+ Reply to Thread
Page 25 of 51 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 507
  1. #241
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,984
    Thanks
    3,695
    Thanked
    1,955
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Lillynix View Post
    But that's just it! Shouldn't that line be drawn by the woman carrying the foetus!? Why is it okay for law to get inside the womb of a woman? How can she not get final say, it is HER body and HER life and HER foetus!
    There needs to be some moral sense dont u think?

    Do u agree with charging another person if they cause harm or death to a foetus or just if they cause harm to the mother?

    Sent from my GT-I9305T using The Bub Hub mobile app

  2. #242
    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 SoThisIsLove View Post
    Someone has to be the voice for those that dont have one.
    Why though?

    Why do you get to decide what a foetus wants and why should your opinion on what it may want overrule what the woman incubating it under duress actually wants?

  3. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SassyMummy For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (26-11-2013),Lillynix  (26-11-2013),misskittyfantastico  (26-11-2013)

  4. #243
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Hobart, Tasmania
    Posts
    5,946
    Thanks
    1,973
    Thanked
    2,080
    Reviews
    16
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Actually, no I don't agree with charging someone because they harmed a foetus. Because I am against personhood of the foetus laws.

    But I thought that was obvious given my responses in this thread...
    Last edited by Lillynix; 26-11-2013 at 16:48.

  5. #244
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,984
    Thanks
    3,695
    Thanked
    1,955
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Lillynix View Post
    Actually, no I don't agree with charging someone because they harmed a foetus. Becsuse I am against personhood of the foetus laws.
    So its not just an issue of bodily autonomy then is it?

    Its a case of not even viewing the foetus as a life? As human? As having the right to life taken away even by someone other than its mother.

    So a person can get charged with harming / killing a dog but not a defenceless unborn baby? It just doesnt matter?

    I wonder how u would feel if it was the child you loved and wanted and were carrying?

    I find that very hard to comprehend.

    Sent from my GT-I9305T using The Bub Hub mobile app

  6. #245
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,984
    Thanks
    3,695
    Thanked
    1,955
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SassyMummy View Post
    Why though?

    Why do you get to decide what a foetus wants and why should your opinion on what it may want overrule what the woman incubating it under duress actually wants?
    Because I believe the foetus has a right to life. Thats just how I feel.

    Sent from my GT-I9305T using The Bub Hub mobile app

  7. #246
    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
    I'm not against seeking justice for a fetus that is harmed because of someone else's actions if the mother wanted to press charges, I just can't see how it can be done without trying to give the fetus the same rights as the mother - and that just can't work. That is the only problem I have with it though. If there was a way, that didn't impinge on a woman's right to complete bodily autonomy then it would be a good thing.

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

    Lillynix  (26-11-2013),misskittyfantastico  (26-11-2013)

  9. #247
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Hobart, Tasmania
    Posts
    5,946
    Thanks
    1,973
    Thanked
    2,080
    Reviews
    16
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SoThisIsLove View Post
    So its not just an issue of bodily autonomy then is it?

    Its a case of not even viewing the foetus as a life? As human? As having the right to life taken away even by someone other than its mother.

    So a person can get charged with harming / killing a dog but not a defenceless unborn baby? It just doesnt matter?

    I wonder how u would feel if it was the child you loved and wanted and were carrying?

    I find that very hard to comprehend.

    Sent from my GT-I9305T using The Bub Hub mobile app
    I feel the way I do, due to many responses in this very thread and more.

    Personhood of the foetus laws have such huge potential to become anti-woman/pro-life laws. It has happened elsewhere, it can happen here.

  10. #248
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    17,766
    Thanks
    5,100
    Thanked
    8,704
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts
    Awards:
    Past Moderator - Thank you
    100 Posts in a week
    ........
    Last edited by misskittyfantastico; 26-11-2013 at 16:58. Reason: thought better of it.

  11. #249
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,805
    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 delirium View Post
    I always tend to fence sit in these debates, as of all the things discussed on this forum, this topic I am the most conflicted in.

    I get the point that bringing in this law may take women's rights away (and if kept to the letter I hope it isn't). That pro lifers are forcing their own opinions on others bodies. But I think we need to keep in mind that fighting this law is also forcing your own opinions and removing the right of women who are victims of crime to seek justice. Some women don't consider it as fetus, they consider it a living real baby. Now I know a woman can currently charge a man with assault and GBH for bashing her to the point she loses her baby. But does she not deserve justice for that baby bc SHE considers it more than cells??

    I guess I'm more just mulling it over.
    The idea of the GBH charge in this situation is that the sentence should be at the higher end of the scale to reflect the damage to or loss of the foetus.
    I know we may think of the foetus as a baby prior to birth but the fact is that it isnt- it's a foetus. Namely because it isnt an independent entity from the mother. If you change the legal definition things get really murky. I do see the emotional side- I really do. I'm just worried about the further implications iykwim.

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

    beebs  (26-11-2013)

  13. #250
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    23,069
    Thanks
    6,305
    Thanked
    17,336
    Reviews
    10
    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
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by beebs View Post
    I'm not against seeking justice for a fetus that is harmed because of someone else's actions if the mother wanted to press charges, I just can't see how it can be done without trying to give the fetus the same rights as the mother - and that just can't work. That is the only problem I have with it though. If there was a way, that didn't impinge on a woman's right to complete bodily autonomy then it would be a good thing.
    Yes, agree. As I said earlier in the thread, I think for it to be used for it's purpose it's needs to have rigid rules. Under it's current form, it clearly says this doesn't encompass abortion or the mother hurting herself. This is strictly a 3rd party hurting a woman through a criminal act where the baby dies.

    If the rules stick exclusively to that, then everyone wins. Women that want justice can have it, and there is no erosion of bodily autonomy. I would not support it if it included abortion.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to delirium For This Useful Post:

    snowqu33n  (26-11-2013)


 

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, 14:13

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
Einsteinz MusicFun & interactive music classes! Classes are taught by professional musicians! Children are taught the fundamentals of ...
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 ›