested and charged because she was pregnant.
The problem with these types of laws, is that they open up a can of worms regarding all types of things. Fred Nile is no saint, as much as he wants to be considered and him supporting this law makes me think it is about the pro life angle rather than Zoe, and what happened to Zoe etc.
I also just read this. It's written by a lawyer explaining her concerns with the bill.
She mentions another lawyer who doesn't support Zoe's bill, despite losing a baby when she was injured in a car crash.
There are good reasons that the law has not previously recognised a foetus as a legal person.
As Melbourne lawyer Hannah Robert has argued eloquently, legal personhood is a technical category (that sometimes includes non-humans, such as corporations) intended to enable the "person" to have an autonomous interaction with the law. Its purpose is not to define human life but to enable an autonomous interaction with the law.
The notion doesn't make sense in the case of a foetus that is contained wholly within the body of a woman, nor is it appropriate for the law to confer legal rights on the foetus independently of its mother. Any interests or rights the foetus has should only ever be advanced through the mother.
Robert also sustained injuries in a car accident when she was pregnant and lost her baby as a result. She understands the risks of recognising a foetus as a legal person.
So too do the NSW Bar Association, the Women Lawyers Association, the Australian Medical Association, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and medical indemnity insurers, all of which wrote to members of Parliament before yesterday's vote, urging them not to support the bill.
Last edited by 1234Guest; 22-11-2013 at 12:25.
I couldn't think of anything worse than a woman being beaten or cleaned up by a drunk driver or any of those type of things and her unborn child's death not treated as a murder or a manslaughter. That child is not nothing.
This law is a good thing. Thank god it's been passed.
Women, pregnant women especially, often get the raw end of the stick when it comes to our bodily autonomy and our reproductive rights, and as such I feel we need to keep one step ahead.
Link to the full article : 'Why losing my daughter means I don't support Zoe's law'Zoe’s bill is drafted to create exceptions for anything done to the foetus by the mother, with her consent or by a medical professional.
But this creates a situation where it is legal to take the life of some legal persons, but not others, depending on the consent of a third party (the mother).
And it opens up the prospect of human rights claims being brought on behalf of a foetus. With that comes the prospect of challenges to the pro-choice exceptions built into Zoe’s law.
The what ifs exist on both sides
My ex husband stabbed me in the stomach while I was at term killing the baby and injuring me, does he not deserve a murder charge?
I was driving to the shop and was t boned by a drunk driver resulting in the loss of my baby, should this not result in a charge reflecting that this baby died as a result of the drunk drivers actions?
I'm all for women's rights and terminations it goes without saying but I'm equally invested in the rights of children which includes unborn ones.
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!
Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!