+ Reply to Thread
Page 11 of 51 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 507
  1. #101
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Qld
    Posts
    26,930
    Thanks
    2,736
    Thanked
    6,744
    Reviews
    2
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    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.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to SassyMummy For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (22-11-2013)

  3. #102
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,426
    Thanks
    497
    Thanked
    1,588
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    I am not particularly concerned about the law being made so ridiculous to charge a women for accidentally falling down the stairs, but this.......

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose&Aurelia View Post
    I am dismayed at this bill passing. All you need is a zealot as an AG to enforce this law more than its original intention.

    What bothers me is its implications towards birthing and labour. How many doctors are supportive of VBACS? Or of 41-42 week pregnancies? Can a woman be forced into a cs or induction because a doc believes its in the best interests of the child? Can a mother still refuse medical intervention? Can women still homebirth?

    As much as I'm a mother I'm also a woman and as such I matter too.

    Sent from my HTC One SV using The Bub Hub mobile app
    I can absolutely see this as an issue. At the moment women who choose to give birth in such a way that may endanger the baby is not a matter under the child protection system, if this law comes in, I can certainly see this changing.

    At term and refuse an induction? Child Safety comes knocking on your door. I do think that could be the reality of this law.

  4. #103
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    8,395
    Thanks
    5,947
    Thanked
    4,952
    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 NoteToSelf View Post
    I am not particularly concerned about the law being made so ridiculous to charge a women for accidentally falling down the stairs, but this.......



    I can absolutely see this as an issue. At the moment women who choose to give birth in such a way that may endanger the baby is not a matter under the child protection system, if this law comes in, I can certainly see this changing.

    At term and refuse an induction? Child Safety comes knocking on your door. I do think that could be the reality of this law.
    I didn't realise that home birth was a criminal act! This law is about 'criminal acts' that lead to the death of a child who is 20 weeks old + in utero.

  5. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to A-Squared For This Useful Post:

    DesperatelySeekingSleep  (22-11-2013),Mokeybear  (22-11-2013),VicPark  (24-11-2013)

  6. #104
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,426
    Thanks
    497
    Thanked
    1,588
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Allie Pallie View Post
    I didn't realise that home birth was a criminal act! This law is about 'criminal acts' that lead to the death of a child who is 20 weeks old + in utero.
    It is not a criminal act. But currently, if a woman chooses to give birth in a way that may potentially endanger the baby, nothing can be done.

    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.

  7. #105
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,247
    Thanks
    3,872
    Thanked
    2,259
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    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.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mokeybear For This Useful Post:

    DesperatelySeekingSleep  (22-11-2013),VicPark  (24-11-2013)

  9. #106
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Qld
    Posts
    26,930
    Thanks
    2,736
    Thanked
    6,744
    Reviews
    2
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Mokeybear View Post
    I am happy to share my rights with an unborn baby that has been criminally killed the way this law is intended.
    I'm not.

    I'm okay with the law being used as intended, but I think it's naive to believe it will only ever be used in this way.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SassyMummy For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (22-11-2013),Lillynix  (22-11-2013)

  11. #107
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,247
    Thanks
    3,872
    Thanked
    2,259
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SassyMummy View Post
    I'm not.

    I'm okay with the law being used as intended, but I think it's naive to believe it will only ever be used in this way.
    I guess we will all have to wait and see.

    But in the mean time if somebody deliberately stabs me in the guts when I'm carrying a viable baby, it's about time a murder charge can be given.

  12. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Mokeybear For This Useful Post:

    DesperatelySeekingSleep  (22-11-2013),ertgirl  (22-11-2013),KaraB  (22-11-2013),VicPark  (24-11-2013)

  13. #108
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    8,395
    Thanks
    5,947
    Thanked
    4,952
    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 NoteToSelf View Post
    It is not a criminal act. But currently, if a woman chooses to give birth in a way that may potentially endanger the baby, nothing can be done.

    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.
    The law isn't about child services or GPs or Midwives intervening if there is a medically proven risk that being born more than 10 days overdue can potentially be life threatening to the baby, it's not a criminal act.

    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.

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to A-Squared For This Useful Post:

    DesperatelySeekingSleep  (22-11-2013),Mokeybear  (22-11-2013)

  15. #109
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    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.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to beebs For This Useful Post:

    NancyBlackett  (22-11-2013)

  17. #110
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,889
    Thanks
    1,523
    Thanked
    983
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    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.


 

Similar Threads

  1. Passed-down family recipes?
    By ~ElectricPink~ in forum Recipes & Lunchbox Ideas
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 15-11-2016, 18:12
  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
FEATURED SUPPORTER
GymbaROOGymbaROO offers activities for babies & toddlers in a fun learning centre, focussing on developmental education. ...
FORUMS - chatting now ...
April/May TTC group chatConception & Fertility 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
When to Book Morphology Scan?Second Trimester Chat
REVIEWS
"Pigeon teats rule!"
by Alex
Pigeon PP Wide Neck reviews ›
"Wonderful natural Aussie made product!"
by Mrstwr
Baby U Goat Milk Moisturiser reviews ›
"Replaced good quality with cheap tight nappies"
by Kris
Coles Comfy Bots Nappies reviews ›