+ Reply to Thread
Page 50 of 51 FirstFirst ... 4048495051 LastLast
Results 491 to 500 of 507
  1. #491
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,806
    Thanks
    7,267
    Thanked
    9,720
    Reviews
    5
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Anyone seen this??
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...medium=twitter

    Eta- new thread started
    Last edited by Atropos; 01-12-2013 at 13:01.

  2. #492
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Adelaide foothills
    Posts
    753
    Thanks
    462
    Thanked
    426
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Finally! Someone who can read! This entire thread has been built on paranoia. People need to calm down and bit and actually comprehend what is being written and if they don't understand it, to ask for clarification rather than just jump to conclusions.

    I see this new law as a great leap for the rights of the child. And I hope other States and Territories follow suit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky27 View Post
    I've only read the first post with the attachment & haven't read previous replies so I'm sorry if someone else has posted this already.

    I think I have interpreted this law a lot differently to most have.

    I am reading this as if someone does an act & hurts a pregnant woman & it causes her to loose her baby then they can be held criminally responsible for that act.

    At the moment, if someone say assaulted a woman who is 24 weeks pregnant, the law doesn't acknowledge that it is a baby & the only charges that can be preferred are assault charges where you're not going to get much penalty in court for. Actually acknowledging its a human & making people accountable for their actions is what I believe this law is intended for, so in that scenario they may get years in jail instead of a suspended sentence. If this is how it is intended, I think it is a good thing.

    It would cover a male or female person who assaulted (or did another act) the pregnant person causing them to loose their unborn child.

    I don't believe it is trying to stop people from having abortions or medically necessary terminations.

    That's how I interpreted it anyway.

  3. #493
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,806
    Thanks
    7,267
    Thanked
    9,720
    Reviews
    5
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Caviar View Post
    Finally! Someone who can read! This entire thread has been built on paranoia. People need to calm down and bit and actually comprehend what is being written and if they don't understand it, to ask for clarification rather than just jump to conclusions.

    I see this new law as a great leap for the rights of the child. And I hope other States and Territories follow suit.
    Oh wow, was that necessary? This entire thread has been a discussion of possible ramifications- you say paranoia, others say possibility. And the conversation evolved into a discussion about personhood, scenarios this law may apply to and abortion. No one said that Zoe's law was intended to or worded so that it would remove the right to termination. No one seems to have misunderstood- it's just a discussion. You can have whatever point of view on it that you like, that's totally cool- but it's pretty uncalled for to imply that other people discussing these issues "can't read". I completely disagree that this is all paranoia- but I don't feel the need to insult your intelligence over it.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Atropos For This Useful Post:

    HollyGolightly81  (01-12-2013)

  5. #494
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Adelaide foothills
    Posts
    753
    Thanks
    462
    Thanked
    426
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Oh thank you for giving me permission to have an opinion of my own. I note that I am not the only one to make such comments and yet, perhaps not surprisingly, the only one you call to justify them. Regardless, my comments stand. Far too many subjects are fractured by ill founded beliefs borne from an inability to read what has been written. My comments were thus, I believe, quite necessary and, contrary to your accusation, do not sully anyone else's reputation or intelligence.

  6. #495
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,806
    Thanks
    7,267
    Thanked
    9,720
    Reviews
    5
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Caviar View Post
    Oh thank you for giving me permission to have an opinion of my own. I note that I am not the only one to make such comments and yet, perhaps not surprisingly, the only one you call to justify them. Regardless, my comments stand. Far too many subjects are fractured by ill founded beliefs borne from an inability to read what has been written. My comments were thus, I believe, quite necessary and, contrary to your accusation, do not sully anyone else's reputation or intelligence.
    I'm not sure how you got that. My point was aimed at your "someone in this thread can read" comment. I haven't seen another comment in here implying everyone who holds one POV is stupid- forgive me if I've missed it. I noticed yours because no one had commented for ages and it popped up in my participated threads so I replied- I would have said the same to any poster who said what you did, it wasn't a special response because it was your or anything. I was not giving you permission to have an opinion no one needs permission for that. I just did not appreciate your assumption/implication that people who are looking at this subject differently to you have somehow misread or not understood the law. I very much doubt anyone, from any side of this discussion, has misread what Zoe's law was drafted for or (in this case, version 2, forgetting the Nile first draft) what it is intended to do.
    The discussion has been about what is *may* be opening the door to, where is *may* lead to. Nothing to do with ill founded beliefs based on an inability to comprehend a piece of writing. There has been a number of different perspectives and a lot of passionate views exchanged in this thread and it's made for interesting reading.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Atropos For This Useful Post:

    HollyGolightly81  (01-12-2013)

  8. #496
    harvs's Avatar
    harvs is offline Winner 2014 - Spirit of BubHub Award
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    9,997
    Thanks
    6,239
    Thanked
    15,895
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 9/4/15Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 2/4/15Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 19/3/15Busiest Member of the Week200 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by Caviar View Post
    Oh thank you for giving me permission to have an opinion of my own. I note that I am not the only one to make such comments and yet, perhaps not surprisingly, the only one you call to justify them. Regardless, my comments stand. Far too many subjects are fractured by ill founded beliefs borne from an inability to read what has been written. My comments were thus, I believe, quite necessary and, contrary to your accusation, do not sully anyone else's reputation or intelligence.
    I've read a number of your posts and I think I have a fairly good understanding of your posting style and sense of humour. There are times when I don't agree with you, and times when I do, but I generally appreciate the perspective that you offer, as it often enables me to see a topic through different eyes. But for what it's worth, I found your original comment on this thread about people being unable to read, being paranoid, and jumping to conclusions to be quite condescending, particularly considering the extremely broad range of intelligent, well-argued and mostly respectful contributions to this thread. I think we're all aware that this discussion has been largely theoretical and hypothetical in nature.

  9. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to harvs For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (02-12-2013),beebs  (09-03-2014),HollyGolightly81  (02-12-2013),KaraB  (02-12-2013),peanutmonkey  (01-12-2013)

  10. #497
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    450
    Thanks
    441
    Thanked
    251
    Reviews
    0
    Update: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/zoes-law-b...306-34a9b.html

    Looks like it may not pass the upper house.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to sky1 For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (09-03-2014)

  12. #498
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    12,708
    Thanks
    9,558
    Thanked
    12,691
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 9/1/15Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 7/11/14Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 3/10/14100 Posts in a week
    I'm sorry to hear the scaremongering may have worked.

  13. #499
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    7,856
    Thanks
    5,067
    Thanked
    4,446
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 17/4/15100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by VicPark View Post
    I'm sorry to hear the scaremongering may have worked.
    Agreed! Just awful. Let's hope it hasn't.

  14. #500
    headoverfeet's Avatar
    headoverfeet is offline The truth will set you free, but first it will **** you off. -Gloria Steinem
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    18,954
    Thanks
    3,142
    Thanked
    4,892
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by sky1 View Post
    Update: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/zoes-law-b...306-34a9b.html

    Looks like it may not pass the upper house.
    Great news imo

    Me + DF
    DS1- Sep '07
    DS2- Nov '08
    DD- July '11
    Our family is complete!

    Gestational Surrogate- FET#1 March '14

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to headoverfeet For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (09-03-2014)


 

Similar Threads

  1. Passed-down family recipes?
    By ~ElectricPink~ in forum Recipes & Lunchbox Ideas
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 15-11-2016, 17:12
  2. *Possible trigger* Zoe's Law
    By 1234Guest in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-09-2013, 15:13

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
Einsteinz Music
Make music at Einsteinz Music in age-appropriate class in Sydney's Inner West, Eastern Suburbs or North Shore. For ages 6 mths - 4 yrs. All music is live! Christmas Gift certificates available for full term or casual classes. Call 0431 338 143
sales & new stuffsee all
True Fairies
True Fairies is the first interactive website where children can engage and speak with a real fairy through the unique webcam fairy portal. Each session is tailored to the child, and is filled with enchantment and magic.
Visit website to find out more!
featured supporter
Swim Australia
Swim Australia are the leading learn-to-swim experts, and national swim school authority. With over 600 Registered Swim Schools located across the country, through our aquatic education, we aim to build a Safer, Smarter, Stronger nation of swimmers.
gotcha
X

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!