Without reading all the replies, I am not cool with it.
While I understand there would be an awful lot of pain and heartache for the parents who have their unborn child killed due to the carelessness of others, I don't think a law like this will ever be positive for women on the whole... and honestly, because the law allows for people to twist it and bend it and use it as they see fit, I don't believe there is a way we can have a law like this while also protecting the rights of women to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 101 to 110 of 507
22-11-2013 13:57 #101
The Following User Says Thank You to SassyMummy For This Useful Post:
22-11-2013 13:58 #102
I am not particularly concerned about the law being made so ridiculous to charge a women for accidentally falling down the stairs, but this.......
At term and refuse an induction? Child Safety comes knocking on your door. I do think that could be the reality of this law.
22-11-2013 14:00 #103
22-11-2013 14:06 #104
I do feel however, that this law may pave the way for child safety becoming involved during the pregnancy. As it stands now, (in QLD), you cannot be forced to work with Child Safety during pregnancy (it is voluntary) because the feotus is not considered a child independantly of the Mother. However, this law brings personhood to the foetus over 20 weeks.
I can see e.g. a women being booked for an induction at 40+10, refuses saying she wants to wait, hospital reports her to child safety and they can get involved because the unborn baby is a person with their own rights.
I may be drawing a long bow but that is where I can potentially seeing this law going.
22-11-2013 14:13 #105
It's not ALL about us as woman and our 'threatened' rights, all.the.time.
I am happy to share my rights with an unborn baby that has been criminally killed the way this law is intended.
22-11-2013 14:21 #106
22-11-2013 14:32 #107
22-11-2013 14:48 #108
If legislation in writing says it is limited to 'criminal acts' and then criminal acts in their 'glossary' excludes all of the things you are all worried about they CAN NOT happen. Simple.
I can see how people say that there can be roll on effects, but if the true purpose is for cases like Zoe's family, then everyone's other scenarios won't be legislated against.
22-11-2013 15:08 #109Senior Member
- Join Date
- May 2006
Viable is relative, a 20 week old fetus is not viable without a uterus. I may not have an issue with this if they revised it to be later. I'm not sure, but the 20 week thing worries me.
The Following User Says Thank You to beebs For This Useful Post:
22-11-2013 15:15 #110
I am fairly certain there was a case in the US where a woman who refused induction was charged or at least reported. I don't have time to look for the article now, will do it later.
GymbaROOGymbaROO offers activities for babies & toddlers in a fun learning centre, focussing on developmental education. ...
LATEST5 ideas for the perfect baby shower giftSurrogacy and why many parents break the lawHow to get your kids to bring home empty lunch boxes
POPULARWhen can I start giving chores to my children?New baby nursery checklist – a guide to newborn essentialsWhat to pack for labour and hospital – a checklist
FORUMS - chatting now ...
April/May TTC group chatConception & Fertility General Chat
Would you help your kids with?General Chat
IVF Babies due Sep/Oct/Nov 2017 #2pregnancy and babies through IVF
Private health insurance vs extrasPrivate Health Insurance Discussion
IVF/FET April & May chatConception & Fertility General Chat
Girl or Boy guessSecond Trimester Chat
The Not So Serious Vent Thread #7General Chat
When to Book Morphology Scan?Second Trimester Chat